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

The industrial landscape of the Fos-Berre region in Southern France stands at a critical juncture. As national and European authorities push for an ambitious program of "reindustrialization" and "decarbonization," a coalition of environmental and health advocacy groups has raised urgent concerns regarding the region’s existing air quality monitoring infrastructure. The central argument presented by these organizations is that the current diagnostic framework is fundamentally ill-equipped to assess the environmental and public health impacts of the massive industrial expansion currently underway.

The Context of Industrial Transformation

Fos-sur-Mer, located near the Etang de Berre, has long served as one of Europe’s most significant industrial hubs. The region hosts major chemical, petrochemical, and steel manufacturing plants. The current government plan for the "Green Reindustrialization" of the area aims to modernize existing facilities while introducing new, lower-carbon technologies. However, local associations—including France Nature Environnement PACA, the Association Santé Environnement France, and others—argue that this push for industrial renewal is moving forward in a state of general unpreparedness regarding health monitoring.

The core of the dispute lies in the transition from traditional industrial output to new processes that, while potentially more carbon-efficient, may introduce different chemical signatures into the atmosphere. The critics argue that the regulatory framework for monitoring these changes has remained stagnant, or in some instances, has regressed.

A Chronology of Declining Oversight

According to data provided by the signatory associations, the local air quality monitoring network has seen a significant reduction in capacity over the last decade and a half. Between 2011 and 2025, twenty-four fixed measurement stations were closed, particularly in the western part of the department. This area, which houses the highest concentration of both legacy industries and new industrial projects, is now subject to less dense monitoring than it was fourteen years ago.

For residents and environmental researchers, this reduction in physical infrastructure represents a significant blind spot. The monitoring gaps are not merely about the number of stations; they extend to the nature of the pollutants being measured. The coalition points to the persistent lack of specific, permanent tracking for highly toxic substances such as Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and heavy metals like cadmium. Furthermore, the measurement of ultrafine particles (UFP)—which are widely considered by toxicologists to be the most hazardous to human health due to their ability to penetrate deep into the respiratory and cardiovascular systems—remains severely limited.

Methodological Critique: The Limits of Current Studies

The debate is further complicated by the scientific studies currently used to assess the health of the local population. Government-backed research, such as the SCENARI 2, REVELA 13, and the "Bassins Industriels et Santé" (BIS) study, have been criticized for their reliance on theoretical models rather than empirical health data.

SCENARI 2, for instance, evaluates health risks based on theoretical emissions provided by industrial operators themselves. It relies on annual averages, a methodology that critics argue fails to account for "peak" exposure events that often trigger immediate health issues in surrounding neighborhoods. By "smoothing" the data over a 12-month period, these reports effectively mask the reality of the daily toxic burden borne by the residents of Fos-sur-Mer and its neighboring towns.

Similarly, the REVELA 13 study, which focused on specific cancer incidences, is viewed as too narrow in its scope. By limiting its investigation to kidney cancer, bladder cancer, and acute leukemia, the study excludes a broader spectrum of conditions increasingly linked to industrial pollution in scientific literature. Researchers and local advocates are calling for the inclusion of indicators such as neurodegenerative diseases, cardiovascular ailments, respiratory chronic illnesses, and cognitive disorders, which are notably absent from current official assessments.

The "One Health" Gap

The discrepancy between the government’s commitment to the "One Health" approach—which recognizes that human health is inextricably linked to the health of animals and the environment—and the actual monitoring practices on the ground is a point of significant contention.

The coalition argues that current industrial assessments ignore the cumulative effects of pollution, including bioaccumulation in the food chain and the potential for zoonotic diseases resulting from the degradation of local biodiversity. By treating industrial emissions as isolated incidents rather than a comprehensive, long-term "exposome" (the measure of all the exposures of an individual in a lifetime), the current regulatory framework fails to provide a holistic view of the public health risk.

Lack of Institutional Engagement

Tensions have been exacerbated by a perceived lack of transparency and communication from regional authorities. The signatory associations report that a letter sent to the Prefect of the region on March 24, as well as a subsequent inquiry by European Parliament member Nora Mebarek on May 6, have remained unanswered.

For the advocacy groups, this silence is difficult to reconcile with the scale of the industrial projects being approved. "It is inconceivable," the coalition stated, "that a project of such magnitude—touted as virtuous on several counts—is not accompanied by a system of monitoring and analysis of air quality that meets the same high standards of excellence."

The Need for Real-Time, Permanent Surveillance

The demand from the community is clear: they are calling for the implementation of a permanent, transparent, and comprehensive monitoring system. This system, they argue, should not just satisfy regulatory checklists but should serve as a tool for public information and scientific research.

Specifically, the advocates are calling for:

• Continuous Measurement: Moving away from annual averages toward real-time monitoring to better protect vulnerable populations during peak pollution events.
• Expansion of Pollutant Targets: Integrating permanent monitoring for PFAS, heavy metals, and ultrafine particles.
• Collaborative Governance: Establishing a forum that includes local stakeholders, independent scientists, and industrial representatives to co-design the monitoring network.
• Inclusion of Cognitive and Chronic Health Indicators: Broadening the scope of epidemiological studies to include the full range of health risks identified in recent international scientific research.

Broader Implications for Industrial Policy

The situation in Fos-Berre serves as a microcosm for a wider European challenge: how to reconcile the urgent need for industrial sovereignty and energy transition with the fundamental rights of local populations to live in a healthy environment.

The reliance on industrial self-declaration and theoretical models is increasingly being challenged by citizens who demand data-driven, independent, and transparent oversight. As the European Union moves toward stricter air quality standards and higher environmental compliance, the "Fos-Berre model" of oversight faces a reckoning. The failure to integrate robust health monitoring into the initial phases of industrial planning not only risks public trust but may also create legal and operational liabilities for the industries themselves, as regulatory requirements are likely to tighten in the coming years.

The call from the coalition is not necessarily a demand to stop reindustrialization, but a demand to "reindustrialize responsibly." As the projects in Fos-Berre advance, the question remains whether the authorities will choose to prioritize a data-transparent, health-centric approach or continue with the current model of limited oversight. For the residents of the Golfe de Fos, the answer to this question is not merely a policy preference—it is a matter of long-term public health.

Signatory Organizations:

• Association Santé Environnement France
• Association de défense et de Protection du Golfe de Fos
• Agir pour la Crau
• Au Fil du Rhône
• Collectif Cistude
• Fédération d’Action Régionale pour l’Environnement
• France Nature Environnement PACA
• Mouvement Citoyen de Tous Bord, Golfe de Fos Environnement
• Nature et Citoyenneté Crau Camargue Alpilles
• Vigueirat Nature

Notes on Data and References:

1. Compte rendu débat public Fos Berre Provence un avenir industriel en débat, Partie 7.
2. Avis de l’Agence relatif aux suites à donner à l’observatoire REVELA 13 après avis du comité d’experts Santé Environnement Travail, Santé Publique France, 11 décembre 2024.
3. Scientific sources cited include: Jeanne Duchesne (2022) on cognitive aging; Durou A. (2021) on neurological effects of air pollution; and Zhang and Al (2025) on Lewy body dementia and air pollutants.
4. References the "One Health" summit, Lyon, April 2026.