- Email: [email protected]
Legal tools for preserving France's natural heritage through integrated coastal zone management
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477 www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Legal tools for preserving France’s natural heritage through integrated coastal zone management J.C. Dauvina,, O. Lozachmeurb, Y. Capetc, J.B. Dubrullec, M. Ghezalic, A.H. Mesnardb a
Station Marine de Wimereux, Universite´ des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, CNRS-UMR-8013 ELICO, B.P. 80, Wimereux 62930, France b Faculte´ de Droit et des Sciences Politiques de Nantes, Chemin de la Censive du Tertre, BP 81307, 44313 Nantes CEDEX 03, France c Faculte´ de Droit, Ilot Saint Louis, Universite´ du Littoral Coˆte d’Opale, 62200 Boulogne sur mer, France
Abstract The coastal zone is an area of conflicting processes, reflecting its position at the interface between the terrestrial and marine environments. Thus, this area needs further study as its importance in our biosphere calls for rapid enforcement of a coordinated conservation policy for the implementation of effective protection. This paper assembles the elements of current politics that are involved with the preservation of our natural heritage in view of an integrated management of the coasts of mainland France. Current legislation applicable to the coastal zone natural heritage exists on three levels: international, European Community and French. An in-depth analysis of the different institutions involved in gathering knowledge and managing the coastal zone is presented. Equally important to the enforcing of laws concerning natural heritage preservation is the defining of protected zones under various conditions such as where sector perimeters meet or overlap. Similarly, numerous organizations and institutions involved with the natural coastal zone environment exist; in many cases, lack of experience hinders integrated and concerted management efforts. The notions of sustainable development and integrated management of the coastal zones propose alternatives to current legislation, using a global and integrated approach to coastal problem areas. Numerous laws may be applied to the coastal zone, but laws elaborated specifically for this area remain rare. Despite Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 321992920; fax: +33 321992901.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.C. Dauvin). 0964-5691/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2004.09.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS 464
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
being a complex combination of numerous international, community and national directives, natural heritage protection is more known for its weaknesses than its strengths. The French State is still too centralized and does not seem to have adequately adapted its services to the process of decentralization. This last factor is one of the last hurdles left in the effective protection of the marine and coastal environment. The interaction of multiple intervention levels requires a clarification of the network of current expertise, leading to an eventual harmonization and institutional coordination that would take into account everyone who is linked to this coastal zone. A reform of the status of the ‘‘Conservatory of the Coastal Areas and Lakeshore’’ (Conservatoire des Espaces Littoraux et des Rivages Lacustres, CELRL) has been recently proposed (law no. 2002-276 of the 27 February 2002). It aims to increase the responsibility of this organism and lighten the burden on the public domain in its role as a key player in the protection of the natural coastal heritage. The objectives of this article on the French metropolitan coastline are four-fold: to present the principal legal laws and statutes concerning their conservation, to highlight the difficulties connected to the application of these laws, to analyze the diffuse administrative responsibility and the increasing efforts to encourage or enforce the preservation of certain particularly important sectors, and to evaluate the legal tools available for preserving the natural heritage via Integrated Coastal Zone Management. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction As the interface between the terrestrial and marine environments, the coastal zone is a veritable breeding ground for controversy, given the diverse and sometimes contradictory laws governing its management and the conflicting interests of the populations who live, work and play there. More needs to be known about these coastal regions that are so important to our biosphere. Clearly, some kind of coordinated policy for the management, protection and conservation of our coastline is necessary. Over the last decade, the various groups for whom the coastal zone is important have begun to understand the special problems and needs of these regions. These groups—which include both national and local governments, the scientific community, and those whose personal or private interests connect them to the sea (fishermen, property developers and tourists, for example)—have developed new areas of research and study, and concrete propositions for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) have been presented [1–4]. In 1998, the French Ministry of the Environment responded to the pressing needs of the coastal regions, calling for research proposals concerning the Littoral as part of the research program LITEAU (specifically, ‘‘Management of coastal ecosystems: the choice and management of coastal zones to be protected’’). Their objective was to develop ways to preserve the natural heritage of the French Littoral regions, as part of an ICZM program for metropolitan France. Given the realities of the shore regions, it was essential to bring the different members of the littoral researchers together to exchange knowledge and experience. The very nature of these exchanges led to multi-disciplinary propositions.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
465
A multi-disciplinary team, composed of legal experts, geographers and ecologists, was assembled. Working premise stated that it was necessary to know more about the natural heritage of the coastal zones in order to propose more effective methods for managing and protecting it [5]. Their study focuses more on the preservation of space than on the preservation of the different species living in the coastal zones, given that the complexity and most often interdependent biological systems occur in the marine environment [6,7]. In addition to the work mentioned in the preceding paragraph, several synopses of the existing scholarship concerning marine habitats and the French coastal regions of the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, the Channel and the North Sea had recently been published [8,9]. A synopsis of inventory and protection strategies for the coastal zones of metropolitan France had also been published [10]. Obviously, the marine biologists are not the only ones who have been studying this subject; legal experts have also been working on ICZM, particularly within the European Demonstration Program [3,11]. The objectives of this article are four-fold: (a) to present the principal legal texts (laws and statutes) concerning the coastal conservation in metropolitan France; (b) to highlight the difficulties connected to the application of these laws; (c) to analyze the diffuse administrative responsibility for the coastal regions and the increasing efforts to encourage or enforce the preservation of certain particularly important sectors of the French coastline; (d) to evaluate the legal tools available for preserving the natural heritage of the French coastal regions via ICZM.
2. The coastal zone: definition and perception Before establishing a standard definition of coastal zone for use in this study, it is useful to examine the existing perceptions of the term according to the various categories of people interacting there. Naturalists appear to have a fairly global and consensual vision of the coastal zone, based on a systemic approach. Thus for a naturalist, ‘‘coastal zone corresponds to the whole of the ecological systems, including their biotic and abiotic components. The organisms living in the coastal zone are totally dependent on, and organize themselves in relation to, these biotic and abiotic factors’’ [12]. In fact, the coastal zone of the naturalist is anchored in the definition of the geomorphologist and the geographer, who also use a systemic approach. The relationship between man and nature is central to the geographical definition of the coastal zone. For earth scientists, the coastal zone can be understood as a socio-ecosystem; a complex, composite environment where physical, biological and anthropogenic components interact [13]. On the other hand, this is no precise legal definition of the coastal zone, mostly because ‘‘until recently, legal experts have concentrated almost exclusively on the idea of marine public domain’’ [14], without ever establishing a correspondence between the marine and coastal
ARTICLE IN PRESS 466
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
domains. While it is generally accepted that the ‘‘coastal zone of necessity includes uninterrupted space on either side of the actual shoreline’’, it is still necessary to determine both its seaward and landward limits in order to avoid the trap of ‘‘imprecise boundaries’’ [15]. Apparently, the problem is not a lack of legal documents, but rather the number, diversity, intricacy and narrow focus of the texts that exist. But how can the littoral zone be managed, or even protected, without at least some specific responses to the different problems that arise, never mind a single legal standard that could be used to help, or hinder, the various interest groups? This is probably one of the major problems confronting those who, in one way or another, play a role in the coastal regions. If the definition of ‘‘coastal zone’’ in France is a bewildering blend of the definitions of naturalists, geographers and legal experts, it is no clearer at the level of the European Community, which bodes ill for the creation of a common policy for all European coastal zones. For economists, ‘‘the coastal zones bring the problematic relationship between economic development and Nature sharply into focus, though these problems are not specific to the coast’’ [16]. Economic development of the coastal regions is no longer just a question of public transportation and appropriations for ports, industry or fishing. The diversity of its users; its place at the center of the dynamic, world-wide tourist industry; its continued role in industry; its fragility; the sheer numbers of conflicts of interest among users—all of these ensure that the coastal regions present ‘‘a condensed version of the risks of a nonsustainable development model, the results of which could spread throughout the planet’’ [16].
3. Existing regulations concerning the natural heritage of the coastal zone The French legislature enacted the ‘‘loi Littoral’’(Coastal Zone Law), concerning the planning, protection and valorization of the coastal zone on 3 January 1986. Although this law and the decrees governing its application are at the heart of the legislative and regulatory measures designed to protect the natural heritage of the coastal zones, numerous other texts have been added to it. A list of the principal measures issuing from international and European Community law that have been adopted in France in order to save the flora and fauna of the coastal zone as well as their habitats can be found in Table 1. A quick look at the institutional structures whose jurisdiction includes the coastal zone reveals that management of the coast and the sea is a ‘‘multi-level affair, with many players intervening on a variety of different scales. This zone, which more than any other requires a coherent plan of action, would seem to have no plan at all. This lack of coherence acts to cruelly expose the contradictions in national territorial operations’’ [17]. In France, the search for institutional and administrative coherence is one of the major concerns of coastal zone management policy. The application of these rules and regulations on the international level depends mainly on the good will of the various National Governments, and the attempts of individuals and associations to use the courts to force the governmental authorities
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
467
Table 1 List of the principal measures taken by France, and the European and International communities, to assure the protection of marine and coastal territories, as well as the plant and animal species living in theses territories Protection of sea and coastline, accorded by international law.
