Towards coastal risk management in France

Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Towards coastal risk management in France Philippe Deboudt a, b, c, * a

Univ Lille Nord de France, F-59000 Lille, France CNRS, USR 3185, MESHS, F-59000 Lille, France c USTL, TVES, EA 4477, F-59650 Villeneuve d’Ascq cedex, France b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 27 April 2010

The coastal territories of mainland France constitute a prime example of an at-risk territory, with their growing concentrations of people and economic activities located mostly on a coastal fringe that is subject to shoreline retreat and coastal flooding. The perspective of higher sea levels due to climate changes exacerbates the risk that these territories will be exposed to natural coastal hazards. Since the “invention” of the littoral zone in the mid 19th-century, the vulnerability of the economic stakes on this coastal fringe has been managed mainly by controlling the hazards; this control is coordinated by the national government, which initiated coastal defense practices. At the beginning of the 1980s, natural risk prevention policies favored managing the consequences of natural disasters, with the creation of the CatNat insurance regime to indemnify natural disaster victims. By the middle of the 1990s, new natural risk management strategies had been invented to complete the control of natural hazards. As part of the emerging philosophy of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM), the French government encouraged the development of natural risk prevention policies by establishing Natural Risk Prevention Plans (PPRn) in 1995. These PPRn were a new approach to shoreline management that favored controlling development in coastal communities. As of 2008, PPRn had been approved in 270 coastal communities and required in 149. At the beginning of the 21st century, the French government set down the general orientations for managing natural coastal risks, but it was not the only stakeholder involved. Collective action emerged, bringing the national government, public institutions and the territorial and local authorities together to develop risk management policies. This collective action was facilitated by a form of decentralization of natural coastal risk management, involving regional or local implementation of the strategic orientations of shoreline management, respecting the general principles defined by the national government. These changes are part of the ICZM implementation process, which has been under way since 2005. The development of natural coastal risk prevention policies is reinforced by the soon-to-be-adopted bill concerning the Grenelle of the Environment. These policies are mainly financed by the Barnier Fund for major natural risk prevention, which is in turn funded by an obligatory contribution based on the CatNat insurance premiums. This type of financing raises the question of the relationship between risk prevention strategies and natural disaster management. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The coastal territories of mainland France constitute a prime example of an at-risk territory, with their growing concentrations of people and economic activities located mostly on a coastal fringe that is subject to shoreline retreat and coastal flooding. The perspective of higher sea levels due to climate changes exacerbates

* Tel.: þ33 3 20 33 60 98; fax: þ33 3 20 43 44 41. E-mail address: [email protected] 0964-5691/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.04.013

the risk that these territories will be exposed to natural coastal hazards. The French national government and local authorities are increasingly asked to provide concrete responses to the consequences of the coastal erosion that threatens habitations and accelerates beach erosion. Faced with uncertainty about the consequences of climate change on the evolution of natural coastal hazards and their impact on the territories of coastal communities, all the stakeholders concerned have come together to develop risk management strategies. This article explains how the shoreline of mainland France came to be an at-risk territory and describes the stakeholders’ changing role in natural risk management.

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

2. Coastal territory, territory at risk 2.1. From “empty” to “overcrowded” to “every-man-for-himself” Since the 18th century, the coastal territories of mainland France have seen a succession of eco-sociological systems [1]: starting with the “empty” territories described by Alain Corbin [2], the littoral became “overcrowded” from the 1960s to 1980s and then, in the 1990s, it became a territory where it is “every man for himself” [3]. Geographers have demonstrated and analyzed the growth of urbanization in coastal communities [4]."Littoralization" and “maritimization” are expressions used to designate the upheaval in coastal geography caused by the concentration of humans, activities, tourism and exchanges in this territorial interface between land and sea. Some key figures allow the importance of this evolution to be measured [5]. In 1999, French coastal communities brought together 5.85 million inhabitants on 4% of France’s mainland territory, with a population density of 272 inhabitants/km2. In comparison, the average national population density was 108 inhabitants/km2. Locally, these figures are even more divergent: 2500 inhabitants/km2 on the coast of the Alpes Maritimes and more than 800 inhabitants/km2 on the coasts of the Pyrénées-Atlantiques or the Nord/Pas-de-Calais [5].The successive population censuses confirm this movement of the population towards the coast Fig. 1. In fact, the “littoralization” of the population and the “urbanization” of the littoral went together [6]. A total of 842 000 habitations and 66 000 new structures appeared along the coast of mainland France between 1980 and 1996, with an average of 53 400 new constructions per year. In terms of surface (m2), this means 12% of the habitations and 7% of the structures built each year in France have been built on a coastal strip that represents less than 4% of the national territory [5]. In all the departments that border the coast, more than a quarter of the built surfaces between 1990 and 1996 were in seaside communities. According to two recent socio-demographic studies by INSEE and the Littoral Observatory [7] and the Ministry of ecology Research Center [8], the population in the French coastal territories, including both coastal communities and inland coastal communities,1 has increased considerably over the last 30 years. The 2007 MEEDDAT study [8] is interesting because of the period chosen for measuring the socio-demographic evolution (1986e2006). At the beginning of the period (1986), the coastal departments had 19.7 million permanent residents, of whom 5.5 million were located in coastal communities, and the French Parliament had just voted a law pertaining to the development, protection and valorization of the littoral,2 one of the objectives of which was controlling the urbanization of the French coast. Twenty years later (2006), the same departments had 22 million inhabitants (þ12%), and the coastal communities had 7 million (þ26%). The Mediterranean coastal territories alone accounted for 47% of the growth in these departments and around two-thirds of the growth in the coastal communities. In 2006, the population density was 281 inhabitants/

1 Several reference scales were used to analyze the coastal territories:the 884 coastal communities are those bordering the sea; however, in terms of the 1986 Littoral Law, “coastal community” also refers to the communities on the estuaries and the deltas between the saline front and the sea and to the communities bordering lakes with a surface over 1000 ha;the coastal cantons are territorial subdivisions of the arrondissement (i.e., the electoral district for the Departmental Council) that include at least one coastal community;the 26 coastal departments assembling 10 874 communities;inland coastal communities are those situated back from the shoreline (e.g., canton, department), thus excluding the coastal communities. 2 Law N 86-2 of 3 January 1986.

367

km2 in these coastal communities, almost three times higher than the national average, with divergent regional situations: 339 inhabitants/km2 for Mediterranean coastal communities, 169 inhabitants/km2 on the Atlantic coast and 315 inhabitants/km2 on the coast of the Channel and the North Sea. One of the most significant changes in this period (1986e2006) was the demographic growth in the coastal inlands. The inland coastal communities were responsible for 77% of the population growth in the coastal departments between 1986 and 2006 [8]. These general trends correspond to diverse regional situations. The Mediterranean coastal communities were saturated, provoking dynamic demographic growth inland. On the coast of the Atlantic/ Channel/North Sea, the level of saturation was less than on the Mediterranean coast, but the demographic growth of the communities along the coast, especially the inland coastal communities, accelerated in the last 10 years of the period. This growth of the coastal population can be explained by migratory flows that contributed 70% to the demographic growth [8]. This demographic change contributed to societal upheaval in the coastal territories, with a decline in maritime populations, whose economic activity was linked to production and a rise in coastal populations linked to the developing residential economy. The spatial evidence of these socio-demographic changes was the increased artificialization of the coastal territories to the detriment of natural environments and agricultural land [9]. Though still dominant in terms of their relative weight in terms of the surface area they occupy in the coastal territories, natural environments and agricultural land regressed. The artificial zones covered 13% of the surface area in coastal communities in 2000, notably due to the construction of residences. In fact, the pressure from construction was 2.5 times higher than the national average in coastal communities [9]. In 1986, the coastal departments had 1.2 million secondary residences, of which two-thirds were located in coastal communities. More than 50% of the building permits accorded on the Mediterranean coast were for individual residences; this figure was 75% on the Atlantic/Channel/North Sea coast. By 2006, 72% of secondary residences were located in coastal communities, compared to 64% in 1986 [8]. 2.2. Natural coastal hazards: status and perspectives given the consequences of climate change In mainland France, the territories of coastal communities are exposed to 3 types of natural hazards:  shoreline retreat, which can affect seaside cliff faces, as part of the natural evolution of these coastal formations, or low coastal dunes made fragile by a negative sedimentary balance and an insufficient renewal of the sedimentary stock available on beaches;  temporary coastal flooding caused by storm surge phenomena; and  dune migration inland. Geographers and geomorphologists have described, analyzed and explained the historical tendencies of shoreline changes and the causes of these changes for numerous sections of the French coast ([10e16]). The retreat of seaside cliff faces is the result of the natural dynamic of the coastal formations. Historically, low-lying coasts, notably those with coastal dunes, tend to retreat. This tendency can be explained by the passage from sedimentary abundance to sedimentary penury since the sea level stabilized following the postglacial transgression, between 6000 and 5000 BP [17]. Certain coastal segments are stable or undergoing progradation. However, the segments that are

