Challenges and Drivers of Biodiversity Loss in France: a Literature Review

Home , 2010 in Europe, Biodiversity loss

MAIN CHALLENGES AND DRIVERS OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS IN FRANCE: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Himanshu Sharma Consultant Future Earth/CNRS Literature review

Table of Contents

TABLE OF FIGURES ...... 2

INTRODUCTION ...... 3

KEYDRIVERS OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS – CURRENT STATUS AND PAST TRENDS ...... 6 INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES ...... 6 LAND USE AND LAND COVER CHANGE ...... 9 POLLUTION ...... 14 CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 17

MAJOR ECOSYSTEMS IN FRANCE – CURRENT STATUS AND PAST TRENDS ...... 21 AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEMS ...... 21 FOREST ECOSYSTEMS ...... 22 URBAN ECOSYSTEMS ...... 24 MOUNTAINS AND ROCK ECOSYSTEMS ...... 26 CONTINENTAL WETLANDS AND FRESH WATER ECOSYSTEMS ...... 27

REFERENCES ...... 29

1 TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Proportion of endemic and sub-endemic species in metropolitan and overseas France, 2018 __ 3 Figure 2 – State of conservation of habitats of communal interest by biogeographic region, 2019 ______4 Figure 3 – Number of EDGE species in metropolitan and overseas France, 2017 ______5 Figure 4 – Incidence of 37 invasive alien species cited by EU regulation by department in metropolitan France, 2018 ______8 Figure 5 – 12 of the most invasive alien species in the world, which are present in overseas French territories, 2016 ______9 Figure 6 – Natural areas destroyed by artificialisation between 1990 and 2012 in metropolitan France _ 13 Figure 7 – The main natural areas destroyed between 1990-2012, by type of artificialisation ______14 Figure 8 – Overview of trends for pollution by emission type for France, 2017 /// SO2 – Sulphur Dioxide, Mercury – Hg, Nitrogen Oxide – NO2, Copper – Cu ,Particulate Matter (diameter less than 2.5 micrometres)- PM2.5, Hazardous Air Pollutants- HAP, Ammonia- NH3 ______16 Figure 9 – Trends in CO2 emissions for France, by sector, 2017 ______18 Figure 10 - Twenty National Biodiversity Targets (2011-2020) for France ______20 Figure 11 – Overview of land cover use in France, 2006 ______21 Figure 12 – Trend for land surface under organic farming in France, 2019 ______22 Figure 13 – States of conservation of forest habitats of communal interest by biogeographic region (2013- 2018) ______24 Figure 14 - Evolution of artificial surface cover and population in metropolitan France, 2018 ______25 Figure 15 - Evolution of artificialized surfaces in metropolitan France by soil artificialisation, 2018 ____ 26 Figure 16 - Yearly evolution of the metropolitan continental areas identified as “remarkable” for their ecosystem biodiversity, (1990-2012) // ZNIEFF - Zone naturelle d'intérêt écologique, faunistique et floristique ______28

2 INTRODUCTION

With an exceptionally rich cultural and natural heritage, France is a “megadiverse” country. Its overseas territories are spread out over multiple latitudes, and the metropolitan region contains 4 biogeographic regions (Continental, Alpine, Mediterranean and Atlantic). Of the 5 WWF and IUCN recognised biodiversity hotpots that France lies in, 4 are in overseas territories. As a further testament to the scale and richness of biodiversity in France, and the nation’s responsibilities for its conservation, the French Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is the second largest in the world, at 11 million km2 and contains a richness of bio-geoclimatic influence (CBD, 2019a).

43,727 animal species, 11,934 plant species and 14,183 types of fungi are listed on the natural heritage register for mainland France, with a lack of quality data for overseas territories hiding the presence of vastly higher specialised biodiversity. Owing to the island and isolated nature of French overseas territories, they are rich in endemic biodiversity, with perhaps more than 50 times more unique and native fauna as compared to the mainland. However, the same insular geographic quality also renders the biodiversity vulnerable. The example of Réunion, where the red list of flowering plants and ferns found 49 species as being already extinct, and a further 275 being threatened by extinction, out of a total of 905 plant species analysed, shows the very real and present vulnerability of the overseas territories’ ecosystems (CBD, 2019a).

Figure 1 – Proportion of endemic and sub-endemic species in metropolitan and overseas France, 2018

On a national level, the main drivers of ecosystem and biodiversity vulnerability are broadly the same as on a global level. Land-use change, anthropogenic pollution, over-

3 exploitation of species, climate change related effects and greater incidence of invasive species are driving biodiversity loss in France (CBD, 2014).

