Competing Knowledges and Sovereignties in the French Pacific Oceanscapes

In France, the notion of “deep‐sea/deep‐seabed” (“grands fonds marins”) has emerged fairly recently in public policy discourse, and in particular in the wake of the 2009 Grenelle de la Mer, which marked the French government’s desire for an integrated maritime policy. The Grenelle de la Mer is a public process of reflection and negotiation between the French government, elected representatives, economic and professional stakeholders in maritime affairs, and civil society, organized by the French Ministry for Sustainable Development and the Sea. Grenelle refers to the collective negotiation, initiated by the government in May 1968, with representatives of trade unions and industrial organizations, and held at the Ministry of Labor Headquarters in Grenelle Street in Paris. A national strategy regarding the deep‐sea was developed in 2015 and updated in 2020 through a working group led by the General Secretariat for the Sea (under the authority of the prime minister), in which the authors of this article participated. This working group was made up of representatives from the relevant ministries, research institutes, and industry via the French Maritime Cluster. The French overseas territories were absent, even though the areas in question were mainly located in the French Pacific, which accounts for around two‐thirds of the French exclusive economic zone (68%, 6.9 out of 10.2 million km2 ). In addition, New Caledonia and French Polynesia have jurisdiction over their exclusive economic zones while Wallis‐and‐Futuna has no formal sovereignty in this area. France’s maritime policy, and in particular its deep‐sea strategy, is indicative of the relationship between the French state and its overseas territories, particularly in Oceania, marked by disregard, tension, and instrumentalization. This dynamic also extends to the knowledge issue and the lack of recognition of Indigenous voices in these matters. This article will analyze this situation of epistemic injustice while underscoring the differences and commonalities in the three territories’ trajectories regarding the interplay between sovereignty, environment, indigeneity, and development.