202
a knowledge-management and decision-making
tool that would federate the different data providers and develop a global management plan,
focusing on estuarine habitat restoration
(Lozachmeur and Dauvin 2008 ). An analysis of
the mode of governance was carried out to
develop a tool for data centralisation and
decision- making support.
1
The Grenelle forum on the Seine estuary
(2008–2009), organised by the association of
elected offi cials from the communes on both
sides of the downstream part of the estuary, gave
rise to a wide debate among all the actors of the
territory. This forum was a local manifestation of
the national Grenelle approach concerning
French policy on the environment, which allowed
us to identify the specifi cities of the territory and
the issues at stake. The Grenelle forum on the
Seine estuary organised more than 15 workshops
to share knowledge and discuss the future of the
estuary and gave additional food for thought
on the future challenges and governance of the
territory.
2
So, by the end of the year 2000, there was an
accumulation of projects and studies that took
stock of the high level of scientifi c knowledge on
the Seine estuary and its degradation, as well as
the multiplication of regulations on a complex
transitional territory between landscape and
seascape, involving mainly the natural heritage,
users, stakeholders, policymakers, etc. All of the
actors agreed with the need to establish a shared
global management of the estuary.
4
The 2010s: A Time
of Disappointment
After a decade of optimistic and integrative
shared approaches towards an ecosystem-based
management, the end of the years 2000 and the
early 2010 saw a period of disillusionment and
self-interest on the part of managers of natural
heritage zones. This was probably due to external
factors such as the international economic crisis
1 http://www.aurh.fr/ ; http://seine-aval.crihan.fr
2 http://www.aurh.fr/animation/le-grenelle-de-l-estuaire/
of 2008 and the reduction of harbour activities
but also the emergence of new French regulations, new sectoral management plans and a new
vision of the French state for the Seine valley territory, as well as the appearance of new actors in
the eastern part of the Bay of Seine in relation to
the disposal of dredged sediment, the implementation of offshore wind farms and new aggregate
extraction areas.
The Law No 2008-660 of 4 July 2008 concerning harbour reform gave increased responsibilities on environmental space management to
the harbours at Le Havre and Rouen (each of
which became a ‘grand port maritime’). The article L. 101-3.-I. stipulated that, within their territory limit, harbours should integrate sustainable
development in the management and conservation of the marine public domain and the natural
areas of which they are owners or which are allocated to harbours.
Following the Law of 4 July 2008, the scientifi c committee of the Seine estuary was created
in the place of the scientifi c and technical committee; its role is to have an overview on all questions concerning the natural heritage and
management of the estuary. Both the Le Havre
and Rouen harbour authorities manage their own
territories, especially their natural heritage. Both
harbours (Le Havre and Rouen) are responsible
for drafting their own natural heritage management plan and setting up separate scientifi c and
technical committees. Every 5 years, both harbours submit a strategic project (for 2009–2013,
and then 2014–2019) with an environmental section, presented in two separate documents, called
the ‘Plan de Gestion des Espaces naturels, PGEN’
for the Rouen harbour and ‘Schéma de
Développement du Port et de la nature, SDPN’
for the Le Havre harbour. Figure 2 illustrates the
complexity of drawing up the SDPN for Le Havre
Harbour in compliance with all the French and
European regulations. Nevertheless, the three
main harbours of the Seine valley (Paris, Rouen
and Le Havre) have created a single economic
entity known as HAROPA to ensure a better
international competition with other major northern European harbours. But, so far, HAROPA has
not developed an integrated vision of a single
J.-C. Dauvin
a knowledge-management and decision-making
tool that would federate the different data providers and develop a global management plan,
focusing on estuarine habitat restoration
(Lozachmeur and Dauvin 2008 ). An analysis of
the mode of governance was carried out to
develop a tool for data centralisation and
decision- making support.
1
The Grenelle forum on the Seine estuary
(2008–2009), organised by the association of
elected offi cials from the communes on both
sides of the downstream part of the estuary, gave
rise to a wide debate among all the actors of the
territory. This forum was a local manifestation of
the national Grenelle approach concerning
French policy on the environment, which allowed
us to identify the specifi cities of the territory and
the issues at stake. The Grenelle forum on the
Seine estuary organised more than 15 workshops
to share knowledge and discuss the future of the
estuary and gave additional food for thought
on the future challenges and governance of the
territory.
2
So, by the end of the year 2000, there was an
accumulation of projects and studies that took
stock of the high level of scientifi c knowledge on
the Seine estuary and its degradation, as well as
the multiplication of regulations on a complex
transitional territory between landscape and
seascape, involving mainly the natural heritage,
users, stakeholders, policymakers, etc. All of the
actors agreed with the need to establish a shared
global management of the estuary.
4
The 2010s: A Time
of Disappointment
After a decade of optimistic and integrative
shared approaches towards an ecosystem-based
management, the end of the years 2000 and the
early 2010 saw a period of disillusionment and
self-interest on the part of managers of natural
heritage zones. This was probably due to external
factors such as the international economic crisis
1 http://www.aurh.fr/ ; http://seine-aval.crihan.fr
2 http://www.aurh.fr/animation/le-grenelle-de-l-estuaire/
of 2008 and the reduction of harbour activities
but also the emergence of new French regulations, new sectoral management plans and a new
vision of the French state for the Seine valley territory, as well as the appearance of new actors in
the eastern part of the Bay of Seine in relation to
the disposal of dredged sediment, the implementation of offshore wind farms and new aggregate
extraction areas.
The Law No 2008-660 of 4 July 2008 concerning harbour reform gave increased responsibilities on environmental space management to
the harbours at Le Havre and Rouen (each of
which became a ‘grand port maritime’). The article L. 101-3.-I. stipulated that, within their territory limit, harbours should integrate sustainable
development in the management and conservation of the marine public domain and the natural
areas of which they are owners or which are allocated to harbours.
Following the Law of 4 July 2008, the scientifi c committee of the Seine estuary was created
in the place of the scientifi c and technical committee; its role is to have an overview on all questions concerning the natural heritage and
management of the estuary. Both the Le Havre
and Rouen harbour authorities manage their own
territories, especially their natural heritage. Both
harbours (Le Havre and Rouen) are responsible
for drafting their own natural heritage management plan and setting up separate scientifi c and
technical committees. Every 5 years, both harbours submit a strategic project (for 2009–2013,
and then 2014–2019) with an environmental section, presented in two separate documents, called
the ‘Plan de Gestion des Espaces naturels, PGEN’
for the Rouen harbour and ‘Schéma de
Développement du Port et de la nature, SDPN’
for the Le Havre harbour. Figure 2 illustrates the
complexity of drawing up the SDPN for Le Havre
Harbour in compliance with all the French and
European regulations. Nevertheless, the three
main harbours of the Seine valley (Paris, Rouen
and Le Havre) have created a single economic
entity known as HAROPA to ensure a better
international competition with other major northern European harbours. But, so far, HAROPA has
not developed an integrated vision of a single
J.-C. Dauvin