368

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

retreating are increasing along the French coast. According to Paskoff [17], the non-renewal of the sedimentary stock since the postglacial rise in the sea level and the current sea level rise (þ15 cm since 1880) explain this tendency to shoreline retreat. Anthropogenic factors have also contributed to this retreat dynamic. The anthropogenic causes of coastal erosion are numerous [18,19]. Public works projects on rivers have reduced the sedimentary contributions on the coast; the sand extracted from beaches and/or dunes have made the sedimentary deficit more serious; and the port development projects have perturbed sedimentary transit. Finally, the artificialization of the shoreline through urbanization, the construction of seaside resorts, sea fronts, seawall promenades and hotels have cut off the foredune and even the upper beach zone from the coast [19]. According to IFEN [20,21], 20% of the shoreline has been artificialized, with ports covering 790 km, coastal defense structures (e.g., dikes and riprap to prevent erosion) covering 336 km and embankments covering 66 km. The shoreline’s sedimentary balance has been damaged, and it will be difficult to reverse this damage. The European research program, Eurosion, has published its results concerning the amount of erosion on the European coast [22], concluding that coastal erosion is occurring on 25% of the coast of mainland France3 [20,21]. Half of the shoreline is stable, with 10% undergoing accretion. However, the evolution of the shoreline depends on the nature of the natural coastal environments. The confrontation of these two dynamicsdshoreline retreat, sometimes associated with coastal flooding, and the increasing concentration of human and economic stakes on the coastal fringe helps create potentially dangerous areas, or at-risk territories ([23e25]). Meur-Férec & Morel [26] have described the meeting between the retreating shoreline and the socio-demographic trajectory for the town of Wimereux (Pas-de-Calais). Due to the intrinsic mobility of natural coastal systems and coastal formations, these two dynamics have been conflicting since the populations, habitations and infrastructure were first established along the coast in the middle of the 19th century. However, since the mid 19th century, three factors have complicated the management of the interaction of the two dynamics: - The management of sedimentary penury on the beaches was added in the 1990s to the management of the retreating shoreline, controlled up to them by the construction of coastal defense structures; this problem is widespread today in a number of seaside resorts. - In the 1990s, the national government of France confirmed a change in its natural risk management strategy, giving priority to prevention to the detriment of controlling the hazard. - The consequences of climate change on the potential rise in the sea level (an average of around 40 cm by 2100) exacerbate

3 In 2001, the European parliament asked to what degree were the European coasts vulnerable to coastal erosion. This question resulted in a study requested by the General Environmental Administration and implemented by a European consortium managed by the Dutch Institute for Coastal and Marine Management, with the participation of many European partners, including the Coastal & Marine Union (EUCC). France is well represented in this association, notably by IGN France International, Geological and Mining Research Bureau (BRGM) or French Environmental Institute (IFEN). The European Eurosion database, published in 2004, is an update of the work done during the period 1986e1989 as part of the CORINE coastal erosion program. The Eurosion shoreline was built at a scale of 100 000/1, with coastal segments of 200 m minimum. The level of detail presented by Eurosion excludes any local interpretations of the information and precludes use for local studies of shoreline erosion phenomena.

the pressure exerted on the coastal territories in terms of their exposure to erosion and submersion hazards.

2.3. Natural disasters, managed according to the principle of national solidarity It was only at the beginning of the 1980s that the notion of natural risk was formalized in its contemporary meaning [27]. Risk is a result of the interaction of hazards and stakes4 [28]. Although the notion of integrated stakes was, at the time, restricted to the social dimension of the coastal territories, the notion of vulnerability would emerge in the 1990s. The institutionalization of risk was made official by the 1981 creation of a Secretary of State for the prevention of major risks, run by Haroun Tazieff. The beginning of the 1980s was also marked by the vote of a law pertaining to the indemnification of the victims of natural disasters.5 Managed by the national government and insurance companies since 1982, natural disasters periodically remind us of the importance of natural risks in the coastal territories. This 1982 law established the principles of obligatory insurance and national solidarity, making it possible to create natural disaster insurance. These principles can be analyzed as actuarial mechanisms, focused on the economic aspects of risk and guaranteeing geographic solidarity through the mutualization of all the insured regardless of the risks incurred [29]. This natural disaster insurance is usually called CatNat6 in France, and it makes natural disaster insurance an obligatory extension of insurance contracts covering property damage and lost profits, subject to an additional obligatory contribution expressed as a percentage of the insurance premium. The rate of this additional contribution, currently fixed at 6% for motor vehicles and 12% for other property, is set by law, as are the applicable deductions for the CatNat insurance. The opening of the guarantee is subject to the declaration of a natural disaster by the appropriate authorities, who define the zones and periods in which the disaster occurred as well as the nature of the damage taken into account. The 1982 law established an important change in natural risk management by associating a complementary strategy for managing natural disasters based on the principle of national solidarity. Map 17 shows the distribution of the natural disaster declarations (CatNat declarations) in the coastal departments in France, in terms of the types of risks published in the Official Journal of the French government in direct relation to the natural coastal hazards8 mentioned above. Fig. 2 shows the annual evolution of the number of CatNat declarations published in the Official Journal for natural coastal hazards .

4 “Hazards” are “potentially dangerous events of natural or human origins, for which the intensity and the occurrence probability is estimated based on the study of return periods and site predisposition”. “Stakes” represent the “human, economic or environmental value of the elements exposed to the hazard”. 5 Law N 82-600 of 13 July 1982. 6 A Joint inquiry of the Conseil Général des Ponts et Chaussées (General Highway and Bridges Council), the Inspection Générale des Finance (Treasury Audit Department) and the Inspection Générale de l’Environnement (Environmental Ministry Evaluation Department) wrote a summary of the CatNat insurance regime in 2005 [29]. 7 In June 2009, we consulted the database GASPAR (Management Assistance for the Administrative Procedures related to Natural and Technological Risk) at the MEEDDAT (Ministry of Ecology): http://www.prim.net/professionnel/procedures_ regl/avancement.html We used this database for our statistical analysis and for the creation of Map 2, Figs. 2, 3, and 5. 8 Tidal waves, the collapse, disintegration and/or sinking of seaside cliffs, flooding and the mechanical shocks due to wave action, flooding, mud slides, landslides and the mechanical shocks due to wave action.

