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

The industrial landscape of the Fos-Berre zone, a historic powerhouse of the French economy located in the Bouches-du-Rhône department, is currently undergoing a massive transformation. As part of a national strategy to secure energy sovereignty and accelerate the green transition, the region is seeing a surge of new, large-scale industrial projects. However, this push for "re-industrialization" and decarbonization has ignited a fierce debate among local environmental associations, health experts, and industrial stakeholders. At the heart of the controversy is a critical concern: the current air quality monitoring infrastructure is allegedly inadequate to handle the environmental and public health risks posed by this renewed industrial density.

A Legacy of Industrial Risk and Modern Expansion

The Fos-Berre region has long been characterized by its concentration of petrochemical, steel, and maritime logistics facilities. For decades, residents have lived in the shadow of major industrial hubs, often expressing concerns regarding the cumulative impact of chemical emissions on their long-term health. The current "re-industrialization" phase aims to modernize these sites, introducing new technologies meant to lower carbon footprints. Yet, a coalition of ten major environmental associations, including France Nature Environnement PACA and the Association Santé Environnement France, argues that this evolution is proceeding in a state of general unpreparedness.

The core of the issue lies in the degradation of the monitoring network. Between 2011 and 2025, the region saw the closure of 24 fixed air-quality measurement stations. This reduction in the sensor density is particularly alarming in the western part of the department, where the highest concentration of both legacy industries and new infrastructure projects is situated. For the affected communities, the decrease in monitoring capability is seen as a direct contradiction to the public health rhetoric promoted by industrial developers and state officials.

Technical Deficiencies in Monitoring

The concerns raised by the civil society coalition are rooted in specific technical deficiencies. First, the current network struggles to accurately track Ultra Fine Particles (UFPs). Scientific literature has consistently identified UFPs as some of the most dangerous pollutants due to their ability to penetrate deep into the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, and potentially even the brain. Despite their known toxicity, the local monitoring framework lacks the sensitivity and coverage required to provide real-time, granular data on UFP concentrations.

Furthermore, several high-risk chemical groups, such as Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—often dubbed "forever chemicals"—and heavy metals like cadmium, are not currently subject to continuous, specific monitoring. The absence of this data prevents public health authorities from assessing the true exposure levels of the surrounding population. The reliance on annual average concentrations is another point of contention; experts argue that these averages "smooth out" peak pollution events, effectively masking the short-term, acute exposure that can trigger health crises or long-term systemic damage in vulnerable individuals.

The Conflict Between Official Studies and Local Reality

A significant point of friction is the perceived contrast between the findings of major state-backed studies and the lived experience of the population. The coalition points to three key reports—SCENARI 2, REVELA 13, and the "Bassins Industriels et Santé" (BIS) study—as being fundamentally limited in scope.

SCENARI 2, for instance, relies heavily on theoretical health risks calculated from emission averages self-declared by industrial operators. Critics argue that this approach fails to account for the actual health status of local residents, nor does it factor in the synergistic effects of multiple pollutants combined. Similarly, the REVELA 13 study, which focused primarily on kidney cancer, bladder cancer, and acute leukemia, is viewed as too narrow to provide a comprehensive picture of the complex health environment.

The associations highlight that numerous health indicators are being ignored entirely, including neurodegenerative diseases, pancreatic cancers, cardiovascular conditions, and cognitive development disorders in children. By failing to investigate these specific pathologies, the state is accused of neglecting the holistic "One Health" approach—a framework that recognizes that human, animal, and environmental health are inextricably linked.

A Chronology of Unanswered Appeals

The frustration of local advocacy groups has reached a boiling point due to a lack of institutional responsiveness. The timeline of their attempts to engage with the authorities reveals a breakdown in communication:

• March 24, 2026: A formal letter was sent to the Prefect of the region, detailing the technical shortcomings of the current air monitoring network and requesting an urgent meeting to discuss necessary upgrades.
• May 6, 2026: European Parliament member Nora Mebarek intervened, formally soliciting the authorities to address the concerns regarding the monitoring gaps in the Fos-Berre industrial expansion.
• Present Day: Both inquiries remain unanswered. The silence from the regional prefecture is perceived by the signatories as a disregard for the public health stakes of the industrial projects currently under review.

Broader Implications: The "One Health" Challenge

The situation in Fos-Berre is emblematic of a broader struggle in France regarding the transparency of industrial planning. The "One Health" concept, which was a centerpiece of the April 2026 Lyon summit, emphasizes that environmental degradation—including the loss of biodiversity and the risk of zoonotic diseases—must be factored into industrial impact assessments.

The coalition argues that the current planning process for the Fos-Berre re-industrialization ignores the concept of the "exposome"—the measure of all the exposures of an individual in a lifetime and how those exposures relate to health. By assessing projects in isolation rather than through a cumulative, multi-pollutant lens, the current regulatory framework fails to provide a safeguard for the thousands of people living in the vicinity of these industrial zones.

Moving Toward a Sustainable Monitoring Model

To bridge the gap between industrial ambition and public trust, the coalition is calling for an immediate, systemic change. They propose the establishment of a multi-stakeholder monitoring body that includes local citizens, environmental scientists, and independent health experts. This new governance model would be responsible for:

1. Re-deploying Monitoring Infrastructure: Re-installing high-precision sensors in areas where industrial expansion is densest.
2. Broadening the Scope of Analysis: Moving beyond standard pollutants to include real-time monitoring of UFPs, PFAS, and heavy metals.
3. Adopting a "Cumulative Exposure" Metric: Transitioning away from annual averages toward high-frequency, event-based data that reflects the actual daily exposure of residents.
4. Transparency and Public Access: Creating a centralized, open-access platform where real-time air quality data is available to the public, particularly for schools and hospitals.

The "virtuous" nature of decarbonization and industrial renewal, as marketed by proponents, is increasingly being challenged by the lack of scientific rigor in monitoring. For the residents of Fos-Berre, the promise of a "green" industry rings hollow if it is not accompanied by the most fundamental right of all: the right to breathe clean air and the right to have one’s health protected by accurate, transparent, and comprehensive data.

As the industrial projects move forward, the pressure on the state to respond will likely mount. The failure to address these concerns does not merely threaten public health; it undermines the democratic process of public debate, potentially jeopardizing the very social license required to complete these vital industrial transformations. The call for a "durable, transparent, and comprehensive" monitoring system is not just a request from local associations—it is a baseline requirement for any industrial strategy that claims to be sustainable and socially responsible in the 21st century.