Antoine Armand: “Everyone agrees that logistics is strategic, yet it faces growing obstacles”

Antoine Armand: I do not like the word “reindustrialization.” It creates the illusion of a return to the past. Industry in the 2020s bears no resemblance to that of the 1980s. It requires understanding that services and industry are becoming increasingly intertwined. And in this vision, logistics—whether urban or regional—is a critical link. Public authorities do not sufficiently view it that way, but it is essential. I observed this at Bercy as well as on the ground, in my Haute-Savoie constituency. Without high-performing logistics, there can be neither competitive industry nor sovereignty.

Paulo Ferreira: And logistics’ role as industry’s operational arm has been further reinforced by recent crises. During the pandemic, logistics held firm and demonstrated its social value. Yet today, it is sometimes reduced to a caricature. It is in fact an issue of national sovereignty and European sovereignty. If we reshore, if we want factories in France, we need top-tier logistics. There is also the local dimension: warehouses are places where people live and work, as well as sites for the energy transition. They must be considered as such, with elected officials rather than against them. In practical terms, companies are reconfiguring their networks. Retailers want to secure their inventories. Manufacturers want sites closer to consumer markets. We need more diverse hubs, sometimes smaller ones, but interconnected. This is giving new momentum to regions such as Hauts-de-France and Grand Est, as well as more rural areas with available space and labor.

AA: Especially since the international context is changing the equation. What I call the “geopolitical divide”—post-Covid, post-Trump, post-securing of value chains—is restoring value to proximity. Producing in Europe has become respectable again, provided we also have the logistical capacity to transport, store and deliver efficiently.

PF: Clearly. We are living with a paradox: everyone agrees that logistics is strategic, yet it faces growing obstacles. The ZAN policy (Zero Net Land Take), for example, freezes development. It creates competition among uses: for the same plot of land, an elected official must choose between a logistics project, social housing, a daycare center or a nursing home. Logistics often comes last. And sometimes, projects are abandoned in France and set up elsewhere in Europe.

AA: The ZAN policy is a textbook illustration of what I call “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” The principle is commendable, but its application is blind: one hectare is treated as one hectare, whether in Haute-Savoie or Creuse. In areas experiencing population growth, such as mine, elected officials can no longer do anything. And even in sparsely populated areas, the treatment is the same. It is not viable. We are preventing construction where it is useful in the name of an overly uniform approach.

PF: We also suffer from an optical illusion that distorts perceptions. Warehouses are visible, often along highways. It feels as though they are springing up everywhere. But in reality, according to our figures, logistics accounts for 1.1% of land take. Yet it is singled out, stigmatized and accused of contributing to overconsumption. People forget that it supplies hospitals, local shops, schools and government agencies.

AA: There is a major misunderstanding that unfortunately sometimes affects the general public. People pit “good independent retailers” against “bad Amazon logistics.” As if deliveries arrived miraculously at one and by bulldozer at the other. It is absurd. And it is all the more serious because certain highly politicized organized groups spread falsehoods in local areas, sometimes with public funding. We need to fight a cultural battle. Explain that without logistics, there is no industry. And without industry, there is no sovereignty.

AA: Regulation. That is the key word. It sometimes costs more than taxes. We are mired in a double French trap: overregulation that goes so far as to specify where the coffee machine must be placed, and vagueness that leaves too much room for interpretation. The result is projects that are delayed, made more expensive or even abandoned. Meanwhile, the United States rolls out the red carpet for an industrial project: tax deductions, site development, support for operating expenses. In France, you are asked to wait two years for an authorization that guarantees nothing. And public decision-makers have a real lack of economic literacy. Too few understand what a business model, a return-on-investment timeline or an operating cost is. This produces Kafkaesque situations. You are granted authorization, then asked for another study, then offered changes to the building… Whereas in other countries, it is yes or no. And when it is “yes,” it is clear, fast and predictable.

PF: That is exactly what we experience. There may be clear political will, but an administration that unravels that ambition in the implementing regulations. Sometimes, it feels as though we take one step forward in Parliament and two steps back on the ground. And when we finally obtain a permit, we discover that the power grid cannot keep up. I have several projects in mind where 30,000 to 40,000 m² of solar panels had been installed, only for us to be told that the grid was not adequately sized or that the work would be at the project sponsor’s expense. The result: millions lost and projects canceled. Yet French logistics is innovating. Our buildings are automated, connected and decarbonized. AI is entering processes. But as long as we are not allowed to deploy these solutions effectively, we remain constrained. We need a genuine simplification shock, not a cosmetic one. And political messaging aligned with on-the-ground realities.

AA: Energy sovereignty means, first and foremost, moving away from gas and oil, which still account for two-thirds of our energy mix. That requires trade-offs, flexibility and pragmatism. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 is crucial, but we must also ask whether we are building a world that remains viable in 2051. And that means prioritizing what works. For example, we must stop installing photovoltaic panels where output is zero or grid connection is impossible. Funding must also be reconsidered. Today, to obtain innovation support, you have to go from one funding window to another, wait months, often for a grant worth 1% or 2% of the project, which arrives too late. That does not match the scale of the challenges. And yet, we have the ideas. We file the patents. What is missing is the ability to provide major support for transformative projects from the outset. 

PF: Logistics can play a structuring role in this ambition. Our roofs are enormous, our sites are well located and our structures are suitable. We can be energy-production hubs, not merely transit sites. But public policy must be adapted: it must take account of sunlight, the grid and storage. It works well in the South. In the North, we need specific models. We logistics professionals have the energy, expertise and willingness. But the State must change its approach. Not just announce, but follow through. Not just promise, but simplify. And we must continue to explain, through education, that logistics is not a necessary evil. It is a lever for transition, innovation and recovery—and an opportunity for every region.