The figures below provide a broad overview of the state of biodiversity conservation in France. As can be observed, an analysis of the state of conservation in habitats of communal interest, during the 2013-2018 period, shows that the majority of habitats were in either an unfavourable or bad state. According to the Observatoire National de la Biodiversité (ONB), the habitats of communal interest are “habitats that are often rare and/or threatened, sometimes at the edge of their range, and which have been designated for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of sites” (ONB, 2019a).

Figure 2 – State of conservation of habitats of communal interest by biogeographic region, 2019

As a further testament to the richness of biodiversity and its vulnerability in France, the following figure presents the number of species in the metropolitan and overseas territories of France that feature on the Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (EDGE) global lists. The species present on this list are unique in terms of not having any, or very few, close relatives in terms of genetic evolution, and thus are fundamentally irreplaceable in nature. France has 10% of all the EDGE species, with 75% of them, and 50% of all coral EDGE species, concentrated in its overseas territories (EDGE, 2019).

4 Figure 3 – Number of EDGE species in metropolitan and overseas France, 2017

5 KEYDRIVERS OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS – CURRENT STATUS AND PAST TRENDS

INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES

Although not a term whose definition is recognised or standardized globally, for the purpose of this review, the definition from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of invasive alien species being “a species whose introduction and/or spread threatens biodiversity” is followed. However, it must be noted that not all species introduced to a new habitat or ecosystem develop into a threat to native or endemic biodiversity – in this case, they are simply alien species. But the small subset that do become invasive are marked by rapid rates of reproduction and dispersion and an ability to physiologically adapt to new environments. As aptly put by the CBD, “for an alien species to become invasive, it must arrive, survive and thrive”(CBD, 2019b).

With an increasingly globalized and inter-connected world, the probability of alien invasive species’ introduction has risen in the past two decades (Hulme, 2009). The most common transmission channels for an invasive alien species’ introduction are trade and human transport. Anthropogenic influences in ecosystems can also render them vulnerable to invasive alien species, especially if such influences result in reduced competition or competitive ability of native species. As an example, imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta Buren) have been observed to have far higher probability of adapting and thriving in roadside or agricultural environments as opposed to an intact closed forest (Paini et al., 2016) (CBD, 2019b).

France is no exception to this phenomenon. Metropolitan France has many examples of invasive alien species: louisian crayfish, ragodin, bull frog etc. As mentioned, the overseas territories are particularly vulnerable to native biodiversity loss to invasive alien species owing to their unique geographical locations. As an example, the miconia tree is an invasive alien species threatening the existence of around 45 plant species in Tahiti, while the black rat is identified as a cause behind the extinction threat to native bird species in the Pacific and Reunion island territories (IUCN, 2019).

For the majority of biological groups, France has the highest number of invasive alien species in Europe (DAISIE, 2009). For invasive alien species in metropolitan France, the National Inventory of Natural Heritage (INPN) at the moment lists 1,379 species of exotic plants and 708 species of exotic fauna. But there is speculation that these inventories might underestimate the actual numbers. Drawing from the DAISIE inventory database, research in 2010 had already reported 690 species of exotic arthropods in mainland France and 154 in Corsica (CDR EEE, 2019).

Another concern is that the rate of introduction of new species is also increasing for all biological groups. For metropolitan France, a new indicator developed for the ONB, based on a selection of 84 invasive alien species revealed that over the past 40 years, a French department has seen an average of 5 new invasive alien species establish themselves every ten years (Touroult et al. 2016). The New Guinea Plathelminth (Platydemus manokwari),

6 reported in 2013, and even more recently the River Goby (Neogobius fluviatilis), identified in August 2014 in Moselle, or the Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) discovered in the Gulf of Lions in 2018 are among the latest exotic species reported in mainland France (CDR EEE, 2019).

While agriculture can introduce invasive alien species to an ecosystem, their productivity can also be adversely affected by invasive alien species (Cook et al. 2011). The eventual damage and costs related to invasive aliens species’ threat to agricultural operations and productivity depend on the institutional capacity to assess and mitigate such threats and risks. But on average, a country with significant agricultural exports in commercial and cultural heritage terms (e.g. wine), like France, is most exposed to monetary damages (Paini et al. 2016).

A national strategy on invasive alien species was implemented in France in 2017, connecting to the 2014 European Union (EU) regulation and 2016 national legislative efforts. This strategy gives formal legal power to relevant actions for combating the threat posed by invasive alien species to biodiversity. A national invasive alien species resource centre is also to be operationalized in 2019, coordinating with stakeholders to gather information on incidence and biology of invasive alien species in France, along with an evaluation of the effectiveness of regulation and resulting action (CBD Clearing House, 2019).

The Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition is mandated to manage the strategy on invasive alien species at a national level. An analysis of the most common pathways for invasive alien species’ introduction in the EU, based on CBD nomenclature, revealed that for metropolitan France, the main transmission channels were escape from detention areas (gardens, zoos, nurseries etc.), contaminated imported products (food products, seeds etc.), and natural dispersion. Currently, controls in France focus primarily on invasive alien species with the greatest environmental, economic or landscape impact, instead of controlling species with higher spatial distribution like the Japanese knotweed, primrose, Cape ragwort, buddleia etc. (CBD Clearing House, 2019; Harrower et al., 2018).

The figure below highlights the marked increase in the presence of alien invasive species for all metropolitan French departments in 1979-2018. The increase is remarkable when contrasted with the change in incidence in the 1949-1978 period.

7 Figure 4 – Incidence of 37 invasive alien species cited by EU regulation by department in metropolitan France, 2018

In the overseas territories, where the ecosystems are rich in endemic and vulnerable ecosystems, invasive alien species represent a clear and present danger. The following figure lists the 12 most invasive species in the world which can be found in the overseas territories today.

8 Figure 5 – 12 of the most invasive alien species in the world, which are present in overseas French territories, 2016

LAND USE AND LAND COVER CHANGE

Related to the discussion on invasive alien species, another important driver of biodiversity loss, especially terrestrial biodiversity, is land-use and land cover change (Bartlett et al. 2016). Land-use change contributes to biodiversity vulnerability and loss directly and indirectly by lowering the carrying capacity of an ecosystem and/or reducing species’ resilience. As an example of the impact of land-use change on biodiversity loss, the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 found that more than 50% of several key biomes had been lost to land-use change by 1990, and a separate WWF report found that only 2.5% of original forest in the Western Europe region were in a natural or semi-natural state (Assessment, 2005; Hanski, 2011).

Although natural phenomena can also cause habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss, land-use and land cover change has emerged as a key driver and is expected to remain a leading cause going forward (Hurtt et al., 2011; Visconti et al., 2016). Habitat degradation, or a reduction in quality of habitat, is one of the various channels through which land-use change can adversely affect ecosystem health. Complete destruction of a habitat (habitat loss) and a removal of connections and networks that are essential for the functioning of a habitat in a landscape (habitat fragmentation) are other ways in which land-use change has been found to threaten biodiversity (Bartlett et al., 2016). Research estimates put the global average loss of species in ecological assemblages from land-use and land cover change at 13.6% relative to pristine habitats. However, it must be noted that local effects are highly

9 variable, and low intensity and density urban areas can in some cases increase species richness (Newbold et al., 2015).

Artificialisation of the soil, either for infrastructure like roads, or for built environments like buildings, has seen an increasing trend in France. Research finds that for France, the total surface area now waterproofed has grown by 13,000 km2 from an initial 20,000 km2 in the last three decades. Some of the most important drivers behind this trend are construction of housing, transport infrastructure and buildings for agricultural use. The soil sealing of land converted from agricultural or natural areas for such purposes can drive habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss as such land can rarely revert to natural areas (CEV, 2019).

Artificial surfaces refer to any surface removed from its natural state, which could be forest or agricultural. Artificial surfaces can be built land for residential use (buildings, houses) or commercial use (offices, factories, etc.), paved or stabilized land (roads, railways, parking areas, roundabouts, etc.), and other areas bearing strong influence of human activity (construction sites, quarries, mines, landfills, etc.). This category also includes artificial "green" spaces (urban parks and gardens, sports and leisure facilities, etc.). Artificial surfaces can thus be located outside urban areas, on the outskirts of smaller cities, or even villages, near infrastructure network services, or in the countryside (diffuse urban planning phenomenon). They are distinguished by their degree of waterproofing (Virely, 2017). Aside from habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation impacts, the artificialization of grasslands and wetlands reduces the potential for flood risk regulation (Puydarrieux et al. 2016).

Widely recognised as two of the leading causes behind biodiversity loss, habitat degradation and fragmentation can alter the balance in ecosystems through instability in the food web. By lowering the capacity of an ecosystem to provide needed nutrition, habitat degradation can increase competition between species, which ultimately results in lower density and variety of species in that habitat (Calizza et al., 2017; Krauss et al., 2010). A study also found that habitat fragmentation specifically can diminish primary productivity, nitrogen availability and carbon stocks in the soil of temperate mountain grasslands (Cojoc et al., 2016).

Habitat degradation and fragmentation not only causes biodiversity loss in the present, but might also contribute to an “extinction debt”. The effects of habitat degradation and fragmentation can reduce native species’ ability to survive over a period of time and result in time-lagged extinctions, or an extinction debt. In the same vein, habitat degradation and fragmentation can also result in an ecosystem service debt, in addition to the ecosystem damage and resulting loss in ecosystem service capacity at present from current practices (Isbell et al., 2015; Krauss et al., 2010).

Land-use and land cover change for agricultural causes is the major sub-category at a global scale that has driven the conversion of natural areas for cropland and pasture use (McGill, 2015). Although agricultural activities provide critical nutrition for a rapidly growing population, modern agricultural practices can improve the provision of calories at the expense of decreased regulatory ecosystem service capacity (eg. erosion) (Fedele et al.

10 2018). Intensification and homogenization of agriculture, in France and around the world, in response to globalisation and population pressures, has resulted in genetic vulnerability and loss in agricultural ecosystems (CBD, 2019c).

Aquatic environments also accumulate surpluses generated by crop fertilization, a source of eutrophication. In 2014, the delivery of nitrogenous mineral fertilisers reached 85 kilos per hectare, of which about 29% washed into the water. After increasing between the 1970s and 1990s, this quantity has stabilised or even decreased slightly since 2000. Between 1970 and 2014, phosphate fertilizer use has also reduced by a factor of four, reaching 7.4 kilograms per hectare in 2014, of which about 5% was in excess (INSEE, 2017).

Agriculture also indirectly contributes to biodiversity loss in ecosystems through its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The sector globally accounts for 56% of all non-CO2 GHGs and 19-29% of total GHG emissions, with the livestock sub-sector alone constituting 14.5% of all GHG emissions in the world (FAO, 2013; US EPA, 2011; Vermeulen et al., 2012). In France, the agriculture sector contributes around 16-18% of all GHG emissions (Lungarska & Chakir, 2018). Agriculture is also responsible for 75% of global deforestation, and projections point to up to 10 million km2 of land being cleared from 2013-2050 if trends persist (Blaser & Robledo, 2007; Tilman et al., 2011).

These statistics bear salience for France as it has the largest utilized agricultural acreage (UAA) and the largest livestock population in the EU. Although the average size of farms has increased, overall agricultural land has only slightly decreased or stayed stable over the last two decades (OECD, 2017; Ministry of Food and Agriculture, 2019; EU, 2019a).

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that globally, around 75% of genetic diversity in crops has been lost over the past 100 years due to specialisation in modern agricultural production systems (FAO, 2019). Furthermore, reflecting trends likely to be present in France, only 15 plant species and 8 animal species are the source of 90% of food consumed by the world’s population, with three crops alone (rice, wheat and maize) responsible for half of all plant-based nutrition around the world. Modern agricultural production systems also threaten biodiversity and ecosystem health through water- pressure, over-exploitation of pastures (overgrazing), and pollution and eutrophication as a result of excessive application of pesticides, fertilizers and other chemical inputs (CBD, 2019d).

On a related note, a study looking at genetic diversity in maize cultivar breeding in France over the last 50 years found a 10% decrease in genetic variation (Le Clerc et al., 2005). The study also highlighted very low differentiation between the maize cultivars bred over the last 20 years as a cause for concern. Another study utilising wheat microsatellite markers (WMS) analysed genetic diversity on 559 bread wheat accessions in France, covering a time period from 1800 to 2000. They found that the richness in allelic variation between accessions (land races and registered varieties) decreased by about 25% when studying varieties registered before and after 1970 (Roussel, 2004).

Urbanisation is another related reason behind the land use and land cover change resulting in habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss in France and around the world

11 (Grimm et al., 2008). While there is a considerable body of evidence behind the Urban Heat Island (UHI) phenomenon, there is growing scientific examination of the possibility of an “urban rainfall effect” (Howard, 1833; Crutzen, 2004; Shem & Shepherd, 2009; Kaufmann et al., 2007). Not only can the resulting increased temperatures affect flora and fauna, but the variability in precipitation from the possible urban rainfall effect can also affect species’ health and vulnerability. Urbanisation also increases pressure on ecosystems as a result of demands for raw material (water, energy etc.) required for the development and operation of built environments, although highly efficient urban systems can also reduce overall consumption demand (Elmqvist et al., 2013).

Global urban land cover is projected to increase by over 200% from 2000-2030, with only a corresponding 70% in urban populations (Fragkias et al., 2013). The four Corine Land Cover (CLC) analyses (1990, 2000, 2006 and 2012) show a 20% increase in urban surface area between 1990 and 2012. This can be further disaggregated into a 8% increase between 1990 and 2000, followed by a phase of relatively increasing trend (growth of 7% between 2000 and 2006) and a slightly slower increase between 2006 and 2012 (+3% in six years). The CLC data illustrates the expansion of the urban land cover (continuous or discontinuous) (Béchet et al., 2017).

Data by Teruti et Teruti-Lucas shows that by 2014, urban land cover in France stood at 5.1 million hectares. Disaggregating the data by soil permeability, 1 million ha was built, 2.5 million ha were paved or stabilized, linear or areal soils (road or rail infrastructure, car parks, etc.), with the rest being non-sealed soils (grassed or bare). Over the 2006-2014 period, the built up soils saw the largest increase, at 22%, with paved or stabilized soils growing by 14%, and artificial grassed or bare soils registering a 4% growth (Béchet et al., 2017).

This urban land cover sprawl in France and globally not only directly contributes to biodiversity loss due to land use and land cover change, but can also adversely impact bordering habitats. Not only is there a negative impact through temperature increases (UHI), but for example roads are known to create adverse ecological effects and produce noise pollution which can alter species’ behaviour and activity patterns (Forman, 2000; Smithwick et al., 2003; Rheindt, 2003).

On average, older and larger urban areas have less endemic/native biodiversity than newer and smaller urban areas (Müller et al., 2013). Larger urban environments usually witness increased rates of invasive alien species introduction, probably owing to their roles as hubs in global commerce and trade. The habitat degradation and fragmentation in, and caused by, urbanisation can also lower resilience of native species and allow for an environment conducive to invasive alien species (McDonald & Urban, 2006). Some research has also found that for native flora and fauna, their mobility, their degree of specialisation and the interactions between them can generally predict the magnitude and nature of effects from urbanisation (Concepćion et al., 2015).

Infrastructure built to support urbanisation also has significant adverse effects on ecosystem health. Energy production around the world, even renewable energy installations like hydropower dams and wind turbines, have been known to lead to habitat

12 degradation and loss, and in the case of wind turbines, increased mortality for bird species (Scanes, 2018).

The figure below provides an overview of the amount of natural spaces that have been converted for anthropogenic purposes (agriculture or urban) in metropolitan France between 1990-2012. Land-use change is a key driver of habitat degradation, and in many cases also contributes indirectly to higher incidence of invasive alien species and pollution in remaining natural areas’ ecosystems depending on the type of activity in the converted artificial areas.

Figure 6 – Natural areas destroyed by artificialisation between 1990 and 2012 in metropolitan France

13 The figure below from the ONB clearly shows that land-use change (urbanisation and agriculture) is the leading causes of natural area conversion in France between 1990-2012.

Figure 7 – The main natural areas destroyed between 1990-2012, by type of artificialisation

POLLUTION

While human activities in the form of land use and land cover change can be considered to play an important role in accelerating biodiversity loss and vulnerability, pollution is also a key factor in ecosystem degradation. Pollution comes in many forms and can have varying effects on biodiversity health of ecosystems. This review briefly looks at the interactions between air pollution, contamination of the soil, light and noise pollution and untreated waste with ecosystem biodiversity.

Agriculture, industries and urban areas, and the interactions between them, are all major sources of anthropogenic pollution. Not only do pollutants directly affect ecosystems themselves, they can also indirectly threaten biodiversity through climate change impacts and reducing endemic species’ competitive capacity in an ecosystem, leaving them vulnerable to invasive alien species.

Inland waterways in France are threatened by the dispersion of agricultural inputs like pesticides and fertilizers, and the discharge of partially treated wastewater. In 2015, only 44% of water bodies analysed were in a “good ecological state”, with around 69% of groundwater bodies being in a “good chemical state”. The primary drivers of pollution in inland waterways are nitrate and pesticide pollution related to agricultural practices. In 2014, sales of plant protection products in France totalled 75,000 tonnes in active substances. Given the fact that 90% of these were for agricultural use highlights the critical

14 causal role of agricultural practices. At a European level, France is the second largest user of phytosanitary products (although per hectare usage puts it ninth). The highest levels of nitrate and pesticide pollution was in arable crops, arboriculture and viticulture areas (Béchet et al., 2017).

As soil ecosystems and their condition are a major factor in macrofauna health, nutrient pollution, mainly from transport and agriculture, may impact richness in plant species and thus indirectly affect dependent fauna. Research by the EU’s Joint Research Centre highlighted Northern France as one of the regions where soil biodiversity was at a risk of declining, with nutrient pollution being one of the key drivers (Jeffrey et al., 2010). Excessive use of synthetic and organic fertilizers on European farms has been linked to increased nitrous oxide (N2O), a major GHG, emissions leakage from soils (Jones et al., 2018). While nitrogen has received attention for its adverse effects on ecosystems, some researchers also found adverse effects on species richness beyond certain soil phosphorus thresholds, irrespective of soil acidity and nitrogen deposition (Ceulemans et al., 2014). Poor land management practices can be compounded by climate change impacts to reduce the carbon storage capacity of soils, further exacerbating climate change (Wall et al., 2015).

Recently, attention has been brought to the issue of micro-plastic pollution and their effects on ecosystem health and biodiversity. Inadequate policy action, poor product quality and insufficient waste management has been cited as reasons for increasing presence of microplastics in habitats and examined fauna (Rochman et al., 2013). Now present in all ecosystems around the world, these micro-plastics might even be a transmission channel for attached chemicals and pollutants into animal tissues once ingested (Teuten et al., 2009). Some research has also pointed out the potential for this growing contamination threat to alter the “eco-physiological functions” of an organism (Browne et al., 2013).

Air pollution, or pollution in the atmosphere in such quantities and for such a duration that it might harm living organisms, can also adversely affect ecosystem health and functioning at all spatial scales (local, regional, national and global) (Barker & Tingey, 2012; Gorham & Gordon, 1963). On a general level, air pollution can affect biodiversity and the functioning of an ecosystem by changing population genetic diversity and/or reducing vegetation production (natural and crop), and reproductive potential of ecosystem populations ( Barker & Tingey, 2012). Sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NO2), particulate matter pollutants with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), along with ammonia (NH3), can deposit on ecosystems as acid rain, increase acidification, impeding water provision, nutrient cycling and carbon cycling (Guthrie et al., 2018; Krupa, 2003; Hartono et al., 2017; UNECE, 2019). Ammonia emissions also contribute to the formation of particulate matter by chemical reactions with substances already present in the air. Ground-level ozone has also been observed to cause cell membrane damage in plant species (UNECE, 2019).

15 Figure 8 – Overview of trends for pollution by emission type for France, 2017 /// SO2 – Sulphur Dioxide, Mercury – Hg, Nitrogen Oxide – NO2, Copper – Cu ,Particulate Matter (diameter less than 2.5 micrometres)- PM2.5, Hazardous Air Pollutants- HAP, Ammonia- NH3

In 2015, agriculture in France was responsible for 98% of ammonia (NH3) emissions, with the residential and tertiary sector use of buildings accounting for 48% of PM2.5 pollutants (particulates with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometres), mostly attributable to burning of wood for heating. Since 2000, annual average concentrations of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM2.5 and PM10 (particles with a diameter of less than 10 micrometres) have decreased, but often at a lower rate than absolute emissions. Ozone (O3) pollution levels have been on an increasing trend in the urban areas and particularly near road traffic. In 2016, 16 agglomerations saw emissions cross standards safe for humans for nitrogen oxide (NO2), 3 for PM10 and 26 for ozone (O3). Over the period 1990-2015, emissions have decreased for the majority of pollutants. For example, industrial emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) have decreased by 88% and those of nitrogen oxides (NOx) due to transport have gone down by 60% (INSEE, 2017).

For forest ecosystems in particular, tropospheric ozone (O3), which is a phytotoxic pollutant and climate change agent, and nitrogen (N) deposition are two of the most important air pollution stressors (Paoletti et al., 2010). In Europe, nutrient loading, especially of phosphorus and nitrogen, is a critical threat to biodiversity conservation. Nitrogen compounds in particular are notable for their ability to drive ecosystem eutrophication, and are the only air pollutants in Europe not to have seen a decrease in concentrations post-legislative implementation (EU, 2019b).

Another often overlooked type of pollution that might adversely affect biodiversity in France and abroad is light pollution. The widespread use of artificial lighting, especially at night-time, can affect the circadian habituation of animals, insects and plants. Given the fact that almost 30% of all vertebrates and 60% of all invertebrates are nocturnal creatures underlines the potential gravity of disturbances to the normal functioning of such species. In

16 large metropolises like Paris and other major urban French centres, the intensity of artificial lighting could also possibly cause confusion for migratory birds, threaten nocturnal pollinator populations, and result in increased vulnerability for light-sensitive genotypes. Light pollution is also responsible for cultural ecosystem service loss, for example the impossibility of witnessing the Milky Way at night in any city around the world (Hölker et al., 2010).

Manmade sounds, produced by human activities and omnipresent even outside urban agglomerations, are another pollutant affecting ecosystem health (Warren et al., 2006). Although sound by itself is not a threat to biodiversity, “noise” or sounds which are persistent and at levels that might disturb animal species have been found to inhibit animal communication, and negatively affect their reproduction and usage of space (Drolet et al., 2016; Sun & Narins, 2005; Bernath-Plaisted & Koper, 2016). Noise pollution produced by human activities has received some policy attention, with EU regulation on quiet areas to protect ecosystem tranquillity and the Art. L571-1 of the Environmental Code in France from 2000 which mentions environmental harm as an effect of noise (EEA, 2014; Sordello et al., 2019).

The industrialization and urbanisation that created prosperity in Europe is also a major source of contamination and pollution of the groundwater and soil ecosystems (Panagos et al., 2013). Contaminations refers to that status of a “site where hazardous substances, as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (3), are present at levels that pose a serious risk to the environment and human health. The EU has almost 2.8 million sites where polluting/contamination of the soil, groundwater or air could be taking place. Around 3 billion tonnes of solid waste is produced in the EU each year, with about 90 million tonnes of it being hazardous (Pérez & Eugenio, 2018; Panagos et al., 2013).

In France, around 6500 sites have been identified as contaminated, with about 50% of them concentrated in former mining regions (INSEE, 2017). While the scale and severity of such pollution varies across the EU, the most common sources are metal industries, oil and gas facilities, and mining activities, with the most common pollutants being mineral oils and heavy metals (Jones et al., 2018).

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change represents an existential threat to not just humanity, but also to ecosystems and biodiversity. Meteorological extremes are projected to occur at an increasing pace over the next decades, and the effect of higher mean temperatures, extreme weather events, erosion and precipitation volatility is expected to adversely impact the health of ecosystems in Europe and around the world (Stocker et al., 2013; Meehl et al., 2000; Trömel & Schönwiese, 2007).

With seven of the ten hottest years on record since 1901 in the last decade, and with average temperatures that have already risen by 0.9 degrees Celsius in the last century, climate change and its impact can already be felt in France, as in the rest of the world. The southern region of metropolitan French territory has seen a larger increase in average

17 temperatures as compared to the northern areas, while for the whole territory the minimum temperatures have gone up more than the maximum temperatures (EEA, 2015).

From a GHG emissions perspective, France has had a declining trend since 1990, with reduction of around 13% in GHG emissions from 1990-2012. However, as the figure below illustrates, only decreases in emissions from the energy sector have driven this reduction, with most other sources remaining flat from 1990-2012.

Figure 9 – Trends in CO2 emissions for France, by sector, 2017

Climate simulations done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) point to an increase in precipitation for Nothern European areas, with probable decreases for Southern European and Mediterranean basin regions (Jacob et al., 2014). As France is situated between the Northern and Southern European regions, it is difficult to predict precipitation trends, but generally higher air temperatures could increase evapotranspiration and thus create a soil water deficit which would add to water pressures through increased irrigation needs (Calvet et al., 2008). A study of 12 sites representative of the main climatic French regions showed that while yield for some crops might improve in the future, forests could face vulnerabilities due to increased chances of droughts (Brisson & Levrault, 2010). Another study utilising various forestry models in 5 French locations projected that forest yields could have a bell shape from 2013-2100, with variability depending on location and species (Loustau et al., 2005).

Research at the European level predicts that local species loss could exceed 50% by 2050 for 16% of the European region (Bakkenes et al., 2002). Almost 8400 land bird species in Europe and North America also face climate change-induced extinction by 2100 (Sekercioglu et al., 2008). Given the rich endemic biodiversity in France, and especially the overseas territories, it is also important to note that some global studies of 25 major biodiversity hotspots put the potential loss of endemic species in a 100 years’ time from climate change effects at 56000 plant and 3700 vertebrate species, a 39-43% extinction rate in worst case scenarios (Malcolm et al., 2006). A 2009 study evaluated the future distribution of 35 river

18 fish species by extrapolating current species distribution patterns. Predicted changes in diversity were greater in upstream and midstream areas, as compared to downstream areas. However, it is these downstream parts that are potentially the most prone to the emergence of thermophilic invasive species, showing that climate change is weakening ecosystems and making them more sensitive to the spread of invasive and non-invasive alien species (Massu & Landmann, 2011).

Global warming has also exacerbated the problem of alien invasive species. As an example, the distribution of insects has changed significantly in France over the past 30 years. Both invasions by new insect populations and regressions of long-established species can be observed. The mild and humid winters allow insects from more southern regions to settle in France. Without native predators or parasites, these new insects proliferate rapidly (Ayres & Lombardero, 2000; Parmesan 2006). One example is the case of the butterfly Cameraria ohridella, which affects horse chestnut trees and causes significant damage to the leaves of trees, making them more susceptible to other forms of attack (Massu & Landmann, 2011). The case of the pine processionary caterpillar and its devastating impacts have also been widely reported this year, as the species has been observed moving northwards at a rate of 4 kms per year for the past few decades (Puydarrieux et al., 2016).

Plant species in Europe are very susceptible to climate change, with research showing probable significant losses (40-45%) by 2080, averaged over Europe and different scenarios (Thuiller et al., 2005). In French temperate forests, observations have shown an upward shift in elevation for less mobile plant species, although lowland forest plant communities have not yet showed any northward mobility. This could possibly be due to an inability to shift from their current habitats or owing to some mitigating effect from greater shading (Martin et al., 2019).

An ecosystem particularly at risk from climate change effects in France is the mountain ecosystem. Adverse assessments include glaciers whose fate is linked to rising temperatures. In the Alps, glaciers have experienced a significant loss of mass in recent decades, which has been getting worse since 2003. As an example, in the Pyrenees, the Ossoue glacier has lost 60% of its surface area, from about 110 to 45 hectares (Marti et al., 2015).

In the Mont Blanc massif, altitudes at 2500m have seen 25% more snow-free days in the 2005-2015 period, as compared to the 1964-75 period. With disappearing permafrost at altitudes even as high as 3300m, the alpine landscape in France is changing. A combination of lower summer precipitation and increased temperatures have resulted in summer droughts and groundwater shortages, with adverse implications for plants and amphibians in their growth stages. The warmer temperatures can also desynchronize seasonal cycles of different species in an ecosystem, owing to variability in their response. For example, young ibex have seen mortality rates rise in the Grand Paradiso National Park in Italy due to desynchronization with vegetation productivity periods. In alpine ecosystems, animal and plant species have moved habitats higher, with a range of 30-100m for animal species (per decade), and 30m for plant species (100 years). Owing to the topographical nature of mountain ecosystems, this naturally implies a reduction in size of habitats (CREA Mont Blanc, 2019).

19 Figure 10 - Twenty National Biodiversity Targets (2011-2020) for France

Source : French NBSAP 2011-2020, retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/fr/fr-nbsap-v2-en.pdf

20 MAJOR ECOSYSTEMS IN FRANCE – CURRENT STATUS AND PAST TRENDS

Figure 11 – Overview of land cover use in France, 2006

Data sources: EEA. Land cover 2006 and changes country analysis

AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEMS

54% of metropolitan French territory is classified as “utilised agricultural land”, which stood at 29 million ha in 2016, down from 34.4 million ha in 1950 (EU, 2018; AGRESTE, 2012). These agri-territories can be further sub-categorised into arable land (62%), permanent grasslands (34%) and perennial crops (4%). The agri-ecosystem constitutes “soil- plant” systems, and the living organisms and semi-natural elements which reside there (EFESE, 2019a).

Since the 1970s, the changes in land use are tightly linked to the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), marked by crop rotation and territorial specialisation centred on select production types (Therond, Tichit & Tibi, 2017). The percentage of permanent grasslands declined from 41% to 34% in the 1970 to 2010 time period, while average farm size increased from 19 to 55 hectares (Therond, Tichit & Tibi, 2017). Moreover, there has been a marked decrease in cultivated species’ variety, and thus an associated increase in crop rotation simplification (Therond, Tichit & