Réindustrialisation Fos Berre : adapter la surveillance de la qualité de l’air est impératif !

The industrial landscape of the Fos-Berre basin, a cornerstone of the French economy and a vital hub for petrochemical and maritime logistics, is currently undergoing a massive transformation. As part of a national drive toward "reindustrialization" and "decarbonization," the region is attracting billions of euros in new infrastructure projects. However, a coalition of ten prominent environmental and health advocacy groups has raised a significant alarm: they argue that this industrial expansion is proceeding without a commensurate, robust framework for monitoring public health and air quality.

The central tension lies in the mismatch between the industrial scale of the zone—which encompasses some of the largest oil refineries and chemical processing plants in Europe—and a local air monitoring network that activists claim has been systematically weakened over the past fifteen years.

A Chronology of Structural Erosion

The current controversy is rooted in a long-term trend of administrative consolidation that has, according to local observers, prioritized efficiency over granular data collection. Since 2011, the air quality monitoring network in the Bouches-du-Rhône department has seen the permanent closure of 24 fixed monitoring stations.

This reduction has been particularly acute in the western part of the department, precisely where the most intensive industrial activities are clustered. For residents living in the shadow of the industrial chimneys, the removal of these sensors represents a "blackout" of real-time data. Between 2011 and 2025, while the industrial output of the Fos-Berre area fluctuated, the density of the sensor network designed to track the dispersion of pollutants dropped significantly.

The concern is not merely about the number of stations, but the sophistication of the technology employed. The coalition highlights that the current setup is ill-equipped to track Ultra Fine Particles (UFPs), which are increasingly recognized by the scientific community as the most dangerous pollutants due to their ability to penetrate deep into the human bloodstream and cross the blood-brain barrier. Furthermore, substances categorized as high-risk, such as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) and heavy metals like cadmium, are not currently subject to the rigorous, continuous, and systematic monitoring that local stakeholders demand.

Scientific Disconnects and Methodological Limitations

A significant portion of the frustration stems from what the signatories call a "striking contrast" between official state narratives regarding the safety of the industrial environment and the lived experience of the population, often corroborated by independent studies.

Organizations such as the Institut Écocitoyen pour la Connaissance des Pollutions and the EPSEAL (Participatory Health-Environment Study Anchored Locally) have provided data that frequently conflicts with state-sanctioned assessments. The coalition points to three specific studies—SCENARI 2, REVELA 13, and BIS—to illustrate their concerns.

The SCENARI 2 study is criticized for relying heavily on "theoretical health risks" calculated from emission averages self-reported by industrial operators. Critics argue that this approach fails to account for the cumulative, real-world impact of multiple, simultaneous exposures. By relying on averages, the model effectively "smooths out" the data, hiding the reality of acute, high-exposure events that occur during plant malfunctions or specific meteorological conditions.

Similarly, the REVELA 13 project, which focused on specific cancer types like kidney and bladder cancers and acute leukemias, is viewed as too narrow in scope. While it provided valuable data on specific pathologies, the coalition argues that it fails to paint a holistic picture of the environmental health landscape. Many common health indicators—such as neurodegenerative diseases, respiratory and pancreatic cancers, cardiovascular health, and developmental disorders—remain largely uninvestigated in the context of the region’s air quality.

The Missing Piece: The "One Health" Approach

The French government has officially adopted the "One Health" framework, which recognizes that the health of people is closely connected to the health of animals and our shared environment. Yet, the coalition of environmental groups argues that this policy remains purely aspirational in the Fos-Berre basin.

They point to the total lack of assessment regarding bioaccumulation and the potential for zoonotic diseases that could arise from the destruction of local biodiversity to make room for new industrial projects. The "exposome"—the totality of environmental exposures an individual experiences throughout their life—is completely ignored in the current assessment protocols. By only looking at single pollutants in isolation, authorities fail to account for the "cocktail effect," where the synergistic interaction of multiple chemicals can be significantly more toxic than the sum of its parts.

Official Silence and Institutional Deadlock

The frustration is exacerbated by a perceived lack of transparency and engagement from high-level officials. Correspondence sent by the advocacy groups on March 24, as well as inquiries from European Parliament member Nora Mebarek on May 6, have reportedly gone unanswered.

For the signatories, this silence is paradoxical. If the state is confident that the new industrial projects are "virtuous" and environmentally sound, the coalition asks why the government is hesitant to implement a state-of-the-art, transparent monitoring system that would provide the public with the data they need to feel safe.

The current reliance on annual average concentrations is, according to the group, fundamentally misleading. "Averages are a tool for policy-makers, not a tool for public health," one representative noted. For a person living downwind of a facility, the annual average is irrelevant if they are subjected to dangerous spikes in pollution during a two-hour window on a Tuesday morning.

The Path Forward: A Call for Co-Construction

The coalition is not calling for an end to industrial activity, but for a fundamental shift in how that activity is monitored. They are demanding a "permanent, independent, and transparent" monitoring system that involves all local stakeholders.

Key demands include:

1. Restoration of Monitoring Density: Re-evaluating the map of fixed stations to ensure that the areas with the highest industrial density are appropriately covered.
2. Advanced Pollutant Tracking: Incorporating continuous, real-time monitoring of ultra-fine particles and persistent organic pollutants like PFAS.
3. Broadened Health Indicators: Expanding epidemiological studies to include neurological, cardiovascular, and developmental health impacts.
4. Data Transparency: Establishing a publicly accessible platform where real-time air quality data is clearly communicated, particularly to vulnerable populations (the elderly, children, and those with respiratory conditions).
5. Synergistic Analysis: Moving beyond single-pollutant models to assess the cumulative, long-term impact of the entire industrial park on the local ecosystem.

Broader Implications for Industrial Policy

The situation in Fos-Berre serves as a litmus test for France’s broader industrial strategy. As the country pushes to re-shore critical industries, it must balance economic imperatives with the fundamental right of its citizens to a healthy environment.

If the state continues to resist calls for more granular monitoring, it risks a collapse in public trust. This distrust could manifest in legal challenges, social unrest, and a general cooling of public support for future industrial projects. Conversely, investing in a world-class, transparent monitoring network could set a new European standard for "green industrialization," proving that high-tech manufacturing and public health are not mutually exclusive.

The ten associations—ranging from the Association Santé Environnement France to the Collectif Cistude—represent a broad cross-section of civil society. Their unified stance suggests that the debate over air quality in Fos-Berre will not dissipate. As the construction cranes move into place, the pressure is mounting on the prefecture and the regional authorities to move beyond outdated models and provide the scientific accountability that a project of this magnitude requires.

The debate in Fos-Berre is not just about air quality; it is about the governance of industrial transformation in the 21st century. The outcome will likely influence how similar "green" industrial projects are managed across the European Union, making the case for increased transparency and rigorous health-based monitoring more urgent than ever.