Adapting to climate change: "If we don't change our vision, we will continue to increase France's deficit," pleads MP Fabrice Barusseau.

Fabrice Barusseau, a Socialist Party (PS) member of parliament for Charente-Maritime, is the co-author of a parliamentary report on adaptation to climate change, which stresses the urgent need to act to avoid huge costs in the future.

Co -written by Fabrice Barusseau, the Socialist Party MP for the third constituency in the east of the department, and Philippe Fait (Ensemble, Pas-de-Calais), the parliamentary report on "adapting regional planning to climate change" culminates several months of work that included a multitude of hearings and trips. For example, in Saintes on the subject of flooding and in Gabut, in La Rochelle, on the subject of submersion. Submitted on June 5, this thick document calls for a rapid change of gear from decision-makers. Interview with Fabrice Barusseau.

Has the need to adapt to climate change really permeated the political ranks?

The need to mitigate climate change is pretty much on everyone's mind, perhaps with the exception of the National Rally. However, adaptation is not yet integrated into all our policies, nor into the priorities of elected officials. Our recommendations also include training for elected officials on this topic each time they take office. A significant effort must be made on the eve of the discussions that will begin at the state level for the preparation of the 2026 budget. The stakes are high for our economy.

For reasons related to the cost of disasters?

The successive disasters are costing us more and more. The figures speak for themselves: compensation for damage has increased almost tenfold in ten years . With rules that are out of step with what should be done. A simple example: when renovating a house after a flood, the insurance code prescribes that it be done identically. This is an aberration that must be stopped. In the same vein, communities and individuals alike are under threat of no longer being able to insure against flooding in Saintes and throughout the Charente basin, due to the recurrence of disasters. In the case where an insurer makes the effort to participate in work to adapt a home to climate change, it must be able to find its way around. However, today, you can change insurers every year. We recommend that the insurer have a guarantee of retaining its client for a period to be determined. It's a give-and-take.

You warn against "maladaptation," which consists of adopting irrelevant remedies, especially by the sea. On this subject, what is your view of the Charente-Maritime dike plan? Is it a good adaptation?

There are territories that absolutely must be protected from submersion due to the density of the populations who live there. In certain areas, we must erect protections, it's inevitable. The obvious example is La Rochelle . There are others. On certain areas, I am a little more reserved. Should we protect bays that are doomed to disappear in the long term, with dikes that will cost us an enormous amount? I believe that we sometimes have to accept giving up. In any case, we won't be able to protect ourselves everywhere. Then there is the problem of agricultural land. Should we also dike them? But in Charente-Maritime, we have a more obvious example of maladaptation.

Which ?

The observation is valid in our department as in others: we deployed the fiber optic network very quickly by slashing prices. Particularly in rural areas, it was designed to be aerial. We know full well that at the first major storm, it will be on the ground. At that point, we might ask ourselves whether to bury it. If we had understood from the start that the fiber optic network would be strategic, including in the event of a crisis, we would have buried it everywhere.

Should the Coastal Law, which prohibits urban discontinuities, be amended?

First of all, it must be said that coastal defense is not a territorial issue, it is a national issue. We cannot leave local authorities alone to face the problem; the State must absolutely take charge of it. Furthermore, it is clear that flexibility must be introduced into urban planning regulations related to the coast, whether it is the Coastal Law or the ZAN (Zero Net Artificialization) Law. While we are going to lose land to the sea, we must be able to mobilize hectares inland to relocate people, businesses, and all economic activity. The issue must be considered according to the territories. In Pas-de-Calais as on the island of Oléron, erosion will have major consequences . Local authorities must be able to adapt.

You advocate the creation of a coastal erosion fund to help local authorities facing coastal retreat. Why?

My colleague Sophie Panonacle (Ensemble, Gironde) tried this for several years in a row during the budget debate. The last time, her attempt was swept aside by the use of Article 49.3. Yet this fund is essential. We are proposing to take revenue from offshore wind turbines, which will generate large dividends. We can still take a very modest portion to finance adaptation to the retreating coastline.

Don't your conclusions go against the spirit of the times, which opposes any form of regulation?

Our report was unanimously approved by the Assembly's Sustainable Development Committee, including by representatives of the National Rally (RN). In my opinion, we cannot have this position in committee and then have another, radically different one in the chamber, by abolishing the ZAN and the ZFE (low-emission zones). Elected officials must demonstrate consistency and break with the short-termism that has persisted for years. We owe it our 1,300 billion debt. If we don't change our vision, we will continue to increase France's deficit. Adapting to climate change must, on the contrary, serve as a lever to build a budget for the future. Let's stop the tearful speeches when we talk about climate change, so we can forget about it when we get to the heart of the matter.