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

369

and the associated coastal flooding, the indemnities accorded for natural disasters for the Charente Maritime, the Seine Maritime, the Pas-de-Calais and the Gironde [30] totaled 230 million euros. Along with the CatNat insurance for the indemnification of natural disaster victims according to the principle of solidarity, in 1982, the national government of France also proposed a method for managing territories exposed to hazards, whose intensity and potential impact on humans, habitations and activities had not been taken into account in the territory’s planning. The policy for natural disaster prevention through integrating natural risks into territorial planning appeared at the same time as this method. However, this policy assumed a break with the usual principles of territorial planning and development and land use in the coastal territories. By the 1980s, the principles of planning and development of these coastal territories had already been disrupted by the recognition of the patrimonial value of the natural environment. This recognition led to the creation of new stakeholders (e.g., Littoral Conservancy in 1975 with its mission of real estate acquisition) and restrictions in urbanization in coastal territories (e.g., the Littoral law in 1986) to preserve the nature of the coastal zone. For the elected officials and economic development stakeholders in these high-stakes territories, these preservation strategies were sometimes perceived as constraints ([31,32]). The local authorities might well consider a natural risk prevention policy that advocated controlling the stakes as a new constraint in the development of their territory. Thus, the CatNat regime, in certain situations, could constitute an adequate approach for managing natural risks.

Map 1. Distribution of CatNat declarations for natural coastal hazards in the coastal departments from 1982 to 2008 (source; GASPAR database, Primnet) Source: GASPAR database, Ministry of Ecology, June 2009.

From 1982 to 2009, all the coastal departments have been affected by natural disasters connected with natural coastal hazards, except the Nord and the Gard. Two departments were declared natural disaster zones 1000 times: the Pyrénées Atlantiques and the Gironde. One department was the subject of a natural disaster zone declaration 500 times: the Seine Maritime. Five departments were declared natural disaster zones 200 times: Charente Maritime, Aude, Côte d’Armor, Landes and Pyrénées Orientales. As shown in Fig. 4, the annual evolution shows the consequences of storms that have affected the French Atlantic coast in 1990, 1999 and 2009, along with the damage caused by the associated marine coastal flooding. After the storm of December 1999

3. Managing natural coastal risk: from a preponderant role for the government to the emergence of collective action Since the beginning of the 19th century, three periods can be distinguished in terms of the principles and methods applied to managing natural coastal risks.

0.94 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.83

Channel

2006 1996 1986 1975 1962

1.97 1.85 1.74 1.66 1.47

Atlantic

3.1 2.92 2.87

Mediterranean 2.64 2.05

6.01 5.71 5.48

All coastal communities 5.23 4.35

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Million of inhabitants Fig. 1. The evolution of the permanent populations of coastal communities since 1962 (according to the INSEE Census and CETE estimations; millions of inhabitants) (CETE, 2007).

370

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

10000

Number of CatNat natural disaster declarations (Log. scale)

2676

2082

1000

118

90 100

39 20

15 10

7

6

5

2 1

2 1

1 1986

1990

1991

1995

1996

1997

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2008

2009

Year Fig. 2. Annual evolution of the number of CatNat declarations for natural coastal hazards Source: GASPAR database, Ministry of Ecology, June 2009.

3.1. From the 19th century to the 1990s e priority given to sea defenses and the control of natural hazards, supervised by the national government During this relatively long period, the principles for managing natural coastal risks were imposed under the influence of the great government administrations: the civil engineers of the General Highway and Bridges Council and the Public Works engineers ([33,34]). The desire to control coastal hazards by constructing coastal defense structures prevailed. The fundamental principles of the law of 16 September 1807 pertaining to “the drying of swamps, navigation works, highways, bridges, roads, squares and docks in the cities, dikes and sanitation works in the towns” were not called into question, thus establishing the general principle of the nonresponsibility of the national government and the non-obligation to execute or contribute to the financing of coastal defense structures. However, until the 1990s, the national government still participated actively in managing the shoreline’s evolution in the Maritime Public Domain [34]. In article 33 of the 1807 law, “when it is a question of constructing dikes to protect against the sea and/or navigable or non-navigable rivers and rapids, the necessity for these structures will be declared by the government, and the expense will be born by the properties protected in the proportion that they benefit from the structures, except in such cases as the government believes it useful and just to grant aid from public funds”. Until the end of the 1990s, the government did generally participate in the financing and construction of coastal defense structures, up to 10 to 30% of the total cost. Depending on the situation, complementary financing was provided by the communities, associations of property owners (according to the law of 21 June 1865), the departments and/or the regions. The construction of the first structures designed to stop coastal erosion and establish the position of the shoreline began as early as

the Middle Ages [35] and, with the creation of seaside resorts, became widespread all along the French coast during the 19th century [36]. According to Miossec [35], dikes, ripraps, drainage spurs and breakwaters represent an “all-military vision of protection that fits into the dual tradition of the civil engineers of the General Highway and Bridges Council and the Government Public Works Commission and the communities that wanted to avoid losing land from marine erosion”. The construction of these structures was also connected to storms events associated to significant damage along the shore (sea, river or lake) or coastal flooding [37]. These structures were designed help restore the shoreline and to prevent new disasters. For almost a century and a half, up until the 1990s, natural risks due to coastal erosion or coastal flooding were managed by these coastal defense practices. Controlling the hazard was the main objective, and the principle stakeholder was the national government, through its decentralized services (Infrastructure Ministry and the Departmental Infrastructure Division or maritime services). The territorial authorities were called on to finance the structures. 3.2. From the mid-1990s to 2005 e the emergence of a natural risk prevention policy based on controlling the stakes At the end of the 1990s, the government declared that it was impossible to intervene everywhere and that their strategies would no longer be defined uniquely based on knowledge of the hazards. In the 1990s, a natural risk prevention policy emerged based on controlling the growth of the stakes in the territories exposed to natural hazards. Prior to this period, measures were taken to attempt to control land use primarily in the zones at risk of flooding: for example, in 1935, the Flood Risk Plan (Submersible Surfaces Plan - PSS) was created, and in 1955, urbanism regulations specifically concerning construction in at-risk zones were initiated.

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

The 1982 law that created the CatNat regime mentioned previously also established Predictable Natural Risk Exposure Plans (PER), which were supposed to forbid construction in the zones most exposed to natural risks. In the mid 1990s, the implementation of these stake-controlling tools was evaluated and was found to have a negligible impact in coastal territories. For example, three PER were ordered in 1985 for three coastal communities in the Calvados areadVillers sur Mer, Houlgate and Auberville, situated along the Vaches Noires cliffsdand were only approved in 1993. The Barnier law of 2 February 1995 established the Predictable Natural Risk Prevention Plans (PPRn), considered today to be the main tool for preventing natural risks.9 PPRn are planning documents that establish three zones in the territory occupied by coastal communities, with land use and construction regulations that depend on the intensity of the natural hazard; in one of the three zones, construction is forbidden. The PPRn amount to a public utility easement and are attached to local zoning plans (PLU) that regulate the granting of land use authorizations. The procedure for developing and approving these PPRn is controlled by the national government. The hierarchy of the zones exposed to risk is primarily determined based on the reference definition of a hazard (i.e., a natural event whose extent serves as a reference for defining the zones likely to be touched and the risks likely to be encountered by people and property). The first methodological guide for elaborating PPRn concerned Coastal PPRn [28], which were designed to prevent the risks of shoreline erosion and coastal flooding. An administrative memo published in 200210 reviewed the government’s orientations for managing the evolving shoreline. Today, the 1807 law still underlines the non-responsibility of the national and/or local authorities with respect to the problems of coastal erosion. The territory of the coastal communities includes a terrestrial sector and a maritime sector (up to the limit of the territorial waters at 12 sea miles). The defense of the stability of the boundary between these two sectors (i.e., the shoreline) is not an obligation for the national and local authorities or even the owners of property on the coast. As well, the national government has no obligation to maintain the structure that it financed. The mayors of the coastal communities have the sole responsibility for the upkeep of the structures, corresponding to the exercise of police powers, which can be engaged in cases of danger to the populations exposed to erosion risk. However, mayors may use their municipal police powers to stop all dangers, with coastal defense structures coming under this responsibility. The general priority of the national government is to encourage operations that are part of an overall logic, with a cost-benefit assessment showing the pertinence of the prevention interventions and the property owner committing to monitor the evolution of the shoreline10. The change in the approach to describing and analyzing the principles and the methods for natural risk management doesn’t mean that the principles and the methods that were implemented for almost a century and a half were abandoned. The coastal defense practices designed to control to hazards were still used. However, a few changes should be mentioned:  Coastal defense practices were no longer the primary orientation for managing natural risks, so the government’s financing these operations evolved. For the government, "the

9 The PPRn procedure was set down in the decrees of 5 October 1995 and 4 January 2005. 10 Administrative memo of 30 April 2002 pertaining to the government policy for preventing predictable natural risks and for managing the land behind the dikes intended to protect against flooding and marine coastal flooding. 4 p. The MEDD’s Official Bulletin n 6 of 30 June 2002. May 2004 addendum.

