Coquerel's summer inquiry Costs, funding and limits

Jul 22–Aug 1

In the Finance Committee, chair and rapporteur Éric Coquerel presents the flash inquiry into the cost of summer 2026 heat, drought and wildfires, followed by the complete questions and answers with Sophie-Laurence Roy, Christine Arrighi, Emmanuel Mandon and Emmanuel Fouquart. He says the remit expanded as the summer worsened, with 34 hearings and 22 written contributions. Some official figures were unavailable during the September work; he criticizes missing education data and cautious agency testimony, while praising precise requests from Météo-France and civil protection. He says a promised ministerial cost assessment has not appeared. Coquerel puts the cost at a minimum €16 billion: at least €3 billion in lost growth, an associated €1.5 billion deficit effect, over €2.5 billion in emergency public spending, at least €500 million in household asset losses and €800 million affecting household budgets. The only business losses quantified are farming unions' estimates of at least €10 billion. These are his inquiry's figures, not a comprehensive independently verified total. In answers he explains that biodiversity losses are acknowledged but unpriced for lack of evidence, and mortality is excluded from the total because of disagreement about valuing human lives; including some mortality estimates would raise the total to €33 billion. He supplies an €80 million SNCF estimate omitted from his opening, and says RTE/EDF describe €40 billion in energy adaptation as already planned and budgeted, which he accepted on their account. He recommends €8.75–12.3 billion in additional public spending, including €8.4–11.9 billion from the 2027 state budget, and pledges budget amendments. Proposals include annual INSEE measurement and research; more Météo-France and ONF staff; help for low-income households with brush clearing; stronger SDIS finances through insurance-tax revenue and a hotel levy; more amphibious aircraft, heavy helicopters, A400M firefighting kits and less toxic retardant; additional firefighters, training, health research and consideration of an environmental reserve or requisition system. He advocates stronger evacuation coordination, a departmental single contact for victims, faster but contestable insurance assessments, exceptional-fire eligibility for CatNat and forest restoration. Longer-term heat adaptation would require over €70 billion in additional investment by 2050, including €45 billion from the state. He discusses homes, schools, health facilities, agriculture and environmental protection, warns of future storms and floods, and explicitly excludes decarbonization and sufficiency policy from this adaptation inquiry. Roy asks about heat habitability limits and private forests; Coquerel identifies some temperature data, acknowledges a possible omission and points to private-forest recommendations. Arrighi questions missing transport and nuclear-plant effects, describes Le Porge's ecological and emotional devastation using a 48,000-hectare figure, and asks what the draft budget retains. Mandon asks about Météo-France coverage and a sequence for public action. Coquerel describes cost measurement, differentiated funding and staged measures, including a possible Livret A ceiling increase for social-housing renovation. He acknowledges fiscal support for fire-affected businesses in PLF Article 14 and contributor support in PLFSS Article 4, but argues the overall response is inadequate. He compares roughly €200–205 million increases with civil protection's €260 million emergency overspend above an €874 million allocation, and fears about €2 billion in departmental cuts could offset SDIS gains. These are attributed assessments of proposals, not enactment. Fouquart describes Martigues's existing forest-fire risk plan, construction constraints and equipment costs. Coquerel acknowledges he did not cover that particular scheme and recalls his Le Porge field hearings: residents and officials gave differing accounts of evacuation coordination; victims still await compensation and rebuilding-permit answers despite officials' claimed three-month timetable. He urges a sustained local state contact and procedures fitted to victims' needs. Coquerel distinguishes near-term fleet expansion from support for a French industry, saying HYNAERO works with Airbus and could contribute from 2030. He reports that BPI rejected a €100 million capital request, prompting recourse to Luxembourg funds whose quality he questions. Roy says the investor's nationality is unknown and warns of an Airbus leadership change and possible Spanish manufacture; these remain concerns, not verified outcomes. Coquerel says the Spanish firefighting kit used during the summer was returned and that, after his discussions with the prime minister and interior minister, an order should be forthcoming. He does not confirm a completed purchase. He closes by saying the communication will be posted on the committee's website without a publication-authorization vote.

The summer megafire affecting Le Porge in Gironde is recalled in the October 5 Finance Committee hearing as a major reason for expanding the inquiry beyond heat alone. Coquerel describes devastation and says residents and officials gave differing accounts of evacuation coordination. Arrighi describes the loss of forest, biodiversity, economic activity and residents' familiar surroundings, using a 48,000-hectare figure. Coquerel says biodiversity costs remain unquantified and recounts continuing compensation and rebuilding-permit uncertainty. These are the committee speakers' retrospective accounts; responsibility, a final burned-area tally and completed recovery are not established by this source.