April 2014
abstract
Responsabilité & Environnement
A qui appartiennent les territoires ?
Issue editor:
Marie-Josèphe CARRIEU-COSTA
Issue 74
Editorial
By Pierre COUVEINHES
Rédacteur en Chef des Annales des Mines
1 – What is a “territory”?
Regions, geographical units, or territories? Hesitations among French geographers
By Robert MARCONIS
Professeur émérite de Géographie, Laboratoire Lisst-Cieu, Centre Interdisciplinaire d’études urbaines, UMR 5193, Université de Toulouse
The French school of geography has compelled recognition by describing the planet’s natural and cultural diversity. It has shed light on the complex relations between people and their natural environment at the scale of “territories”, which were called “regions”. This mainly empirical approach came under question during the 1960s when geography laid claim to being a “science of space”. Priority was given to theoretical considerations for research into the processes of organizing “terrestrial space” with the aim of identifying structures and understanding the driving forces. However this geographical space, understood as a part of the social system, led many researchers to concentrate not on “space” in general, but on the spatiosocial processes that differentiate it, in other words on concepts related to territoriality and territorial subdivisions.
To whom do “territories” belong?
By Jean-Louis GUIGOU
Délégué général de l’Institut de Prospective Économique du Monde méditerranéen (IPEMED)
Territories as inhabited “spaces” — metropolitan areas, technopoles, districts… — are escaping ever more from state control. They increasingly “belong” to citizens and inhabitants, who see them as a common good, and to the firms working there.
Minerals and landed property
By Alain LIGER
Ingénieur général des Mines, Conseil général de l’Économie, de l’Industrie, de l’Énergie et des Technologies (CGE)
Under French law, minerals are partly at the landowner’s disposal. However the law lists the minerals about which the state can take measures without indemnifying landowners and without their agreement. The origins of this lie far back in the past. Well before the 1810 Napoleonic mining law, royal edicts subjected the attribution of rights for working mines to the king, not to feudal lords. This is the prevailing situation with regard to mining legislation around the world, even in major mining countries. The United States and United Kingdom are the major exceptions, but only partly so.
In the context of globalization, who owns farmland?
By Valéry ELISSÉEFF
Ingénieur agronome de l’ENSA de Rennes et membre de la Société Française d’Économie Rurale
The increasing worldwide demand for food and agricultural products in general is putting pressure on factors of production, in particular on the land. Strategies centered on farmland are being designed for ensuring a secure food supply. They range from largescale investments in certain countries to full control by agribusinesses over what lies upstream in the chain of agricultural production. Even though farmland is still, in the main, worked by farmers, another form of agriculture is emerging everywhere around the world.
The land and localities, investing in the future
By Laure MÉNÉTRIER
Ingénieurs des Mines
Given layoffs, plant relocations, offshore operations and the decline of manufacturing in general, the mass media and public opinion are pointing a finger at big industry for its predatory behavior. Even as multinational corporations are relocating plants, using them like a mere means in the quest to maximize profit, some big industrial groups have decided to invest in the land and back local networks of small and midsize businesses. Which groups are doing this? What are their intentions and means of action? What impact will their interventions have on the land and local authorities? Based on the thesis written by these two engineering students, this description of the actions, motivations and interests of these groups seeks to understand why their local initiatives, though durable, are still of moderate scope.
National and planetary heritages: From things to territories
By Alain MARINOS
Architecte et urbaniste, Conservateur général du patrimoine.
The more our society advances in the process of globalization, the more traditions and heritages arouse interest at various levels: concern for the quality of the constructed environment, the growth of tourism… and even manifestations of a sense of identity. Given the population’s growing interest, we are led to look beyond “things” and envision the “territory” as a heritage. Given current legislation and regulations, the upsurge in this demand for a heritage is mainly reflected in the ever growing need for “protection” and “labels”, which now concerns two-thirds of French communes. Are the means designed in the 19th and 20th centuries in response to these needs adapted to current demands? The state’s role is still fundamental in this domain. Since the French Revolution, its responsibility has been grounded on the concept of the “nation’s common legacy”, which emerged in the context of the “Declaration on the Rights of Man and of Citizens”. Should we now change the measures related to protection and labeling? Might doing this not be tantamount to opening Pandora’s box?
Europe, between a profusion of territorial subdivisions and models of territorial organization
By Christophe QUÉVA
Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, UMR Géographie-Cités 8504.
Despite major differences in their geographical organization, countries in Europe are characterized by a convergence that raises questions about the European Union’s potential role as a disseminator of models of territorial organization. EU regional policy implies that each member state should have an infranational level capable of managing and distributing the funds allotted by the Union. In new member states, joining the Union entails forming new “regions”. Reforms conducted at the local level in member states, both old and new, seem to converge toward a model for making local territorial units bigger by merging communes or forming intercommunal authorities. The stakes in this possible EU model of territorial organization are analyzed; and its limit, examined given the profusion of territorial subdivisions in Europe.