371

context is no longer the systematic financing of coastal defenses12.  A December 1999 decree gave the prefects important latitude in determining the rate of subventions, which could reach 80% in total cumulated governmental aid. In return for this greater government participation in coastal defense works, the prefects were asked to favor exemplary operations, increasing the total subsidy for innovative projects and avoiding scattered efforts. The storms of 27 and 28 December 1999 were exceptionally severe on the Atlantic coast and caused a lot of damage [30]. As part of the global plan for dealing with the consequences of these storms, on 12 January 2000, the government decided to assign an estimated 24 million euros, subsidized up to 12 million euros, to emergency defense structures to protect against marine erosion of the inhabited zones. This public aid for coastal defense works reached 60 million euros between 2000 and 2006.  New techniques for coastal defense are being developed, in particular the resupplying of beach sediment ([38e40]) or the implementation of beach stabilization techniques using drainage methods ([41,42]) since several scientific studies have shown the harmful effects of these constructions on coastal system dynamics [19]. The 2002 administrative note from the Ministry of Ecology and the Infrastructure Ministry12 addressed the government’s logic for territorial development in coastal communities faced with natural risks, and the 2004 addendum reviewed the government’s role in coastal defense. The two primary objectives of the government were to forbid human settlements in the most dangerous zones and to reduce the vulnerability of these zones. The government also recalled its two main priorities: to save human lives and, through the CatNat insurance regime, to spread the costs of potential disasters so that these costs would not fall on the national authorities in cases of construction in the zones exposed to the greatest hazards. The Coastal PPRn is the tool that allows these objectives and priorities to be attained. The Ministries requested that prefects order Coastal PPRn, and in the zones with dikes/ seawalls/breakwaters considered to be most exposed to coastal flooding due to breaches in such structures, that they order them systematically. Fig. 3 shows the evolution of PPRn approvals in coastal communities. By 2007, 270 coastal communities had approved PPRn, which is 30% of the coastal communities in France. However, two-thirds of the PPRn were approved after 2004. Thus, the rhythm of PPRn approvals in coastal communities is relatively modest. In theory, the implementation of PPRn should reduce the vulnerability of the coastal territories and limit the cost of damage indemnified by the CatNat regime. However, several recent studies have shown an increase in human and economic vulnerability in coastal communities ([7e9]). In addition, the gap noted between the progression in the number of CatNat declarations, particularly after the storms in 1999, and the rhythm of PPRn approval has led to government to reinforce the link between the risk prevention policy and the CatNat regime that indemnifies natural disaster victims. The decrees of September 2000 imposed the principle of an adjustment of the deductible 1) in towns that didn’t order a PPRn for the risk that is the subject of the CatNat declaration and 2) in towns that didn’t approve a PPRn for the risk that is the subject of the CatNat declaration in the 5 years following the PPRn order. These new measures partially explain the progression in PPRn approvals since 2000 (Fig. 4). However, the new measures have also provoked an increase in the number of PPRn ordered, which greatly complicates the ranking of priorities and the work of the government services responsible for PPRn.

372

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

300

270 Number of Coastal PPRn approved

250

215 200

150

100

50

28 1

4

4

4

4

7

11

7

40

44

51

61

12

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year Fig. 3. The evolution of Predictable Natural Risk Prevention Plans for the coast (Coastal PPRn) approved in coastal communities (1992e2007). Source: GASPAR database, Ministry of Ecology, June 2009.

Fig. 4 shows the regional variation of the ordering and approval of Coastal PPRn, for each maritime coast and for each category of community. The first element that should be underlined is the sizeable gap between the coastal communities that are most exposed to risk and the inland coastal communities. The second element is the great number of PPRn approvals on the Mediterranean coast, which is largely ahead of the Atlantic coast and the Channel/North Sea coast. The shoreline where the least number of CatNat declaration have been made since 1982 has the largest number of PPRn approvals for all coastal communities. Fig. 5 allows

the gap between PPRn order year and PPRn approval year to be analyzed. Starting in 2001, there is a significant rise in PPRn orders; however, the number of PPRn approved is low. Except for the PPRn ordered in 1999 and 2000, the average length of the PPRn approval process is 4 years, with significant variations ranging from 1 to 8 years. The Barnier law also envisioned a new option for managing natural risks: retreating from the territory and/or abandoning the stakes by expropriating and indemnifying inhabitants if lives are threatened and if the means of preservation are more costly than

Coastal PPRn ordered Coastal PPRn approved

Inland coastal communities Coastal communities France Inland coastal communities Coastal communities Mediterranean coast Inland coastal communities Coastal communities Atlantic coast Inland coastal communities Coastal communities Channel/North Sea coast

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Number of PPRn

Fig. 4. The progression of Coastal PPRn ordered (in gray) and approved (in black) by the end of 2006 in France (Source: DATAR, 2004).

373

2010

2010

2005

2005

2000

2000

1995

1995 PPRn order year

PPRn approval year

1990

1990

1985

1985

1980

Années

Year

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

142929291717296262626262801717171717171717172933333333333329292929762929293030303030626262626262626262626262626262626262626262626262626262626262292929292980767680808080808080 9 171717171717171717

1980

Coastal Department Fig. 5. Comparison of the Coastal PPRn order year and the Coastal PPRn approval year (1985e2008) Source: GASPAR database, Ministry of Ecology, June 2009.

the expropriation indemnities. Common law rules notwithstanding, property evaluations are calculated based on the value of equivalent property situated in zones not exposed to risk. For coastal communities, this option, regulated within the context of the Major Natural Risk Prevention Fund (i.e., the Barnier Fund), can only be considered in cases of shoreline retreat and landslides affecting the coastal cliffs. Such an expropriation procedure was implemented at the end of the 1990s in Criel-sur-Mer (Seine-Maritime). Government expropriation of the habitations situated on cliff edge and thus exposed to a major natural risk (i.e., landslides) was declared a public utility measure.11 This expropriation procedure on the coast of Criel-surMer lasted 10 years, with the decision made to expropriate in 1996 and the demolitions finally executed between 2004 and 200612 [43]. This procedure is applicable for risks connected to the retreat of cliff faces, but excludes the risks connected to coastal flooding. The Barnier Fund is financed by a contribution based on a percentage of the CatNat insurance premiums. Initially set at 2%, the rate of this contribution has been regularly raised, moving from 2% to 4% in 2006, then to 8% in 2008,13 and finally to 12% in 2009.14

11 Decree of 28 February 2001 pertaining to the declaration of public utility for government expropriation of property exposed to the major natural risk of landslides. Official Journal of 25 March 2001, page 4712. 12 June 1996: Opening of expropriation file; June 1997: 1st version of a file taken into consideration; December 1997: Cliffside falls into the sea; February 1998: Declaration of imminent peril; March 2000: Ministerial agreement on the procedure; June 2000: public inquiry; February 2001: Public Utility declaration; 20022003: negotiation and procurement of the land; 2004-2006: demolition of the habitations and restoration of the cliffside. 13 Decree of 12 August 2008. 14 Decree of 4 March 2009.