Ramsar Convention (protection of wetlands with international importance) www.ramsar.org. UNESCO,s MAB Program (biosphere reserves) www.unesco.org. Convention of Barcelona (protected marine zones in the mediterranean) www.unepmap.org. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (protection of the marine milieu) www.un.org. OSPAR Convention (protection of the marine milieu in the North-East Atlantic) World Heritage Convention.
Protection of the littoral zones’ plant and animal species, their habitats and their biological diversity, accorded by international law.
Convention of biodiversity, www.biodiv.org. Convention of Bonn (protection of migrating species). Convention of Washington (trade regulations concerning certain species). Convention of Berne (conservation of European nature and wild life).
Protection of the coastline and those species living in coastal zones, accorded by European law.
Directive 79/409/CE of 2 April 1979 concerning the preservation of wild birds. Directive 92/43/CEE of 21 May 1992 concerning the conservation of natural habitats as well as wild flora and fauna. www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature.
Protection of the coastal zone’s natural heritage, accorded by French law.
The regulations and instruments of protection, specifically applicable to the coastal zone: The clauses of the Coastal Zone Law (articles L.146-6 and L.146-4 of the zoning code). The clauses pertaining to marine public domain. Actions of the Conservatory of the Coastal Areas and Lakeshore (acquisition of undeveloped land). The Scheme for the Valorization of the Sea. The Bay Contracts. The regulations and instruments of protection for undeveloped land, generally applicable to the coastal zone: Territorial Planning and Development directives. The master plans and general guidelines for water planning, development and management (SDAGE; SAGE). The policy for threatened wilderness lands (acquisition of undeveloped lands by Departments). Registered and listed sites. Natural reserves. Biotope decrees. National parks and the regional Nature parks.
to enforce these laws are not always sufficient. Two European Community texts, which are not specific to coastal zones, include measures that can be used to protect the natural coastal heritage: directive 79/409/CE concerning the conservation of wild birds, and directive 92/43/CE concerning the conservation of natural habitats,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 468
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
including their flora and fauna. In August 2001, under the auspices of the first directive, France classified approximately 8193 km2 as 117 Special Protection Zones. Under the terms of the second directive, France also proposed approximately 31,440 km2 for classification as 1030 sites of importance to the community, with intent to transform these sites into Special Conservation Zones; of these, about 130 are located in the coastal zone. The European Commission judged both of these propositions insufficient, and filed a suit for misfeasance before the European Court of Justice. The national laws for the protection of the coastal natural heritage include both laws specific to the coastal zone and those general laws that can be applied to the coastal zone. The Coastal Zone Law enhances existing zoning regulations, providing a global framework for the decentralized jurisdictions of the various municipal zoning laws; the protections accrued to the terrestrial coastal zone can thus be extended to include its counterpart, the sea. This law also works to maintain the natural condition of the seashore and of marine public domain. In addition, the scope of the CELRL, which is concerned with marine public domain, has recently been widened. There are, of course, other institutions intervening in the coastal zone: departmental jurisdiction covers threatened natural lands. The national government has jurisdiction over certain special sites, natural reserves, national parks and the decrees concerning biotopes. These different institutions already work together regularly, but would benefit from a closer coordination of their activities. Many legal texts—such as the Schemes for the Valorization of the Sea, the Territorial Planning Directives, the Bay Contracts, even the Scheme for Water Planning and Management—contribute directly or indirectly to the overall effort. Clearly, the problem is not lack of firepower, but rather the ineffective implementation of the existing measures. From what can be observed, it would appear that the diffuse administrative responsibility for the coastal zone and the lack of adequate coordination between the multiple authorities are the principal elements in an overall problem of jurisdictional repartition, which complicates the efforts to protect the coastal zones’ natural heritage. In addition, previous administrative relationships have been modified by the French administration’s efforts to decentralize; new partners have been introduced to the coastal zone, and the administrative jurisdictions of the coastal zone and the seashore have been redistributed. However, the reorganization of the services intervening to protect the coastal zone’s natural heritage is not yet complete (Fig. 1). The services and interventions of the French government have not yet had time to adapt to the new measures of decentralization, and the national government still appears frequently as the pivotal player in the protection of the coastal and marine environments. A coherent policy for the preservation of the coastal zone’s natural heritage must be based on ecological evaluation and sound protection and management tools. A plethora of measures and scientific inventories, which either duplicate, overlap or complete each other, have been created over the years to encourage or to enforce
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477 Ministry of the Environment
Advisory Councils and Commissions - National Council on Environmental Protection - National Water Council - Commission for Sustainable Development - Coastal Zone Commission - Supreme Site Commission - Precautionary and Prevention Councils
Inter-ministerial Structures Inter-ministerial Council on the Sea and General Secretary for the Sea
Regional Prefect DIREN -applies legislation concerning water, site protection, and environmental protection, specifically for the coastal zone -investigates affairs related to natural reserves and protected biotopes
Departemenal Prefect
DDAM Conservatory of the Coastal Areas and Lakeshore
Water Quality Agency (concerning swimming water quality)
Public Institutions held in Trust
National Parks (inventories, pollution analysis, information and education
The National Museum of Natural History (responsible for managing one of the AFF thematic centers as part of Natura 2000)
National Forestry Office (manages a large domain of coastal real estate covering 500 km)
469
- global administration - Fish Police) - management of the fishing economy - DPM management that which pertains to commercial aquaculture and shellfisheries
Institutions held in Shared Trust
IFREMER : responsible for verifying the quality of sea water and sea-related products
DDASS Responsible for verifying swimming water quality and discharges into the sea
Maritime Prefect (reports directly to the Prime Minister)
DDE Maritime Service -management of sea stratum and substratum -power to investigate and verify compliance to maritime regulations
- General responsibilty for the sea, starting at the low-tide line - Responsable for preventing, organizing and directing the fight against maritime pollution
Fig. 1. Organizational chart of the French administrations intervening to protect the marine and coastal natural heritage.
environmental protection in the richest ecosystems (e.g. the Seine estuary). These include Natural Reserves, Special Conservation Zones, hunting reserves, Zones of Community Interest for Birds, ZPS, Zones of Ecological Interest for Flora and Fauna—type 1 and 2, CELRL land purchases, European agro-environmental measures for the protection of the prairie and its nesting wild fowl, the Brotonne Regional Natural Park, the decree for biotope protection, and various registered and listed sites. For the section of this estuary between the Tancarville Bridge and the sea, no less than 12 sorts of measures are superposed [18] (Fig. 2). This superposition is both proof of the rich natural heritage of this area and of the legal excess that results from it, and clearly demonstrates the need for a harmonization of French law in this domain [18]. French governmental institutions are organized such that, depending on the question asked, responsibility for the coastal zone falls on the Ministry of Transportation, of Planning and development, of Environmental Affairs, of Maritime Affairs, or of National Defense. The situation is not unique in Europe, in fact, this organization is repeated in almost every European country. Given the difficulties inherent to such a juxtaposition of the different jurisdictions, it is small wonder that developing a strategic vision for the protection of the natural heritage of the coastal and marine zones poses such a problem. In fact, while it is true that in
ARTICLE IN PRESS 470
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
Fig. 2. Level of protection for the natural heritage of the lower part of the Seine estuary (from 18).
most European countries the ministries most involved are the Merchant Marine, Public Works, Environmental Affairs and Territorial Planning and Development, attempts to establish standards often reveal jurisdictional rivalries. For these same reasons, France and her European neighbors run into the same kinds of problems when attempting to establish a national park or a natural reserve in the coastal zone or along the shoreline. The diffuse jurisdictional authorities make developing such projects extremely difficult, especially when the park or reserve is to include territory in both marine and terrestrial zones. Although this problem has sometimes been resolved by creating two adjacent reserves, usually the management of these reserves cannot, unfortunately, be confided to a single common structure. Thus in Spain, for example, the autonomous community of Valencia created a park on the Columertes Islands, with a marine protection zone established by national law [19]. Nonetheless, when confronted by difficulties similar to those occurring in France, certain European countries have sometimes adopted other solutions, which differ widely according to their individual institutional systems. For instance, in the Netherlands and Great Britain, the associative sector plays an important role [20]. The oldest and most original example is the British National Trust. Created in 1895, the organization manages a large number of properties that are open to the public. The National Trust has the support of the government, and a 1907 law authorizes the National Trust to pronounce the inalienability of the properties it manages [2]. As the owner of land along the seaside, this institution participates in the management of the coastal zone. It possesses approximately 17% of the coastal property in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; most of the land is in
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
471
southwestern England and Wales. In some regions, the National Trust possesses nearly 40% of the coastal zone in certain administrative zones. However, the boundaries of National Trust coastal properties as they extend from the shore towards the open sea are very complex. In some cases, the boundary is the high tide line; in other rare situations, the boundary is the low tide line. There are a few rare instances when the National Trust is allowed to own or to rent the seabed near the coast, but even then, only in certain, limited proportions. In the Netherlands, 15 or so associations, whose purpose is environmental protection at both the national and provincial levels, have government sanction to acquire and manage threatened natural territories. The national or provincial governments help to finance these acquisition and management activities via an annual contribution. In every case, the acquisition of the terrain must be authorized by the administration, which requires a detailed written request specifying the reasons for the proposed operation. As mentioned above, certain European countries confronting difficulties similar to those encountered in France, have adopted widely different solutions depending on their individual institutional systems. The diversity of these solutions should help us to better comprehend both the common structural weaknesses of the various national government organizations and the relationships that exist between the different groups and individuals intervening on the local level. Since the 1980s the ‘‘principle of subsidiarity’’ has been integrated into the concept of protecting the natural heritage of the coastal zone. While taking into account factors which could lead to choosing one level of authority over another, this principle holds that administrative responsibility must be exercised at the closest level possible to the citizens concerned. This idea is quite natural for federations like Germany or Belgium, or for highly regionalized countries like Spain or Italy. However, the phenomenon exists to some degree in every country, even the most centralized or decentralized of them. This transfer of responsibility is not just at the execution level; decision-making power has also been delegated. And this transfer is no longer just in traditional areas of intervention, like fighting pollution; it goes further to include new domains, like nature conservation. In England and Spain, for example, local communities now have the power to create protected zones on their own initiative. In addition, the power of local communities in terms of environmental protection is no longer limited to those territories owned by the community; a community can now negotiate contracts with users and owners, and if needed, make grants available. In terms of international environmental agreements, there are rules concerning the representation of the different countries signing the agreement, and France’s position with respect to these rules is determined by two related factors: the dictates of the French Constitution and the necessity of implementing those dictates correctly and effectively. Systematic organization can only benefit those involved in defending the French approach to the sustainable development of the coast and coastal zone ecosystems and the integrated management of the coastal zone itself. However, getting to that point requires more than mouthing platitudes; it necessitates a real defense strategy for the natural heritage of the coastal zone [21].
ARTICLE IN PRESS 472
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
4. Sustainable development through the integrated management of the coastal zone Although recognized by the scientific community as an interface between the land and the sea, the coastal zone has been the victim of chronic jurisdictional disassociation. This has severed the connections between the different laws concerning the zone, resulting in the almost total disjunction of the laws applying to the disparate sides of the shoreline: the land and the sea. The multiple pressures affecting the coastal and marine zones, and the narrow responses which have been made to their very real problems, have created a territorial network that is complex and hard to understand. The concepts of sustainable development, integrated planning and ICZM provide an alternative that could bring the legal and factual realities into sync, offering an integrated, global approach to the problems of the coastal zone within a single, unified space. The primary importance of integrated management is that it promotes an organization of coastal zone territory that takes into account the physical, economic and cultural aspects of both parts of the coastal zone. The fragile balance that exists between the marine and coastal environments is just one part of a complex equation, and this balance is becoming increasingly fragile due to the pressures exerted on these areas. Our society throngs towards these areas until they become no more than the stage on which the pressures and the economic and environmental competitions of the city are played. The concept of integrated management offers an incontestable dynamic that could lead to a totally new reading of the protection of the coastal zone natural heritage, one that starts in the sea and goes on to include the lands lying in close proximity. The concept of ICZM links social and economic dynamics, based on the originality of the marine zone, and spatial dynamics, as recreated in terms of planned development. Clearly, the coastal zone also conveys clear strategic dynamics in light of the fervent hopes vested in the various development projects. With this in mind, the coastal zone must establish new foundations and discover new intermediaries that can both support its mission to protect the natural heritage of the coastal zone and promote the co-existence of the varied uses and interests of its diverse population. A natural heritage with extraordinary symbolic value, the coastal zone must foster an image and an identity that will give it the legitimacy needed to set in motion actions that encourage a sustainable development of the littoral zone. The coastal zone itself illustrates the need for a re-composition of the littoral territory, using methods based on conceptual, normative and spatial integration. Chapter 17 of the 1992 AGENDA 21 laid the groundwork for the emergence of a new dimension in the planning, development and protection of coastal and marine zones. It stated, ‘‘The coastal zone contains a wide diversity of productive habitats, which are important for human institutions and for the development and subsistence of the local populations. More than half of the world’s population lives less than 60 km from some coast, and this proportion could reach 75% by 2020. Existing strategies for the management of marine and coastal resources do not always manage to produce sustainable development’’ [11].
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
473
‘‘Over the last decade, there has been progress on putting the principles of sustainable development into action, but many fundamental challenges remain. The impacts of globalisation—increasingly the central context for international decision making—were not addressed at all in Rio. For both rich and poor countries, much more is needed to place sustainable development as a central policy objective at every level, and to implement the plans agreed previously. Poor countries require access to resources, technology, markets to develop and good governance systems. Rich countries will need to show real commitment to changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production and moving towards far greater efficiency in resource use. This is a challenge for society as a whole, but governments must create the climate in which real change is possible. The UN convened a World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2002. The Johannesburg Summit offered a major opportunity to develop understanding of these issues, and have a mature debate on practical ways to achieve progress’’ (http://www.iied.org/wssd/). In 1990, the European Community began requiring Integrated Planning and Development in the Coastal Zone (IPDCZ). This requirement contributed to the creation of a new organizational and decision-making model. In fact, by 1999, it was possible to state, ‘‘the implementation of Integrated Planning and Development in the Coastal Zone demands a new style of governance, a style that implies and solicits the contributions of the civil population. It requires the participation of all the special interest groups of the coastal zone in the design and implementation of a development model that serves the mutual interests of all concerned [17]. This IPDCZ has without any doubt aided the emergence of ICZM models. In the end, these groups may find that Europe and its partners can be strong allies in their attempts to compensate for the inadequacies of French legislation as it pertains to protecting the coastal and marine zones. However, the coastal zone has already started to gather the different local players together for collective action on common development projects that associate the members of the local governmental and nongovernmental communities. In this sense, the coastal zone sees itself as conforming to the new mode of governance, soliciting the co-operation of all those involved in order to determine the best kind of development for the area. Those involved have chosen a management method that favors a territorial perception of the coastal zone. Their logic appears to support the restoration of a territorial dimension to the littoral zone, and that logic is corroborated by collectively developed projects that re-appropriate the space. In this context, the concept of ICZM and that of a marine project space could provide original tools for integrating actions and policies favoring a territorial perception, and grouped around a common project of sustainable development. However, there is no one solution for the sustainable development of the coastal zone. Among the many possibilities, there are Schemes for the Valorization of the Sea, National Parks and Mixed Authority associations. However, as was mentioned earlier, for many natural lands, there are simply too many conflicting laws to be effective. First, it will be necessary to harmonize the various French laws, and then to harmonize French law with European directives and international accords.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 474
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
In addition, efforts must be made to bring together the different groups involved in protecting the coastal and marine environments, in order to develop a consensual coordination, a more efficient administrative organization for natural heritage protection, and a global strategic vision. Within this framework, the national government must maintain its national jurisdiction for the standards set to protect the natural heritage in the coastal and marine zones as well as for the verification of those standards. It must also maintain the power to insure the coherence of local actions and the effectiveness of the protective measures proposed, by exerting a ‘‘right of approval’’ on all documents concerning planning and financial assistance. Today, this governmental responsibility needs to be clarified. In the absence of a coherent, global policy, a restructuration of the institutional system is essential. The protection of the coastal and marine zones natural heritage is, by its very nature, one of the domains that absolutely require an inter-ministerial approach. It will thus be necessary to harmonize the various sectorial policies and to bring several detached services into play under the authority of the Regional Environmental Directions. To these must be added diverse public institutions, all reporting to their individual ministries. The improvement of the institutional framework thus comes from adapting the national government and its detached services to the needs of a protection policy for the coastal and marine zone environments.
