Eco-design of Marine Infrastructures. Sylvain Pioch
addition, states may request the extension of their EEZ to a maximum distance of 350 nautical miles, depending on the geomorphology of their continental shelf (geological continuity extension). However, the principle of free access, of mare liberum, always prevails beyond EEZs on the high seas. It is a free commodity that belongs to no one, does not fall under the sovereignty of any state and is not subject to any appropriation regime, nor to governance (res nullius). The threats to fish stocks are therefore still very real. In contrast, it is within the framework of the UNCLOS that a new notable status was established for the sea, that of a World Heritage Site. The founding act of this idea was the speech made in 1967 by Arvid Pardo, Maltese Ambassador to the United Nations (UN 1967, 22nd session, meeting 1515). He was the first to defend the idea that the seabed and its subsoil should be defined as a world heritage site: a space of goods belonging to all humanity and, therefore, removed from the exclusive appropriation of states.
The principle was confirmed by Declaration 2749 (XXV), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1970, and then definitively endorsed in the 1982 Montego Bay International Convention on the Law of the Sea, which created a special legal regime applicable to the seabed and its subsoil beyond the EEZ. In this part of the sea, called the “zone” (Figure 1.8), states or industrialists are allowed to explore or exploit mineral resources upon approval by the International Seabed Authority. However, at the same time, the mechanism proposed that an organization called “The Enterprise” (never defined) would exploit the same quantities as the industrialists (another principle of equivalence), but for the benefit of developing countries. A beautiful vision, but which in fact has not yet given rise to any “repayment” of the exploitation of this immense area, for the development aid of the planet, by an exploiting industrialist. Technical problems or timid philanthropism?
It is indeed this general principle of a public “asset”, under the sea, which influences the development of its coastline. It also establishes a binding obligation, applied to the right to develop the coastal sea: the reversibility of the works and the return of the developed natural environment to a state equivalent to its initial state. The concessions or self-authorization to use the nPMD (environment) are therefore temporary, ranging from a few months (beach concessions) to several decades (ports, offshore wind farms).
This “maritime condition”, in particular of the use of the marine environment, introduces a central point: the responsibility of the state in the management and thus the compensation for the damage made to this environment (or domain, due to its attachment to the state). The notion of ownership, which carries with it an obligation of management vis-à-vis society, by calling into question the responsibility of a “polluter” or developer owner, becomes confused in the face of the size and sovereign position of a state that certainly manages, but which “self-controls” (Pioch 2008). Moreover, in a context of decreasing state resources, how can we guarantee effective control of the implementation of compensatory measures? How can we monitor them? Should these legitimate objectives be transferred to marine environment management organizations that have already been delegated by the state, and, if so, how can we succeed, within a constant financial perimeter, in requesting new missions of the field agents of the French Office for Biodiversity, the office de la biodiversité (formerly the agence des aires marines protégées, the French Marine Protected Areas Agency) or the conservatoire des espaces littoraux et des rivages lacustres (CELRL, the French Coastline and Shoreline Conservation Authority)?
Added to this is the difficulty inherent in monitoring the “underwater world”, where the human is a temporary guest and where the degradation of an underwater landscape (still a vaguely defined concept) is not so familiar.
1.6.2. Managing the marine environment: a necessarily integrated approach
At the maritime level, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), adopted in 2008, is a European directive that establishes a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy.
This directive is based on a so-called “ecosystem approach”: it aims to achieve a good ecological status for the marine environment by 2020 and to improve the conservation status of marine biodiversity from 2015. The main motivation of the directive is to combat the many threats to the marine environment, such as:
– the depletion or degradation of biological diversity and changes in its structure;
– habitat loss;
– contamination by hazardous substances and nutrients;
– the impacts of climate change.
These points require a global framework to coordinate the local actions of member states.
In contrast, as early as 1975, the Council of Europe recommended a global treatment of the coastline. A European coastal charter was signed by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions in 1982. Chapter 17 of Agenda 21, adopted at the Rio Conference in 1992, recommends ICZM, linked to the protection of the marine environment. An ICZM approach aims to enable a global approach to a coastal territory by taking into account the physical context (geomorphology, weather, tides, marine currents, etc.), the ecological and biogeographical context, the socio-economic context and the legal-administrative context. The integration sought concerns, in particular, the sectoral (interactions between actors), environmental (ecosystem approach), geographical and biogeographical dimensions, as well as the integration of governance (participation of all the actors concerned in the decision), which is an essential dimension. The final objective of ICZM is to build structures and regulatory instruments that will make it possible to guarantee or restore the balance between human activities and human and natural resources, in order to avoid overexploiting resources that are not slightly, easily, slowly or expensively renewable, especially fisheries and tourism resources, with the general aim of ensuring the sustainability of development.
In France, the Coastal Act, adopted in 1986 (Act no. 86-2 of January 3, 1986 relating to the development, protection and enhancement of the coastline), constitutes the reference text for the organization of sustainable development of coastal areas. Let us briefly recall its main objectives, which are:
– the protection of biological and ecological balances, the preservation of sites, landscapes and the cultural and natural heritage of the coastline;
– the preservation and development of economic activities related to the proximity of water;
– the implementation of a research and innovation effort on the particularities and resources of the coastline.
This act applies to municipalities bordering seas and oceans, salt ponds and inland water bodies with an area of more than 1,000 hectares. The municipalities bordering the PMD are considered to be those bordering the sea and the ocean. Consequently, in estuaries, only the municipalities located downstream from the transverse limit of the sea (the limit between the PMD and the public river domain) belong to this category of “coastal municipalities” by right.
Outside of the already urbanized areas, all construction is prohibited in a strip of 100 m from the high limit of the shoreline. This 100 m strip constitutes a minimum which can, through the application of Article L. 146-4-III C. Urb., be extended by the local urban plan, when the sensitivity to the environment or the erosion of the coasts justifies it. This prohibition does not apply to installations requiring the immediate proximity of water. Beyond that, in the areas close to the shore, a regime of limited extension of urban development is provided for. Notable and characteristic areas of the coastal municipalities are preserved by a strict regime of inconstructibility. Implementation of these principles must be completed by the plans for the development of the sea.
Among the normal uses of the PMD between which the administration has to arbitrate, we can mention:
– the implementation of port and maritime safety works;
– the use of beaches for bathing;