2 – Cooperation and conflicts between stakeholders
The territory as a unit of management
By Nathalie RAULET-CROSET
Docteur en Sciences de Gestion, Maître de Conférences à l’Institut d’administration des entreprises (IAE) de l’Université Paris 1 et chercheur au PREG-CRG de l’École polytechnique
When talking about territorial subdivisions, political and administrative, in France, we mainly think of the overlapping levels of action and resulting tangle of conflicts. Although that fact is not to be ignored, another approach leads us to wonder about the reasons underlying the many layers of territorial subdivisions. Analyzing the delimitation of territorial units is an issue for public authorities, especially in matters of cooperation among the numerous players at the local level. The choice of a territorial unit for an intervention often comes down to a question of geographical proximity. However it also prescribes a de facto subdivision or grouping of the units that stakeholders in a given area have already defined. On the borderline between “prescribed” and “constructed” geographical subdivisions, the territorial subdivision emerges as something to manage — a scene of action, a basis of governance and an aggregation of resources. Seeing it as a unit of management leads us to understand it as a form of “territorial organization” that, in a given geographical space, connects a set of diverse (human and geographical) resources involving technology, skills and knowledge.
Debates about the local future: The example of plans for preventing technological risks in the ProvenceAlpes-Côte d’Azur Region
By Thibaud NORMAND
Ingénieur des Mines, chef du service Prévention des risques à la direction régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement de Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur
As foreseen by the 2003 act and imposed by the central government on local authorities, risk-prevention plans (for the installation of a new manufacturing plant, for instance), have spurred lively debate among inhabitants and local authorities about the future of local areas. In some cases, opposition has arisen to the plans. As a close look at a few conflicts discovers, such debates center more around technical reports or legal principles than on the acceptability of the risk under consideration or the arrangements to be made in areas located near the plant. Is it possible to move beyond these conflicts and, together, devote thought to the local future and industry in local areas?
The urban/harbor synergy in the revitalization of blighted port zones
By Jean-Marc LACAVE
Président directeur général de Météo-France, ex-directeur général du Port du Havre et de la SNCM
The use of containers, which started in the 1960s, has had a deep impact on needs in terms of the infrastructure, equipment and management of seaports. This phenomenon has led to the multiplication of vacant lots and blighted zones around harbors. Various strategies have been pursued for revitalizing these zones. This article focuses on a strategy of concerted actions by local stakeholders that, beyond the issue of urban renewal, raises question about a productive mixture of port-related and urban activities.
Transportation and energy networks: Who is in charge of territorial subdivisions?
By Christophe BOUNEAU
Professeur d’histoire économique à l’Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Christophe Bouneau, professor of economic history at the University of Bordeaux Montaigne, Michel Derdevet, associate professor at the Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris, professor at College of Europe in Bruges, and Jean-Baptiste Galland, director of Stratégie, ERDF Even as administrative subdivisions of the territory are being stacked on top each other, questions arise about the future orientation of network industries (energy, transportation, communications, etc.) and the economy in general. It is worthwhile examining the historical relevance of territorial subdivisions, some of which are redundant, many of which stem from old, obsolete rationales. A set of orientations adapted to the issues we will be facing tomorrow can be formulated, namely: the requirement for more flexibility so as to free action, adapt to new configurations, generate a competitive edge and social equilibrium, and make our local and national economies more ambitious.
Concentrate research and attract the creative? A policy critique grounded on empirical studies
By Bastien BERNELA
Centre de Recherche sur l’Intégration Économique et Financière (CRIEF), Université de Poitiers
Two major ideas are examined that underlie discussions about the relations between research and local or regional authorities. For one thing, should research be concentrated in a few territorial subdivisions, a concentration supposedly indispensable for improving the performance of organizations? For another, how to boost the mobility of researchers? These two ideas cast doubt on many an empirical study.
The current meaning and relevance of territorial subdivisions: Networks vs. territories?
By Anolga RODIONOFF
Maître de Conférences en Sciences de l’Information et de la Communication, habilitée à diriger des recherches à l’Université Paris VIII
The omnipresence of information and communication technology (in particular, data transmission networks) in and on territorial subdivisions is a cause of astonishment, worry or, on the contrary, enthusiasm. Questions about this technology’s impact on local authorities were being asked in 1970-1980. Contrary to expectations, the actual practices — and not just those previously imagined — related to this technology are reshaping territorial subdivisions in a context of globalization instead of shunning them. Such is the case of financial technology. There is a polarization as physical space is doubled by virtual space. In both cases, relations are essential; and geographical territories are, we might say, “seized by the virtual”. This reshaping of the territory has consequences, as parts of it are isolated from global cities, where wealth and power are concentrated. This new geographical situation raises questions having less to do with techniques and technology than with society and politics.