5. Conclusions The natural heritage of the coastal zone is threatened, but the threat is not a recent phenomenon come to our attention in the last few years. Rather it is the result of a long, slow process of degradation begun in the Middle Ages, at least on metropolitan France. The difficulties in protecting and managing this zone have many causes, observed in France but easily transposable elsewhere. A partial list would include: the lack of a precise definition for this interface between the land and the sea, the existence of separate jurisdictions for the two zones; the complexity and superposition of the various governmental authorities, ranging from national to municipal; the superposition of measures designed to enforce or encourage the protection of the species and territory that make up France’s biological or geological heritage; the need for basic objective knowledge about the threat hanging over this natural heritage in order to take the measures needed to save it, and the need to update the various guides, indexes, and follow-up reports that can be used to observe its evolution over time. The conflicts of interest and the intransigence of those intervening in this zone must give way to a peaceful co-existence that demonstrates the creativity vital to the sustainable development of the coastal zone. The ICZM has thus become a necessity at the international level [22,23]. The European Demonstration Program of the ICZM which had selected 39 European sites (amongst them the Coˆte d’Opale, Nord, France) asked people at these sites what, in their opinion, constituted the principal positive points of impact for the ICZM procedure [3]. Four ideas received over 75% of the positive responses: improved decision making, better understanding between
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
475
partners, growing public awareness and consensus on priorities. It would appear then that the ICZM procedure makes it possible to bring the different players together to debate and to identify priorities, both of which are indispensable in the decision-making process. Habitat restoration and landscape improvement came much later in the list of the positive impacts of ICZM, which would seem to indicate either that the natural heritage itself is not the most important preoccupation, or perhaps that the scientific community and the associations for the environmental defense were not sufficiently implicated in the demonstration program, outside of their role as knowledge bearers. As has been shown, a real effort to simplify the measures designed to encourage and enforce the protection of the natural heritage must be made. It would seem obvious that the scientific community must be included in the advisory or decisionmaking committees concerning the natural heritage of the coastal zone; the science of ecology needs to be added to the battery of legal and administrative procedures. On the other hand, it is equally undeniable that economists must work side by side with the ecologists to derive a better multi-criteria method for estimating the value of the natural heritage and its ecosystems. As this study comes to its close, the report that can be made is mixed. In order to protect the ‘‘natural sites’’, or those that have been least affected by Man, it is undeniably necessary to take the natural heritage into account in the sustainable development of the coastal zone. However, this undeniable need exists within the confusion of superimposed laws, measures and directives that make it difficult to rationally integrate that heritage in ICZM. For this reason, it would seem necessary to compensate for the inadequacies of the policies designed to protect the coastal zone’s natural heritage, not only at the national level but also on the territorial level, by insisting on territorial recomposition and intercommunality. A more profound reform of the way we understand the problems facing of the coastal and marine zone was undertaken at the request of the CELRL [24]. The law no. 2002-276 of 27 February 2002 concerning local democracy reiterate to a large degree the propositions made to the Prime Minister in the Le Pensec report. This law recommends the intervention of the CELRL in the maritime public domain, although this assignment of a part of the Maritime Public Domain cannot be systematic and can only take place in certain geographical, physical or ecological circumstances when the areas of the Maritime Public Domain require a long-term natural protection or when they make up a continuous ecological unit with those already under CELRL guardianship. Thus, an obviously ambitious policy comes out of the Le Pensec report. The new legislation offers sufficient possibilities to reassure the CELRL that its role as firstrank player in the protection of the coastal zone natural heritage is maintained. It also offers a legal basis for partnerships between the CELRL and the local municipalities with respect to the protection of the coastal zone natural heritage. The authors of this article can only be in favor of the remodeling of the CELRL mission, and encourage the CELRL in this new mission that recognizes the coastal zone as an interface between the continental and marine milieus.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 476
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
Lastly, it must be added that the Scheme for Natural and Rural Zone Collective Services, adopted by the national government in 2002, states that the ‘‘integrated management of the coastal strip must take into account all the elements of the littoral system, in both its seaward and landward extremities’’, in order to insure ‘‘the preservation or the restoration of the heritage of coastal zone landscapes’’, ‘‘a balance between the exploitation of the fishing resources and the preservation of biodiversity’’ and ‘‘a balanced management of the estuary system’’ [25]. Implementing this scheme will require making strategic choices concerning the national policy of territorial planning and sustainable development for the next 20 years [26]. It should also reinforce the idea of preserving the coastal zone’s natural heritage within the framework of ‘‘integrated coastal zone management’’.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude to those who collaborated on the collective work (coordinated by J.C Dauvin) on which this article is based: L. Barille´, G. Bellan, D. Bellan-Santini, S. Billy, K. Bosser, P. Camus, F. Chlous-Ducharme, P. Combes, P. Deboudt, N. Desroy, J.M. Dewarumez, C. Gachelin, Y. Gruet, B. Guillaumont, C. Hily, J.P. Minet, V. Morsetti, N. Le Pennec, C. Meur-Fe´rec, M.H. Ruz, R. Paskoff, X. Pouille D. Richard, E. Torres and L.Videment. The authors would also like to thank the Ministry for Territorial Planning and Development and the Environment, which selected and financed our project as part of the LITEAU research program. Without their help, this multidisciplinary work could never have been brought to term. Thanks also to Lisa Ellen Spencer Services for the English version of the text. References [1] Doumenge F, Paskoff R, Robert R, Trzipit J-P. 7000 kilome`tres de littoraux a` ge´rer. In: Neboit-Guilhot R, Davy L, editors. Les Franc- ais Dans Leur Environnement. Paris: Nathan; 1996. p. 95–144. [2] Ducrotoy J-P, Pullen S. Integrated coastal zone management: commitments and developments from an International, European, and United Kingdom perspective. Ocean and Coastal Management 1999;42:1–18. [3] Belfiore S. Recent developments in coastal management in the European Union. Ocean and Coastal Management 2000;43:123–35. [4] Henocque Y. Development of process indicators for coastal zone management assessment in France. Ocean and Coastal Management 2003;46:363–79. [5] Dauvin J-C. Gestion Inte´gre´e des Zones Coˆtie`res: outils et perspectives pour la pre´servation du patrimoine naturel. Patrimoines Naturels 2002;57:1–346. [6] Dauvin J-C, Bouchet P, Gofas S, Boudouresque C-F, Bellan-Santini D. Marine invertebrates of the French coasts and their conservation. Conseil de l’Europe, T-PVS (96) 1996;51:5–19. [7] Dauvin J-C. Mise en place de l’inventaire des ZNIEFF-Mer en me´tropole: e´tapes, e´tat d’avancement et actions connexes. Patrimoines Naturels 2000;42:15–30. [8] Bellan-Santini D, Lacaze J-C, Poizat C. Les Bioce´noses marines et littorales de Me´diterrane´e, synthe`se, menaces et perspectives. Patrimoines Naturels 1994;19:1–246.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
477
[9] Dauvin J-C. Les Bioce´noses marines et littorales franc- aises des coˆtes Atlantique, Manche et Mer du Nord, synthe`se, menaces et perspectives. Patrimoines Naturels 1997;28:1–359. [10] Richard D, Dauvin J-C. Strategies for inventories and protection of coastal areas in France. Aquatic Conservation of Marine and Freshwater Ecosystem 1997;6:205–24. [11] Ghe´zali M. Gestion inte´gre´e des zones coˆtie`res: l’approche statutaire de la zone Coˆte d’Opale. Universite´ du Littoral Coˆte d’Opale, Boulogne-sur-Mer 2000; 280pp. [12] Bellan G. De´finition et perception de l’espace littoral. Patrimoines Naturels 2002;57:29–62. [13] Corlay J-P. Ge´ographie sociale, ge´ographie du littoral. Norois 1995;42(165):247–65. [14] Hostiou R. Protection de l’espace littoral et droit de l’environnement: a` propos de la politique d’acquisition foncie`re du Conservatoire. Revue Juridique de l’Environnement 1997; 83 [special issue]. [15] Mesnard A-H. Re´glementations actuelles et analyse institutionnelle des acteurs implique´s dans la connaissance et la gestion du patrimoine naturel littoral. Patrimoines Naturels 2002;57:63–139. [16] Torres E. Le point de vue d’e´conomistes. Patrimoines Naturels 2002;57:42–5. [17] Commission europe´enne. Communication au Conseil et au Parlement europe´en sur l’ame´nagement inte´gre´ des zones coˆtie`res: une strate´gie pour l’Europe 1999; 92. [18] Alard D. Zones humides de la basse valle´e de la Seine. Programme Scientifique Seine-Aval fascicule 2002;15:1–36. [19] De Klemm C. Les outils re´glementaires pour la conservation du littoral. La conservation des rivages de l’Atlantique Nord, Regards d’experts 1998. 13–15 mai 1998. UICN. [20] Harvey J. Les politiques de conservation du littoral au Royaume-Uni. The National Trust. La conservation des rivages de l’Atlantique Nord, Regards d’experts1998. 13–15 mai 1998. UICN. [21] Ghe´zali M, Bellan G. La position de la France a` l’e´gard des conventions internationales relatives a` l’environnement. Patrimoines Naturels 2002;57:130–5. [22] Commission Oce´anographique Intergouvernementale Guide me´thodologique d’aide a` la gestion inte´gre´e de la zone coˆtie`re. Manuel et guides de l’UNESCO 1997;36:1–47. [23] Commission Oce´anographique Intergouvernementale, Des hommes et des outils pour une gestion plus inte´gre´e des zones coˆtie`res. Manuel et guides de l’UNESCO 2001;42:1–64. [24] Le Pensec L. Vers de nouveaux rivages. Rapport au Premier ministre sur la refondation du Conservatoire du littoral. La documentation franc- aise Paris 2001. [25] MATE (Ministe`re de l’Ame´nagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement). Sche´ma de services collectifs des espaces naturels et ruraux annexe´ au de´cret no. 2002-560 du 18 avril 2002. Direction des journaux officiels. L’officiel de la re´publique franc- aise 2002;6(3):1153. [26] DATAR. Les sche´mas de services collectifs. Collection Territoires en mouvement. Paris: La documentation franc- aise; 2002.
Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477 www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Legal tools for preserving France’s natural heritage through integrated coastal zone management J.C. Dauvina,, O. Lozachmeurb, Y. Capetc, J.B. Dubrullec, M. Ghezalic, A.H. Mesnardb a
Station Marine de Wimereux, Universite´ des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, CNRS-UMR-8013 ELICO, B.P. 80, Wimereux 62930, France b Faculte´ de Droit et des Sciences Politiques de Nantes, Chemin de la Censive du Tertre, BP 81307, 44313 Nantes CEDEX 03, France c Faculte´ de Droit, Ilot Saint Louis, Universite´ du Littoral Coˆte d’Opale, 62200 Boulogne sur mer, France
Abstract The coastal zone is an area of conflicting processes, reflecting its position at the interface between the terrestrial and marine environments. Thus, this area needs further study as its importance in our biosphere calls for rapid enforcement of a coordinated conservation policy for the implementation of effective protection. This paper assembles the elements of current politics that are involved with the preservation of our natural heritage in view of an integrated management of the coasts of mainland France. Current legislation applicable to the coastal zone natural heritage exists on three levels: international, European Community and French. An in-depth analysis of the different institutions involved in gathering knowledge and managing the coastal zone is presented. Equally important to the enforcing of laws concerning natural heritage preservation is the defining of protected zones under various conditions such as where sector perimeters meet or overlap. Similarly, numerous organizations and institutions involved with the natural coastal zone environment exist; in many cases, lack of experience hinders integrated and concerted management efforts. The notions of sustainable development and integrated management of the coastal zones propose alternatives to current legislation, using a global and integrated approach to coastal problem areas. Numerous laws may be applied to the coastal zone, but laws elaborated specifically for this area remain rare. Despite Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 321992920; fax: +33 321992901.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.C. Dauvin). 0964-5691/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2004.09.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS 464
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
being a complex combination of numerous international, community and national directives, natural heritage protection is more known for its weaknesses than its strengths. The French State is still too centralized and does not seem to have adequately adapted its services to the process of decentralization. This last factor is one of the last hurdles left in the effective protection of the marine and coastal environment. The interaction of multiple intervention levels requires a clarification of the network of current expertise, leading to an eventual harmonization and institutional coordination that would take into account everyone who is linked to this coastal zone. A reform of the status of the ‘‘Conservatory of the Coastal Areas and Lakeshore’’ (Conservatoire des Espaces Littoraux et des Rivages Lacustres, CELRL) has been recently proposed (law no. 2002-276 of the 27 February 2002). It aims to increase the responsibility of this organism and lighten the burden on the public domain in its role as a key player in the protection of the natural coastal heritage. The objectives of this article on the French metropolitan coastline are four-fold: to present the principal legal laws and statutes concerning their conservation, to highlight the difficulties connected to the application of these laws, to analyze the diffuse administrative responsibility and the increasing efforts to encourage or enforce the preservation of certain particularly important sectors, and to evaluate the legal tools available for preserving the natural heritage via Integrated Coastal Zone Management. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction As the interface between the terrestrial and marine environments, the coastal zone is a veritable breeding ground for controversy, given the diverse and sometimes contradictory laws governing its management and the conflicting interests of the populations who live, work and play there. More needs to be known about these coastal regions that are so important to our biosphere. Clearly, some kind of coordinated policy for the management, protection and conservation of our coastline is necessary. Over the last decade, the various groups for whom the coastal zone is important have begun to understand the special problems and needs of these regions. These groups—which include both national and local governments, the scientific community, and those whose personal or private interests connect them to the sea (fishermen, property developers and tourists, for example)—have developed new areas of research and study, and concrete propositions for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) have been presented [1–4]. In 1998, the French Ministry of the Environment responded to the pressing needs of the coastal regions, calling for research proposals concerning the Littoral as part of the research program LITEAU (specifically, ‘‘Management of coastal ecosystems: the choice and management of coastal zones to be protected’’). Their objective was to develop ways to preserve the natural heritage of the French Littoral regions, as part of an ICZM program for metropolitan France. Given the realities of the shore regions, it was essential to bring the different members of the littoral researchers together to exchange knowledge and experience. The very nature of these exchanges led to multi-disciplinary propositions.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
465
A multi-disciplinary team, composed of legal experts, geographers and ecologists, was assembled. Working premise stated that it was necessary to know more about the natural heritage of the coastal zones in order to propose more effective methods for managing and protecting it [5]. Their study focuses more on the preservation of space than on the preservation of the different species living in the coastal zones, given that the complexity and most often interdependent biological systems occur in the marine environment [6,7]. In addition to the work mentioned in the preceding paragraph, several synopses of the existing scholarship concerning marine habitats and the French coastal regions of the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, the Channel and the North Sea had recently been published [8,9]. A synopsis of inventory and protection strategies for the coastal zones of metropolitan France had also been published [10]. Obviously, the marine biologists are not the only ones who have been studying this subject; legal experts have also been working on ICZM, particularly within the European Demonstration Program [3,11]. The objectives of this article are four-fold: (a) to present the principal legal texts (laws and statutes) concerning the coastal conservation in metropolitan France; (b) to highlight the difficulties connected to the application of these laws; (c) to analyze the diffuse administrative responsibility for the coastal regions and the increasing efforts to encourage or enforce the preservation of certain particularly important sectors of the French coastline; (d) to evaluate the legal tools available for preserving the natural heritage of the French coastal regions via ICZM.
2. The coastal zone: definition and perception Before establishing a standard definition of coastal zone for use in this study, it is useful to examine the existing perceptions of the term according to the various categories of people interacting there. Naturalists appear to have a fairly global and consensual vision of the coastal zone, based on a systemic approach. Thus for a naturalist, ‘‘coastal zone corresponds to the whole of the ecological systems, including their biotic and abiotic components. The organisms living in the coastal zone are totally dependent on, and organize themselves in relation to, these biotic and abiotic factors’’ [12]. In fact, the coastal zone of the naturalist is anchored in the definition of the geomorphologist and the geographer, who also use a systemic approach. The relationship between man and nature is central to the geographical definition of the coastal zone. For earth scientists, the coastal zone can be understood as a socio-ecosystem; a complex, composite environment where physical, biological and anthropogenic components interact [13]. On the other hand, this is no precise legal definition of the coastal zone, mostly because ‘‘until recently, legal experts have concentrated almost exclusively on the idea of marine public domain’’ [14], without ever establishing a correspondence between the marine and coastal
ARTICLE IN PRESS 466
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
domains. While it is generally accepted that the ‘‘coastal zone of necessity includes uninterrupted space on either side of the actual shoreline’’, it is still necessary to determine both its seaward and landward limits in order to avoid the trap of ‘‘imprecise boundaries’’ [15]. Apparently, the problem is not a lack of legal documents, but rather the number, diversity, intricacy and narrow focus of the texts that exist. But how can the littoral zone be managed, or even protected, without at least some specific responses to the different problems that arise, never mind a single legal standard that could be used to help, or hinder, the various interest groups? This is probably one of the major problems confronting those who, in one way or another, play a role in the coastal regions. If the definition of ‘‘coastal zone’’ in France is a bewildering blend of the definitions of naturalists, geographers and legal experts, it is no clearer at the level of the European Community, which bodes ill for the creation of a common policy for all European coastal zones. For economists, ‘‘the coastal zones bring the problematic relationship between economic development and Nature sharply into focus, though these problems are not specific to the coast’’ [16]. Economic development of the coastal regions is no longer just a question of public transportation and appropriations for ports, industry or fishing. The diversity of its users; its place at the center of the dynamic, world-wide tourist industry; its continued role in industry; its fragility; the sheer numbers of conflicts of interest among users—all of these ensure that the coastal regions present ‘‘a condensed version of the risks of a nonsustainable development model, the results of which could spread throughout the planet’’ [16].
3. Existing regulations concerning the natural heritage of the coastal zone The French legislature enacted the ‘‘loi Littoral’’(Coastal Zone Law), concerning the planning, protection and valorization of the coastal zone on 3 January 1986. Although this law and the decrees governing its application are at the heart of the legislative and regulatory measures designed to protect the natural heritage of the coastal zones, numerous other texts have been added to it. A list of the principal measures issuing from international and European Community law that have been adopted in France in order to save the flora and fauna of the coastal zone as well as their habitats can be found in Table 1. A quick look at the institutional structures whose jurisdiction includes the coastal zone reveals that management of the coast and the sea is a ‘‘multi-level affair, with many players intervening on a variety of different scales. This zone, which more than any other requires a coherent plan of action, would seem to have no plan at all. This lack of coherence acts to cruelly expose the contradictions in national territorial operations’’ [17]. In France, the search for institutional and administrative coherence is one of the major concerns of coastal zone management policy. The application of these rules and regulations on the international level depends mainly on the good will of the various National Governments, and the attempts of individuals and associations to use the courts to force the governmental authorities
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
467
Table 1 List of the principal measures taken by France, and the European and International communities, to assure the protection of marine and coastal territories, as well as the plant and animal species living in theses territories Protection of sea and coastline, accorded by international law.
Ramsar Convention (protection of wetlands with international importance) www.ramsar.org. UNESCO,s MAB Program (biosphere reserves) www.unesco.org. Convention of Barcelona (protected marine zones in the mediterranean) www.unepmap.org. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (protection of the marine milieu) www.un.org. OSPAR Convention (protection of the marine milieu in the North-East Atlantic) World Heritage Convention.
Protection of the littoral zones’ plant and animal species, their habitats and their biological diversity, accorded by international law.
Convention of biodiversity, www.biodiv.org. Convention of Bonn (protection of migrating species). Convention of Washington (trade regulations concerning certain species). Convention of Berne (conservation of European nature and wild life).
Protection of the coastline and those species living in coastal zones, accorded by European law.
Directive 79/409/CE of 2 April 1979 concerning the preservation of wild birds. Directive 92/43/CEE of 21 May 1992 concerning the conservation of natural habitats as well as wild flora and fauna. www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature.
Protection of the coastal zone’s natural heritage, accorded by French law.
The regulations and instruments of protection, specifically applicable to the coastal zone: The clauses of the Coastal Zone Law (articles L.146-6 and L.146-4 of the zoning code). The clauses pertaining to marine public domain. Actions of the Conservatory of the Coastal Areas and Lakeshore (acquisition of undeveloped land). The Scheme for the Valorization of the Sea. The Bay Contracts. The regulations and instruments of protection for undeveloped land, generally applicable to the coastal zone: Territorial Planning and Development directives. The master plans and general guidelines for water planning, development and management (SDAGE; SAGE). The policy for threatened wilderness lands (acquisition of undeveloped lands by Departments). Registered and listed sites. Natural reserves. Biotope decrees. National parks and the regional Nature parks.
to enforce these laws are not always sufficient. Two European Community texts, which are not specific to coastal zones, include measures that can be used to protect the natural coastal heritage: directive 79/409/CE concerning the conservation of wild birds, and directive 92/43/CE concerning the conservation of natural habitats,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 468
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
including their flora and fauna. In August 2001, under the auspices of the first directive, France classified approximately 8193 km2 as 117 Special Protection Zones. Under the terms of the second directive, France also proposed approximately 31,440 km2 for classification as 1030 sites of importance to the community, with intent to transform these sites into Special Conservation Zones; of these, about 130 are located in the coastal zone. The European Commission judged both of these propositions insufficient, and filed a suit for misfeasance before the European Court of Justice. The national laws for the protection of the coastal natural heritage include both laws specific to the coastal zone and those general laws that can be applied to the coastal zone. The Coastal Zone Law enhances existing zoning regulations, providing a global framework for the decentralized jurisdictions of the various municipal zoning laws; the protections accrued to the terrestrial coastal zone can thus be extended to include its counterpart, the sea. This law also works to maintain the natural condition of the seashore and of marine public domain. In addition, the scope of the CELRL, which is concerned with marine public domain, has recently been widened. There are, of course, other institutions intervening in the coastal zone: departmental jurisdiction covers threatened natural lands. The national government has jurisdiction over certain special sites, natural reserves, national parks and the decrees concerning biotopes. These different institutions already work together regularly, but would benefit from a closer coordination of their activities. Many legal texts—such as the Schemes for the Valorization of the Sea, the Territorial Planning Directives, the Bay Contracts, even the Scheme for Water Planning and Management—contribute directly or indirectly to the overall effort. Clearly, the problem is not lack of firepower, but rather the ineffective implementation of the existing measures. From what can be observed, it would appear that the diffuse administrative responsibility for the coastal zone and the lack of adequate coordination between the multiple authorities are the principal elements in an overall problem of jurisdictional repartition, which complicates the efforts to protect the coastal zones’ natural heritage. In addition, previous administrative relationships have been modified by the French administration’s efforts to decentralize; new partners have been introduced to the coastal zone, and the administrative jurisdictions of the coastal zone and the seashore have been redistributed. However, the reorganization of the services intervening to protect the coastal zone’s natural heritage is not yet complete (Fig. 1). The services and interventions of the French government have not yet had time to adapt to the new measures of decentralization, and the national government still appears frequently as the pivotal player in the protection of the coastal and marine environments. A coherent policy for the preservation of the coastal zone’s natural heritage must be based on ecological evaluation and sound protection and management tools. A plethora of measures and scientific inventories, which either duplicate, overlap or complete each other, have been created over the years to encourage or to enforce
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477 Ministry of the Environment
Advisory Councils and Commissions - National Council on Environmental Protection - National Water Council - Commission for Sustainable Development - Coastal Zone Commission - Supreme Site Commission - Precautionary and Prevention Councils
Inter-ministerial Structures Inter-ministerial Council on the Sea and General Secretary for the Sea
Regional Prefect DIREN -applies legislation concerning water, site protection, and environmental protection, specifically for the coastal zone -investigates affairs related to natural reserves and protected biotopes
Departemenal Prefect
DDAM Conservatory of the Coastal Areas and Lakeshore
Water Quality Agency (concerning swimming water quality)
Public Institutions held in Trust
National Parks (inventories, pollution analysis, information and education
The National Museum of Natural History (responsible for managing one of the AFF thematic centers as part of Natura 2000)
National Forestry Office (manages a large domain of coastal real estate covering 500 km)
469
- global administration - Fish Police) - management of the fishing economy - DPM management that which pertains to commercial aquaculture and shellfisheries
Institutions held in Shared Trust
IFREMER : responsible for verifying the quality of sea water and sea-related products
DDASS Responsible for verifying swimming water quality and discharges into the sea
Maritime Prefect (reports directly to the Prime Minister)
DDE Maritime Service -management of sea stratum and substratum -power to investigate and verify compliance to maritime regulations
- General responsibilty for the sea, starting at the low-tide line - Responsable for preventing, organizing and directing the fight against maritime pollution
Fig. 1. Organizational chart of the French administrations intervening to protect the marine and coastal natural heritage.
environmental protection in the richest ecosystems (e.g. the Seine estuary). These include Natural Reserves, Special Conservation Zones, hunting reserves, Zones of Community Interest for Birds, ZPS, Zones of Ecological Interest for Flora and Fauna—type 1 and 2, CELRL land purchases, European agro-environmental measures for the protection of the prairie and its nesting wild fowl, the Brotonne Regional Natural Park, the decree for biotope protection, and various registered and listed sites. For the section of this estuary between the Tancarville Bridge and the sea, no less than 12 sorts of measures are superposed [18] (Fig. 2). This superposition is both proof of the rich natural heritage of this area and of the legal excess that results from it, and clearly demonstrates the need for a harmonization of French law in this domain [18]. French governmental institutions are organized such that, depending on the question asked, responsibility for the coastal zone falls on the Ministry of Transportation, of Planning and development, of Environmental Affairs, of Maritime Affairs, or of National Defense. The situation is not unique in Europe, in fact, this organization is repeated in almost every European country. Given the difficulties inherent to such a juxtaposition of the different jurisdictions, it is small wonder that developing a strategic vision for the protection of the natural heritage of the coastal and marine zones poses such a problem. In fact, while it is true that in
ARTICLE IN PRESS 470
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
Fig. 2. Level of protection for the natural heritage of the lower part of the Seine estuary (from 18).
most European countries the ministries most involved are the Merchant Marine, Public Works, Environmental Affairs and Territorial Planning and Development, attempts to establish standards often reveal jurisdictional rivalries. For these same reasons, France and her European neighbors run into the same kinds of problems when attempting to establish a national park or a natural reserve in the coastal zone or along the shoreline. The diffuse jurisdictional authorities make developing such projects extremely difficult, especially when the park or reserve is to include territory in both marine and terrestrial zones. Although this problem has sometimes been resolved by creating two adjacent reserves, usually the management of these reserves cannot, unfortunately, be confided to a single common structure. Thus in Spain, for example, the autonomous community of Valencia created a park on the Columertes Islands, with a marine protection zone established by national law [19]. Nonetheless, when confronted by difficulties similar to those occurring in France, certain European countries have sometimes adopted other solutions, which differ widely according to their individual institutional systems. For instance, in the Netherlands and Great Britain, the associative sector plays an important role [20]. The oldest and most original example is the British National Trust. Created in 1895, the organization manages a large number of properties that are open to the public. The National Trust has the support of the government, and a 1907 law authorizes the National Trust to pronounce the inalienability of the properties it manages [2]. As the owner of land along the seaside, this institution participates in the management of the coastal zone. It possesses approximately 17% of the coastal property in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; most of the land is in
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
471
southwestern England and Wales. In some regions, the National Trust possesses nearly 40% of the coastal zone in certain administrative zones. However, the boundaries of National Trust coastal properties as they extend from the shore towards the open sea are very complex. In some cases, the boundary is the high tide line; in other rare situations, the boundary is the low tide line. There are a few rare instances when the National Trust is allowed to own or to rent the seabed near the coast, but even then, only in certain, limited proportions. In the Netherlands, 15 or so associations, whose purpose is environmental protection at both the national and provincial levels, have government sanction to acquire and manage threatened natural territories. The national or provincial governments help to finance these acquisition and management activities via an annual contribution. In every case, the acquisition of the terrain must be authorized by the administration, which requires a detailed written request specifying the reasons for the proposed operation. As mentioned above, certain European countries confronting difficulties similar to those encountered in France, have adopted widely different solutions depending on their individual institutional systems. The diversity of these solutions should help us to better comprehend both the common structural weaknesses of the various national government organizations and the relationships that exist between the different groups and individuals intervening on the local level. Since the 1980s the ‘‘principle of subsidiarity’’ has been integrated into the concept of protecting the natural heritage of the coastal zone. While taking into account factors which could lead to choosing one level of authority over another, this principle holds that administrative responsibility must be exercised at the closest level possible to the citizens concerned. This idea is quite natural for federations like Germany or Belgium, or for highly regionalized countries like Spain or Italy. However, the phenomenon exists to some degree in every country, even the most centralized or decentralized of them. This transfer of responsibility is not just at the execution level; decision-making power has also been delegated. And this transfer is no longer just in traditional areas of intervention, like fighting pollution; it goes further to include new domains, like nature conservation. In England and Spain, for example, local communities now have the power to create protected zones on their own initiative. In addition, the power of local communities in terms of environmental protection is no longer limited to those territories owned by the community; a community can now negotiate contracts with users and owners, and if needed, make grants available. In terms of international environmental agreements, there are rules concerning the representation of the different countries signing the agreement, and France’s position with respect to these rules is determined by two related factors: the dictates of the French Constitution and the necessity of implementing those dictates correctly and effectively. Systematic organization can only benefit those involved in defending the French approach to the sustainable development of the coast and coastal zone ecosystems and the integrated management of the coastal zone itself. However, getting to that point requires more than mouthing platitudes; it necessitates a real defense strategy for the natural heritage of the coastal zone [21].
ARTICLE IN PRESS 472
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
4. Sustainable development through the integrated management of the coastal zone Although recognized by the scientific community as an interface between the land and the sea, the coastal zone has been the victim of chronic jurisdictional disassociation. This has severed the connections between the different laws concerning the zone, resulting in the almost total disjunction of the laws applying to the disparate sides of the shoreline: the land and the sea. The multiple pressures affecting the coastal and marine zones, and the narrow responses which have been made to their very real problems, have created a territorial network that is complex and hard to understand. The concepts of sustainable development, integrated planning and ICZM provide an alternative that could bring the legal and factual realities into sync, offering an integrated, global approach to the problems of the coastal zone within a single, unified space. The primary importance of integrated management is that it promotes an organization of coastal zone territory that takes into account the physical, economic and cultural aspects of both parts of the coastal zone. The fragile balance that exists between the marine and coastal environments is just one part of a complex equation, and this balance is becoming increasingly fragile due to the pressures exerted on these areas. Our society throngs towards these areas until they become no more than the stage on which the pressures and the economic and environmental competitions of the city are played. The concept of integrated management offers an incontestable dynamic that could lead to a totally new reading of the protection of the coastal zone natural heritage, one that starts in the sea and goes on to include the lands lying in close proximity. The concept of ICZM links social and economic dynamics, based on the originality of the marine zone, and spatial dynamics, as recreated in terms of planned development. Clearly, the coastal zone also conveys clear strategic dynamics in light of the fervent hopes vested in the various development projects. With this in mind, the coastal zone must establish new foundations and discover new intermediaries that can both support its mission to protect the natural heritage of the coastal zone and promote the co-existence of the varied uses and interests of its diverse population. A natural heritage with extraordinary symbolic value, the coastal zone must foster an image and an identity that will give it the legitimacy needed to set in motion actions that encourage a sustainable development of the littoral zone. The coastal zone itself illustrates the need for a re-composition of the littoral territory, using methods based on conceptual, normative and spatial integration. Chapter 17 of the 1992 AGENDA 21 laid the groundwork for the emergence of a new dimension in the planning, development and protection of coastal and marine zones. It stated, ‘‘The coastal zone contains a wide diversity of productive habitats, which are important for human institutions and for the development and subsistence of the local populations. More than half of the world’s population lives less than 60 km from some coast, and this proportion could reach 75% by 2020. Existing strategies for the management of marine and coastal resources do not always manage to produce sustainable development’’ [11].
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
473
‘‘Over the last decade, there has been progress on putting the principles of sustainable development into action, but many fundamental challenges remain. The impacts of globalisation—increasingly the central context for international decision making—were not addressed at all in Rio. For both rich and poor countries, much more is needed to place sustainable development as a central policy objective at every level, and to implement the plans agreed previously. Poor countries require access to resources, technology, markets to develop and good governance systems. Rich countries will need to show real commitment to changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production and moving towards far greater efficiency in resource use. This is a challenge for society as a whole, but governments must create the climate in which real change is possible. The UN convened a World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2002. The Johannesburg Summit offered a major opportunity to develop understanding of these issues, and have a mature debate on practical ways to achieve progress’’ (http://www.iied.org/wssd/). In 1990, the European Community began requiring Integrated Planning and Development in the Coastal Zone (IPDCZ). This requirement contributed to the creation of a new organizational and decision-making model. In fact, by 1999, it was possible to state, ‘‘the implementation of Integrated Planning and Development in the Coastal Zone demands a new style of governance, a style that implies and solicits the contributions of the civil population. It requires the participation of all the special interest groups of the coastal zone in the design and implementation of a development model that serves the mutual interests of all concerned [17]. This IPDCZ has without any doubt aided the emergence of ICZM models. In the end, these groups may find that Europe and its partners can be strong allies in their attempts to compensate for the inadequacies of French legislation as it pertains to protecting the coastal and marine zones. However, the coastal zone has already started to gather the different local players together for collective action on common development projects that associate the members of the local governmental and nongovernmental communities. In this sense, the coastal zone sees itself as conforming to the new mode of governance, soliciting the co-operation of all those involved in order to determine the best kind of development for the area. Those involved have chosen a management method that favors a territorial perception of the coastal zone. Their logic appears to support the restoration of a territorial dimension to the littoral zone, and that logic is corroborated by collectively developed projects that re-appropriate the space. In this context, the concept of ICZM and that of a marine project space could provide original tools for integrating actions and policies favoring a territorial perception, and grouped around a common project of sustainable development. However, there is no one solution for the sustainable development of the coastal zone. Among the many possibilities, there are Schemes for the Valorization of the Sea, National Parks and Mixed Authority associations. However, as was mentioned earlier, for many natural lands, there are simply too many conflicting laws to be effective. First, it will be necessary to harmonize the various French laws, and then to harmonize French law with European directives and international accords.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 474
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
In addition, efforts must be made to bring together the different groups involved in protecting the coastal and marine environments, in order to develop a consensual coordination, a more efficient administrative organization for natural heritage protection, and a global strategic vision. Within this framework, the national government must maintain its national jurisdiction for the standards set to protect the natural heritage in the coastal and marine zones as well as for the verification of those standards. It must also maintain the power to insure the coherence of local actions and the effectiveness of the protective measures proposed, by exerting a ‘‘right of approval’’ on all documents concerning planning and financial assistance. Today, this governmental responsibility needs to be clarified. In the absence of a coherent, global policy, a restructuration of the institutional system is essential. The protection of the coastal and marine zones natural heritage is, by its very nature, one of the domains that absolutely require an inter-ministerial approach. It will thus be necessary to harmonize the various sectorial policies and to bring several detached services into play under the authority of the Regional Environmental Directions. To these must be added diverse public institutions, all reporting to their individual ministries. The improvement of the institutional framework thus comes from adapting the national government and its detached services to the needs of a protection policy for the coastal and marine zone environments.
5. Conclusions The natural heritage of the coastal zone is threatened, but the threat is not a recent phenomenon come to our attention in the last few years. Rather it is the result of a long, slow process of degradation begun in the Middle Ages, at least on metropolitan France. The difficulties in protecting and managing this zone have many causes, observed in France but easily transposable elsewhere. A partial list would include: the lack of a precise definition for this interface between the land and the sea, the existence of separate jurisdictions for the two zones; the complexity and superposition of the various governmental authorities, ranging from national to municipal; the superposition of measures designed to enforce or encourage the protection of the species and territory that make up France’s biological or geological heritage; the need for basic objective knowledge about the threat hanging over this natural heritage in order to take the measures needed to save it, and the need to update the various guides, indexes, and follow-up reports that can be used to observe its evolution over time. The conflicts of interest and the intransigence of those intervening in this zone must give way to a peaceful co-existence that demonstrates the creativity vital to the sustainable development of the coastal zone. The ICZM has thus become a necessity at the international level [22,23]. The European Demonstration Program of the ICZM which had selected 39 European sites (amongst them the Coˆte d’Opale, Nord, France) asked people at these sites what, in their opinion, constituted the principal positive points of impact for the ICZM procedure [3]. Four ideas received over 75% of the positive responses: improved decision making, better understanding between
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
475
partners, growing public awareness and consensus on priorities. It would appear then that the ICZM procedure makes it possible to bring the different players together to debate and to identify priorities, both of which are indispensable in the decision-making process. Habitat restoration and landscape improvement came much later in the list of the positive impacts of ICZM, which would seem to indicate either that the natural heritage itself is not the most important preoccupation, or perhaps that the scientific community and the associations for the environmental defense were not sufficiently implicated in the demonstration program, outside of their role as knowledge bearers. As has been shown, a real effort to simplify the measures designed to encourage and enforce the protection of the natural heritage must be made. It would seem obvious that the scientific community must be included in the advisory or decisionmaking committees concerning the natural heritage of the coastal zone; the science of ecology needs to be added to the battery of legal and administrative procedures. On the other hand, it is equally undeniable that economists must work side by side with the ecologists to derive a better multi-criteria method for estimating the value of the natural heritage and its ecosystems. As this study comes to its close, the report that can be made is mixed. In order to protect the ‘‘natural sites’’, or those that have been least affected by Man, it is undeniably necessary to take the natural heritage into account in the sustainable development of the coastal zone. However, this undeniable need exists within the confusion of superimposed laws, measures and directives that make it difficult to rationally integrate that heritage in ICZM. For this reason, it would seem necessary to compensate for the inadequacies of the policies designed to protect the coastal zone’s natural heritage, not only at the national level but also on the territorial level, by insisting on territorial recomposition and intercommunality. A more profound reform of the way we understand the problems facing of the coastal and marine zone was undertaken at the request of the CELRL [24]. The law no. 2002-276 of 27 February 2002 concerning local democracy reiterate to a large degree the propositions made to the Prime Minister in the Le Pensec report. This law recommends the intervention of the CELRL in the maritime public domain, although this assignment of a part of the Maritime Public Domain cannot be systematic and can only take place in certain geographical, physical or ecological circumstances when the areas of the Maritime Public Domain require a long-term natural protection or when they make up a continuous ecological unit with those already under CELRL guardianship. Thus, an obviously ambitious policy comes out of the Le Pensec report. The new legislation offers sufficient possibilities to reassure the CELRL that its role as firstrank player in the protection of the coastal zone natural heritage is maintained. It also offers a legal basis for partnerships between the CELRL and the local municipalities with respect to the protection of the coastal zone natural heritage. The authors of this article can only be in favor of the remodeling of the CELRL mission, and encourage the CELRL in this new mission that recognizes the coastal zone as an interface between the continental and marine milieus.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 476
J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
Lastly, it must be added that the Scheme for Natural and Rural Zone Collective Services, adopted by the national government in 2002, states that the ‘‘integrated management of the coastal strip must take into account all the elements of the littoral system, in both its seaward and landward extremities’’, in order to insure ‘‘the preservation or the restoration of the heritage of coastal zone landscapes’’, ‘‘a balance between the exploitation of the fishing resources and the preservation of biodiversity’’ and ‘‘a balanced management of the estuary system’’ [25]. Implementing this scheme will require making strategic choices concerning the national policy of territorial planning and sustainable development for the next 20 years [26]. It should also reinforce the idea of preserving the coastal zone’s natural heritage within the framework of ‘‘integrated coastal zone management’’.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude to those who collaborated on the collective work (coordinated by J.C Dauvin) on which this article is based: L. Barille´, G. Bellan, D. Bellan-Santini, S. Billy, K. Bosser, P. Camus, F. Chlous-Ducharme, P. Combes, P. Deboudt, N. Desroy, J.M. Dewarumez, C. Gachelin, Y. Gruet, B. Guillaumont, C. Hily, J.P. Minet, V. Morsetti, N. Le Pennec, C. Meur-Fe´rec, M.H. Ruz, R. Paskoff, X. Pouille D. Richard, E. Torres and L.Videment. The authors would also like to thank the Ministry for Territorial Planning and Development and the Environment, which selected and financed our project as part of the LITEAU research program. Without their help, this multidisciplinary work could never have been brought to term. Thanks also to Lisa Ellen Spencer Services for the English version of the text. References [1] Doumenge F, Paskoff R, Robert R, Trzipit J-P. 7000 kilome`tres de littoraux a` ge´rer. In: Neboit-Guilhot R, Davy L, editors. Les Franc- ais Dans Leur Environnement. Paris: Nathan; 1996. p. 95–144. [2] Ducrotoy J-P, Pullen S. Integrated coastal zone management: commitments and developments from an International, European, and United Kingdom perspective. Ocean and Coastal Management 1999;42:1–18. [3] Belfiore S. Recent developments in coastal management in the European Union. Ocean and Coastal Management 2000;43:123–35. [4] Henocque Y. Development of process indicators for coastal zone management assessment in France. Ocean and Coastal Management 2003;46:363–79. [5] Dauvin J-C. Gestion Inte´gre´e des Zones Coˆtie`res: outils et perspectives pour la pre´servation du patrimoine naturel. Patrimoines Naturels 2002;57:1–346. [6] Dauvin J-C, Bouchet P, Gofas S, Boudouresque C-F, Bellan-Santini D. Marine invertebrates of the French coasts and their conservation. Conseil de l’Europe, T-PVS (96) 1996;51:5–19. [7] Dauvin J-C. Mise en place de l’inventaire des ZNIEFF-Mer en me´tropole: e´tapes, e´tat d’avancement et actions connexes. Patrimoines Naturels 2000;42:15–30. [8] Bellan-Santini D, Lacaze J-C, Poizat C. Les Bioce´noses marines et littorales de Me´diterrane´e, synthe`se, menaces et perspectives. Patrimoines Naturels 1994;19:1–246.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.C. Dauvin et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 47 (2004) 463–477
477
[9] Dauvin J-C. Les Bioce´noses marines et littorales franc- aises des coˆtes Atlantique, Manche et Mer du Nord, synthe`se, menaces et perspectives. Patrimoines Naturels 1997;28:1–359. [10] Richard D, Dauvin J-C. Strategies for inventories and protection of coastal areas in France. Aquatic Conservation of Marine and Freshwater Ecosystem 1997;6:205–24. [11] Ghe´zali M. Gestion inte´gre´e des zones coˆtie`res: l’approche statutaire de la zone Coˆte d’Opale. Universite´ du Littoral Coˆte d’Opale, Boulogne-sur-Mer 2000; 280pp. [12] Bellan G. De´finition et perception de l’espace littoral. Patrimoines Naturels 2002;57:29–62. [13] Corlay J-P. Ge´ographie sociale, ge´ographie du littoral. Norois 1995;42(165):247–65. [14] Hostiou R. Protection de l’espace littoral et droit de l’environnement: a` propos de la politique d’acquisition foncie`re du Conservatoire. Revue Juridique de l’Environnement 1997; 83 [special issue]. [15] Mesnard A-H. Re´glementations actuelles et analyse institutionnelle des acteurs implique´s dans la connaissance et la gestion du patrimoine naturel littoral. Patrimoines Naturels 2002;57:63–139. [16] Torres E. Le point de vue d’e´conomistes. Patrimoines Naturels 2002;57:42–5. [17] Commission europe´enne. Communication au Conseil et au Parlement europe´en sur l’ame´nagement inte´gre´ des zones coˆtie`res: une strate´gie pour l’Europe 1999; 92. [18] Alard D. Zones humides de la basse valle´e de la Seine. Programme Scientifique Seine-Aval fascicule 2002;15:1–36. [19] De Klemm C. Les outils re´glementaires pour la conservation du littoral. La conservation des rivages de l’Atlantique Nord, Regards d’experts 1998. 13–15 mai 1998. UICN. [20] Harvey J. Les politiques de conservation du littoral au Royaume-Uni. The National Trust. La conservation des rivages de l’Atlantique Nord, Regards d’experts1998. 13–15 mai 1998. UICN. [21] Ghe´zali M, Bellan G. La position de la France a` l’e´gard des conventions internationales relatives a` l’environnement. Patrimoines Naturels 2002;57:130–5. [22] Commission Oce´anographique Intergouvernementale Guide me´thodologique d’aide a` la gestion inte´gre´e de la zone coˆtie`re. Manuel et guides de l’UNESCO 1997;36:1–47. [23] Commission Oce´anographique Intergouvernementale, Des hommes et des outils pour une gestion plus inte´gre´e des zones coˆtie`res. Manuel et guides de l’UNESCO 2001;42:1–64. [24] Le Pensec L. Vers de nouveaux rivages. Rapport au Premier ministre sur la refondation du Conservatoire du littoral. La documentation franc- aise Paris 2001. [25] MATE (Ministe`re de l’Ame´nagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement). Sche´ma de services collectifs des espaces naturels et ruraux annexe´ au de´cret no. 2002-560 du 18 avril 2002. Direction des journaux officiels. L’officiel de la re´publique franc- aise 2002;6(3):1153. [26] DATAR. Les sche´mas de services collectifs. Collection Territoires en mouvement. Paris: La documentation franc- aise; 2002.