Fig. 6 illustrates the ways that the Barnier Fund has been used since 1995. An evaluation of the use of the Barnier Fund resources was conducted in 2007 [44]. Initially designed to finance expropriation procedures, which aren’t the exclusive domain of coastal communities, ironically, the Barnier Fund has been relatively little solicited for such procedures. As of 2004, the Barnier Fund was used mostly for financing studies and natural risk prevention structures in the communities with PPRn. As of 2006, this fund was used to cofinance up to 75% of the execution of PPRn (up to 16 million euros/ year until the end of 2012), up to 50% of the cost of studies, and up to 25% of the cost of natural risk prevention structures in communities with PPRn, either ordered or approved. Using the financing from the Barnier Fund, “the MEEDDAT [i.e., the Ministry of Ecology] supports local authorities implementing natural risk prevention measures that mobilize diverse prevention assets: knowledge, monitoring, information, consideration of risk when planning, vulnerability reduction and feedback”.15 Starting in 2005, the mission of the Barnier Fund16 was extended beyond its initial mission to indemnify individuals involved in expropriation procedures. This extension added to the projects approved for financing missions related to the implementation of the natural risk prevention policies, which has provoked a financial imbalance every year since 2005. The increase in the Barnier Fund contribution to 8% and then to 12% of the CatNat insurance premiums

15 Response of the Minister of the Ecology, Sustainable Development and Planning (MEEDDAT) to a question from Senator Xavier Pintat (Gironde) on the creation of a specific fund for indemnities for marine erosion (question published in the Official Journal of the Senate, 19 July 2007; response published in the Official Journal of the Senate, 6 March 2007). 16 Seven laws enacted between 1995 and 2008 broadened the Barnier Fund’s range of intervention and the operations that could be financed.

374

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

2009 2008 2007 2006

Miliion euros

2005 2004

Balance

2003

Expenditures

2002

Prevention measures

2001

Co-financing of PPRn Studies and Protective Structures

2000

Expropriation, friendly acquisitions

1999

Receipts (i.e., contributions) 1998 1997 1996 1995 -100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

Year Fig. 6. Barnier Fund receipts and expenditures (1995e2009) (Source: 2009 Finance Law).

should allow the Fund receipts to cover its estimated expenditures, around 160 million euros/year. This amount was judged sufficient to reinforce the potential natural risk prevention operations, particularly in the context of article 39 of the bill for the Grenelle of the Environment. This extension of the range of operations that can be financed by the Barnier Fund poses the future problem of the relationship between the two strategies for indemnifying victims of natural disasters and preventing17 natural risks. The Bachelot law of 30 July 2003 pertaining to the prevention of technological and natural hazards and the compensation of the damage caused by them reinforced the participation of inhabitants in natural risk management. This evolution in participation was made more explicit in the next period and was part of the emerging collective action for natural coastal risk management. 3.3. From 2005 to today e the development of collective action for managing natural coastal risks 3.3.1. Collective action for managing natural coastal risks The most recent period, which can be considered to start in 2005, is marked by several contextual elements that don’t have a direct relationship with natural risk management, but are essential to the emergence of a new breach in the natural risk management policy. After breaking with the strategy that characterized the first period,

17 Senate Session of 4 February 2009, Discussion of the bill pertaining to the implementation of the Grenelle of the Environment [44].

moving from coastal defense practices for controlling natural hazards to natural risk prevention by controlling the stakes, this last period is marked by the emergence of collective action for managing natural coastal risks [45]. According to Froger & Méral [46], collective action represents “any action that necessitates the coordination of several agents to attain a common objective. . [These actions] result from the mobilization of a group of people who are conscious of their common interests and the advantages of defending them or of making them progress”. Today, the local risk prevention stakeholder’s arsenal involves sharing responsibility [47]. According to Juffé & Mazière [47], “This involves gathering diverse heterogeneous knowledge, establishing diagnoses and leading public meetings and debates with all the stakeholders, then proposing acceptable solutions that take into account real estate pressures, job and service creation and the general economy of the territories. The shared responsibility of the public authorities for the quality of life for all populations, current and future, is a growing dimension, [to be considered along] with the principle of sustainable development and the emergence of recent societal requirements that often associate the quality and safety of public and private spaces. The enlightened consideration of risk in territorial planning at various spatial and temporal scales assumes the definition of a global strategy, integrating a series of actions to be conducted: knowledge, forecasting, information, education, preventive measures [and] feedback.” Since 1995, coastal territorial development has gradually been incorporating the principles of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) [48]. The development modes for the French coast, related to

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

ICZM implementation, were spelled out at the July 2001 meeting of the Interministerial Territorial Planning and Development Committee (CIADT): The policy for the littoral proceeds “from a new philosophy based on the concept of integrated coastal zone management. This integrated management must henceforth go beyond the strictly legal and regulatory approaches based on constraints in order to promote project-based thinking and partnerships”. The CIADT meeting on 14 September 2004 gave more specific information: “ICZM aims to promote the implementation of integrated policies and the development of new local governance methods, based on partnerships, in the pertinent coastal territories.” These general principles, defined during the development of a new territorial planning policy for coastal France, also had consequences on the natural coastal risk management policies. In 2004, the Delegation for Territorial Planning and Regional Action (DATAR) published an important report that set down the context and the orientations of the new national, regional and local policies for the French littoral [9]. These policies were explicitly rooted in ICZM [9]. Following this report, a national call for proposals was launched in 2005, coordinated by the DATAR and Secretariat General of the Sea. The call for proposals was designed to solicit projects promoting balanced development in the coastal territories in an ICZM context [49]. In practice, the objective was to extend the government decentralization and deconcentration processes. Respecting the general principles of government natural risk management policies published in 2002, the regional strategies for natural coastal risk management appeared in the same period as the ICZM projects. A 2007 administrative memo from the MEEDDAT18 reminded the prefects about the consequences of the 2003 Bachelot law19 on the development of dialogue about the natural risk prevention policy, which meant consulting the population and the stakeholders and including the territorial authorities in the development of Predictable Natural Risk Prevention Plans (PPRn). A few of the principles on which the PPRn are based are presented below: - The natural risk prevention policy implies shared competency. The PPRn is one of the links in the policy chain, which to be effective must involve all territorial scales and be supported by the multiple territorial planning competencies and tools, while being a integral part of the public policies implemented in the territories. - The ordering, elaboration and approval of PPRn remain wholly the jurisdiction of the national government, but the communities or groups of communities must be associated in this PPRn procedure as a part of the global prevention measures linked to territorial planning, especially when defining the method for describing the reference hazards and taking into account the contextual elements of the development projects of the local authorities. - Before engaging on the PPRn procedure, the national government must develop a local prevention strategy with the authorities concerned by the future PPRn, which will later involve such operational tools as the PPRn. The local strategy must be based on a collective process of reflection and maturation involving the stakeholders and must be adapted to the territorial and political context.

18 The Ministry of Ecology (MEDAD), Administration for the prevention of pollution and risks, General Direction for Urbanism, Habitat and Construction, 3 July 2007, Consultation of the population and the stakeholders and the association of the territorial authorities in the development of Predictable Natural Risk Prevention Plans (PPRn), 6 p. 19 Law N 2003-699 of 30 July 2003 pertaining to the prevention of technological and natural hazards and the compensation of the damage caused by them.

375

A last important change in the natural coastal risk management policy is thus the change in the territorial scale for the implementation of the orientations defined by the government. For the last 10 years or so, the natural coastal risk management strategies have been implemented on the regional scale, according to the principle of subsidiarity. 3.3.2. Towards regional strategies for managing natural coastal risks: the example of Languedoc Roussillon and Nord/Pas-de-Calais Two examples are characteristic of this evolution towards the elaboration of natural coastal risk management strategies in the context of collective action on the regional scale. One is in the Languedoc Roussillon region and the other is in the Nord/Pas-deCalais region. 3.3.2.1. Languedoc Roussillon. As part of the work of the Interministerial Mission for the Development of the Languedoc Roussillon Littoral (created in 2001), the strategic orientations for managing coastal erosion in Languedoc Roussillon were defined in 2003 [50]. These orientations were validated by the group of stakeholders that emerged as part of the collective action previously mentioned. This group included the Littoral Mission, the maritime services of the Ministry of Infrastructure, the EID Méditerranée,20 the decentralized government services, the Regional Council, the Departmental Council, the Maritime Communities association, the Littoral Conservancy and the Rhône Méditerranée Water Agency. The orientations defined were first the subject of a dialogue with the local authorities and then were validated by these authorities. The proposed risk management methods included: modifying sediment transport, which is a traditional approach to coastal defense; and reinforcing or restoring the natural coastal system dynamic, which includes restoring dunes, resupplying sediment, strategic retreat by moving the stakes [51] and leaving the system be. Like some regions, Languedoc Roussillon adapted the methodological guide for Coastal PPRn to its regional conditions [52]. One coastal community, Villeneuve lès Maguelonne, adopted erosion management based on ICZM principles, adapting the management scenarios to local particularities, to development recommendations at the sedimentary level and to legal and administrative constraints [53]. 3.3.2.2. Nord/Pas-de-Calais. The Nord/Pas-de-Calais region is part of one of the 17 great projects in the State-Region contracts program (2007e2013). This project calls for developing a regional climate plan that integrates risk management strategies for dealing with coastal flooding [54]. Several projects were started: a detailed analysis of the current coastal flooding phenomenon, an analysis of the regional consequences of climate change for 2050 and 2100 based on existing research, and an analysis of the consequences of the coastal flooding hazard for 2050 and 2100. Local authorities also have initiated projects. For example, they have developed shoreline management strategies that conform to the ICZM principles, one of which is the Coastal Actions for Erosion Management Plan (PLAGE) coordinated by the Opal Coast Mixed Syndicate [55], which assembles the coastal intercommunal associations of the Nord/Pasde-Calais region. PLAGE aims to institute a more global and more long-lasting management of the littoral, promoting erosion risk prevention rather than emergency interventions. The objective of the PLAGE plan for shoreline preservation and management is to provide local authorities with a decision-aid tool. Several stakeholders have taken part in this tool’s creation: the decentralized government services, the departments, the

20 The Interdepartmental Entente for Mosquito Control on the Mediterranean Coast.

376

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

region, the Littoral Conservancy and scientific institutions, such as BRGM, IFREMER and ONF. This plan proposes changes in the risk management orientations and practices related to coastal erosion and coastal flooding in the Nord/Pas-de-Calais region. These changes include defining appropriate scales for intervention; changing mentalities by moving from a culture of fighting against erosion to managing erosion, to accepting the risk, to gauging the responses to the risk with respect to the value of the property threatened; promoting procedures for reflection and decisionmaking by the intercommunal associations in terms of defining community interest; and organizing the distribution of information to inhabitants and users. PLAGE proposes a schedule of shoreline management actions from now to 2012. These actions are founded on 3 principles: maintaining the position of the shoreline through the construction and upkeep of coastal defense structures; accepting the natural dynamic of the coastal system, which implies restoring the dunes, resupplying sediment to beaches and planning for a strategic withdrawal of the stakes on the coast; and letting the shoreline evolve without human intervention [55]. In April 2009, the Minister of Ecology gave a mission to the mayor of Sainte-Marie-de-la-Mer concerning shoreline management in Carmargue. This mission has three objectives: assessing the knowledge of the erosion phenomena, evaluating the solutions already implemented and examining innovative solutions. This mission confirms the change in scale for the development of natural coastal risk management strategies. 3.3.3. Managing natural coastal risks and uncertainty The context is also marked by uncertainty, which has contributed to the new orientations of the French natural coastal risk management policies. The notion of uncertainty can be used to evoke perspectives for the natural coastal risk management strategies. As defined by Godard et al. (2002), uncertainty is “an incapacity to determine a complete list of the possible results of the action”. Uncertainty is also a mark of complexity. Uncertainty affects several aspects of natural coastal risk management: there is uncertainty about the projected rise of the sea level due to climate change; there is uncertainty about the local impacts of the changes on a global scale; there is uncertainty about the socio-economic trajectories of the coastal territories. The work of the interministerial group, The Impacts of Climate Change ([56,57]), first published in 2001, detailed and analyzed the effects of climate change for the coastal territories. According to the various climate change scenarios, the estimated rise in the sea level by 2100 varies between þ9 cm and þ85 cm [56], with an average rise of around 47 cm, which is three times higher than the increase over the previous century. The GIEC research published in 2008, as well as various scientific research ([58,59]), explained in detail the consequences of the rise in the sea level for all the coastal territories. This rise could be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and the intensity of storms, which could in turn exacerbate the erosion processes and the risk of coastal flooding in low zones that today are protected by dikes. Helping define new strategies that integrate these perspectives on the rise in the sea level, research projects guide the orientation of the natural coastal risk management policies. The European Commission’s Eurosion Program ([22,60]) has formulated several recommendations for natural coastal risk management strategies in view of the rise in the sea level: - Reinforce the resistance of the coast by restoring the sedimentary balance; for this, it would be necessary to inventory the zones where the sediments are produced and to define such concepts as strategic sediment reserves.

- Take into account the cost of coastal erosion in development and investment decisions to limit to government’s responsibility for risk and damage compensation. - Anticipate coastal erosion and plan solutions to remedy the problem in the long term and not apply ad hoc solutions. - Consolidate the knowledge base with respect to coastal erosion planning and management. Coordinated by the BRGM, the EU LIFE ‘Response’ project, “Responding to the Risks from Climate Change in Coastal Zones by 2100” (2003e2006), has focused on the coast of Languedoc Roussillon because, due to climate change, more than 87% of the shoreline in this region will be exposed to erosion and coastal flooding during storms [59]. In 2004, the Littoral Conservancy studied the impact of climate change on its patrimony [58]. This research was based on the hypothesis of an average predictable rise in the sea level of 22 cm by 2050 and of 44 cm by 2100, values that are inside of the forecast range of 10e80 cm by 2100. The study shows that the effects of erosion, as well as flooding, seem to be limited for the total Conservancy patrimony, existing and future. Thus, only 3% of the surface of the Conservancy’s currently non-diked lands and only 2.6% of future land acquisitions will be exposed to flooding. The surface subject to erosion shouldn’t exceed 1.2% of the land already acquired, with a modest 1% of the land acquired in the future. Seven percent of the land already acquired and 17% of the land acquired in the future will be under the current levels of the open sea. The quality of the upkeep of the dikes that protect these surfaces will determine whether or not they are flooded by the sea. In the final analysis, the rise in the sea level expected during the 21st century should have a relatively modest impact on the Littoral Conservancy’s lands. However, this institution will have to take into consideration these new circumstances by adapting its management methods, especially those related to polders with fragile, poorly maintained dikes, and by potentially modifying its acquisition strategy. The projects, VULSACO and MISSEVA (2007e2010), in the program, “Vulnerability: environments, climate”, financed by the French National Research Agency (http://www.agence-nationalerecherche.fr/) seek to establish and estimate erosion and coastal flooding vulnerability indicators for low-lying sandy beaches on the temporal scale of 2030. These projects also seek to identify the aggravating and/or moderating role of human occupation of the coast in relation to this vulnerability. In March 2006, the Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development sent an administrative memo to its services about the importance of anticipating and adapting to climate change in coastal zones. This memo underlined “the necessity in some cases of implementing a strategic retreat or keeping some sections of the coast free of urban development projects whose impact would be irreversible”. This memo also recalled that “although the most visible consequences of climate change would affect people’s safety, the global consequences of climate change must be taken into account, such as the consequences for the evolution of coastal ecosystems”. Potential conflicts could develop related to the construction of models to define the risks of flooding and thus the future consequences of urbanization in coastal communities. 4. Conclusion The management of natural coastal risks, on-going over the last 2 centuries, has undergone important changes in its orientations, its methods and its organization in a relatively short period: the last decade. In the end, these rapid changes forced the appearance of a new management culture, one that allows a form of coconstruction of policies and strategies to be developed by all the

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378

stakeholders involved in managing natural coastal risks. Taking into account the heritage and the customs of natural risk management dominated by the national government and the huge change in the government’s role requires a period of adaptation. Stakeholders in the coastal territories also require a period of adaptation to become accustomed to the perspective of climate change and its consequences on the rise in the sea level. This perspective adds new constraints for territorial planning, with high development stakes in anticipation of these consequences. The existing tools for managing natural risks will probably not be sufficient to integrate this complexity. In addition, the government has probably not sufficiently well organized the emerging collective action. In the conclusion of an article published in 1995 [34], Miossec pondered the implementation of a French coastal defense policy on the scale of the coastal territories, underlining the importance of conducting global coastal defense studies, especially in the department of the Manche. The question of government financing for this type of study was posed. The response came, not from the government per se, but from the Barnier Fund for the prevention of major natural risks, financed by contributions based on a percentage of property insurance premiums. The relationship between the various measures of the natural risk prevention policies and the indemnification of natural disaster victims should be clarified. The elected officials in coastal communities are very involved in defining natural risk prevention strategies, which play a huge role in the future development of their territories [41]. The debates organized during the 2009 Grenelle of the Sea provided orientations that should be analyzed. The development of natural risk management strategies, elaborated and defined with input from a number of stakeholders, poses the problem of the appropriateness of national orientations for local specificities. Reinforcing natural risk prevention is part of the stakeholder input process, initiated in 2008 by the Grenelle of the Environment and the work of the operations committee for the integrated management of the sea and the coast.21 Article 30 of the Grenelle bill pertaining to the reinforcement of major risk prevention actions and the work of the 2009 Grenelle of the Sea should specify several aspects of natural coastal risk management. In 2010, a national strategic directive for the sea and the coast should also propose the general principles and the orientations for managing natural coastal risks. The development of research about incorporating the perceptions or representations of natural coastal risk into the management strategies should help in the elaboration of these policies ([61,62]). References [1] Corlay J-P. Géographie sociale, géographie du littoral. Norois 1995;165:247e65. [2] Corbin A. Le territoire du vide, L’Occident et le désir de rivage 1750-1840. Paris: Flammarion; 1988. 407. [3] Paskoff R. Côtes en danger. Paris: Masson; 1993. 250. [4] Robin M, Verger F. Pendant la protection, l’urbanisation continue. Les Cahiers du Conservatoire du littoral 1996;13:48. [5] Institut Français de l’Environnement (IFEN). La pression de la construction ne se relâche pas sur le littoral métropolitain. Les données de l’environnement 2000;55:1e4. [6] Thumerelle P.- J. L’attrait de la mer sur le peuplement. In: GAMBLIN A, editor. Les littoraux espaces de vies, 23. SEDES: Dossiers des Images Economiques du Monde; 1998. p. 11e8. [7] Bétouis A, Jean P, Cols S. Démographie et économie du littoral, Les dossiers de l’Observatoire du Littoral, INSEE. Observatoire du Littoral; 2009:20. [8] Meeddat, CETE Méditerranée. L’évolution des territoires littoraux 1986e2006. Paris; 2007. p. 81. [9] DATAR (dir) Bouyer C, Allet C, Babillot P, Bersani C, Bessy P, Colas S, et al. Construire ensemble un développement équilibré du littoral. La Documentation Française; 2004:157.

21 Grenelle of the Environment, Operations Committee Report n 12 “Integrated Management of the Sea and the Coast”, July 2008, 37 p.

377

[10] Aernouts D, Héquette A. L’évolution du rivage et des petits-fonds en baie de Wissant pendant le XXe siècle (Pas-de-Calais, France). Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 2006;1:49e64. [11] Battiau-Queney Y, Fauchois J, Deboudt P, Lanoy-Ratel P. Beach-dune systems in a macrotidal environment along the Northern French coast (English channel and Southern North sea). Journal of Coastal Research 2001;34:580e92. [12] Battiau-Queney Y, Billet JF, Chaverot S, Lanoy-Ratel P. Recent shoreline mobility and geomorphologic evolution of macrotidal sandy beaches in the north of France. Marine Geology 2003;194:31e45. [13] Costa S, Lageat Y, Hénaff A, Delahaye D, Plessis E. Origine de la variabilité spatiale du recul des falaises crayeuses du nord-ouest du Bassin de Paris. L’exemple du littoral haut-normand (France). Hommes et Terres du Nord 2003;1:22e31. [14] Hénaff A, Lageat Y, Costa S, Plessis E. Le recul des falaises crayeuses du Pays de Caux: détermination des processus d’érosion et quantification des rythmes d’évolution. Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 2002;2:107e18. [15] Sabatier F, Suanez S. Shoreline changes of the Rhone delta coast since the end of the 19th century. Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 2003;4:283e300. [16] Sabatier F, Anthony EJ, Héquette A, Suanez S, Musereau J, Ruz MH, et al. Morphodynamics of beach/dune systems: examples from the coast of France. Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 2009;1:3e22. [17] Paskoff R. Les littoraux sableux et dunaires: de l’abondance à la pénurie de sédiments. Bulletin de l’Association de Géographes Français 2004;3:373e82. [18] Miossec A. Les sociétés contemporaines face à l’élévation du niveau de la mer. Annales de géographie 1998a;600:201e19. [19] Paskoff R. Les littoraux. Impact des aménagements sur leur évolution. Paris: Armand Colin; 1998. 260. [20] Ifen. Un quart du littoral français recule du fait de l’érosion. Le 4 Pages 2006;113:1e4. [21] IFEN. Analyse statistique et cartographique de l’érosion marine. Les Dossiers de l’IFEN 2007;6:39. [22] European Commission. Living with coastal erosion in Europe. Sediments and spaces for sustainability. Luxembourg; 2004. p. 21. [23] Meur-Férec C. L’occupation du littoral, ou le choix d’investir un territoire à risques. Éléments de réflexion. Océanis 2002;28(1e2):115e37. [24] Meur-Férec C. De la dynamique naturelle à la gestion intégrée de l’espace littoral: un itinéraire de géographe. Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, géographie, Université de Nantes; 2006. 247. [25] Meur-Férec C, Deboudt Ph, Morel V. Coastal risks in France: an integrated method for evaluating vulnerability. Journal of Coastal Resarch 2008;24 (2):178e89. [26] Meur-Férec C, Morel V. L’érosion sur la frange côtière: un exemple de gestion des risques. Nature Sciences et Sociétés 2004;12:263e73. [27] Morel V, Deboudt P, Hellequin P, Herbert V, Meur-Férec C. Regard rétrospectif sur l’étude des risques en géographie à partir des publications universitaires (1980e2004). L’Information Géographique 2006;70(1):6e24. [28] Plans de prévention des risques naturels littoraux (PPRn). Guide méthodologique. La documentation française. Paris: MATE (Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement), Ministère de l’Équipement, des Transports et du Logement; 1997. 54. [29] Dumas P, Chavarot A, Legrand H, Macaire A, Dimitrov C, Martin X, et al. Mission d’enquête sur le régime d’indemnisation des victimes de catastrophes naturelles. Paris: Conseil Général des Ponts et Chaussées; 2005. 756. [30] Salomon J.- N. L’inondation dans la basse vallée de la Garonne et l’estuaire de la Gironde lors de la tempête du siècle (27e28 décembre 1999). Géomorphologie: Relief, Processus, Environnement 2002;2:127e34. [31] Gélard P. L’application de la loi littoral: pour une mutualisation de l’aménagement du territoire, Groupe de travail sur l’application de la loi littoral de la Commission des affaires économiques et de la Commission des lois. Sénat 2004;421:95. [32] Le Guen J. Pour un retour à l’esprit de la loi littoral. Rapport d’information parlementaire à l’Assemblée Nationale, 1740. Paris: Conclusion des travaux de la mission d’information présidée par L.Deprez; 2004. 99. [33] Miossec A. La gestion de la nature littorale en France atlantique, étude comparative (Royaume-Uni, Pays-Bas, Espagne, États-Unis), 1. Brest: Thèse de doctorat ès Lettres; 1993. 469. [34] Miossec A. Le traitement du recul de la ligne de rivage en France: pratiques sociales autour d’un problème de nature. Norois 1995;165:153e72. [35] Miossec A. La question du recul des côtes. Mappemonde 1998;52:1e6. [36] Deboudt P. Géo-histoire de la lutte contre l’érosion côtière sur le littoral du Pas-de-Calais. In: Malézieux J, editor. Le milieu littoral. Paris: Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques; 2002. p. 221e37. Coord. [37] Deboudt P. Les hommes et la lutte contre l’érosion côtière sur le littoral de Sangatte (Pas-de-Calais, France). Revue de Géographie de Lyon 1999;1:65e74. [38] Cohen O, Anthony EJ. Gravel beach erosion and nourishment in Nice, French Riviera. Méditerranée 2007;108:99e103. [39] Fichaut B, Suanez S. Le rechargement de la plage de Sainte-Anne du Portzic (Brest-Finistère): quand la recherche fondamentale se met au service d’une gestion cohérente du littoral. Norois 2008;3:29e44. [40] Pupier-Dauchez S, et al. Le rechargement sédimentaire des plages vendéennes et charentaises: vers une gestion globale du littoral? In: Deboudt P, Deldrève V, Flanquart H, Hellequin A-P, Herbert V, Longuépée J, editors. Actes

378

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

P. Deboudt / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 366e378 du colloque international pluridisicplinaire Le littoral: subir, dire, agir, 11. Lille, http://www.meshs.fr/documents/pdf/publications/actes/colloque_ littoral/Pupier-Dauchez.pdf; 2008. ANEL. De la défense contre la mer à la gestion durable du système côtier. Actes des Journées d’Etudes de l’Association Nationale des Elus du Littoral (ANEL), Toreilles; 2006. p. 106. Lambert A, Rey V, Provensal M, Samat O, Sabatier F. Lutte contre l’érosion littorale: efficacité Méditerranée des méthodes de stabilisation par drainage de plage, le cas de la baie d’Agay. Méditerranée 2007;108:105e17. Mauger J. Expropriation, indemnisation: le cas de Criel-sur-Mer, in: aNEL. De la défense contre la mer à la gestion durable du système côtier, Actes des Journées d’Etudes de l’Association Nationale des Elus du Littoral (ANEL). Toreilles; 2006:91e7. Hélias A, Laurens D, Mazière B, Chauvière JY. L’utilisation du fonds de prévention des risques naturels majeurs. Paris: Conseil général des Ponts et Chaussées, Inspection Générale de l’Environnement; 2007. 71. Herbert V, et Petit(dir.) O, Beaurin C, maillefert M, Masson E, Meur-Férec C, et al. Risque environnementale et action collective. Application aux risques industriels et d’érosion côtière dans le Pas-de-Calais. Lille: IFRESI; 2008. 122 pp. Froger G, Méral P. Des mécanismes de l’action collective aux perspectives pour les politiques d’environnement. In: Froger G, Méral P, editors. Gouvernance. Action collective et politiques d’environnement, Bâle, Genève, Helbing & Lichtenhahn. Economie Ecologique; 2002. p. 9e24. Juffé M, Mazière B. Le jeu des acteurs locaux de la prévention des risques: vers un nouveau partage des responsabilités. Paris: Conseil Général des Ponts et Chaussées; 2008. 96. Deboudt Ph, Dauvin J-C, Lozachmeur O. Recent developments in coastal zone management in France: the transition towards integrated coastal zone management (1973e2007). Ocean and Coastal Management 2008;51 (3):212e28. Meur-Ferec C. La GIZC à l’épreuve du terrain: premier enseignements d’une expérience française. Développement durable et territoire 28 septembre 2007;Varia, http://developpementdurable.revues.org/document4471.html. Mission Interministérielle d’Aménagement Littoral Languedoc Roussillon (MIALLR). Orientations stratégiques pour la gestion de l’érosion en Langedoc Roussillon, Montpellier; 2003. p. 24. Autric F. Le recul stratégique: le cas du lido de Sète-Marseillan, in: aNEL. De la défense contre la mer à la gestion durable du système côtier, Actes des

[52]

[53]

[54] [55] [56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

Journées d’Etudes de l’Association Nationale des Elus du Littoral (ANEL). Toreilles; 2006:97e103. DIREN Languedoc Roussillon. Guide d’élaboration des PPR submersion marine en Languedoc Roussillon, 12; 2008, http://www.pole-lagunes.org/web/pdf_ files/Guide%20PPR%20submersion%20octobre%202008_309Ko.pdf; 2008. Rey-Valette H, Carbonnel P, Roussel S, Richard A. L’apport de la gestion intégrée des zones côtières (GIZC) à la gestion de l’érosion côtière: intérêt et exemple en Méditerranée française. VertigO 21 Décembre 2006;7(3), http:// vertigo.revues.org/index2529.html. Pascal M. La lutte contre les submersions marines: une priorité pour la région. Air Pur 2007;72:21e3. Plan Littoral d’Actions pour la Gestion de l’Erosion. Lille: Smco, Région NordPas-de-Calais, Ministère de l’Equipement, MEDD; 2003. 185. GIEC. Changes in sea level. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, Van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Mskell K, Johnson CA, editors. Climate change. The scientific basis, 11. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001. p. 641e93. Meeddat, Onerc. (Observatoire National sur les effets du Réchauffement climatique), Groupe interministériel Impacts du changement climatique, adaptation et coûts associés en France. Paris: Impacts du changement climatique, adaptation et coûts associés en France; 2008. 247. Clus-Auby C, Paskoff R, Verger F. Le patrimoine foncier du Conservatoire du Littoral et le changement climatique: scénarios d’évolution par érosion et submersion. Annales de Géographie 2006;648:115e32. Vinchon C, Aubie S, Balouin Y, Closset L, Garcin M, Idier D, et al. Anticipate response of climate change on coastal risks at regional scale in Aquitaine and Languedoc Roussillon (France). Ocean and Coastal Management 2009;52 (1):47e56. Ferreira M. Les recommandations du programme européen EUROSION, in: de la défense contre la mer à la gestion durable du système côtier. Actes des Journées d’Etudes de l’Association Nationale des Elus du Littoral (ANEL). Toreilles; 2006:25e9. Deboudt P, Flanquart H. Recherche interdisciplinaire en sciences humaines et sociales sur l’évaluation de la vulnérabilité des territoires côtiers au risque d’érosion. In: Galochet M, Longuépée J, Morel V, Petit(Dir.) O, editors. L’environnement. Discours et pratiques interdisciplinaires. Arras: Presses Universitaires de l’Université d’Artois; 2008. p. 247e71. Roussel S, Rey-Valette H, Henichart L-M, Pi Alperin M-N. Perception des risques côtiers et gestion intégrée des zones côtières (GIZC). La Houille Blanche 2009;2:67e74.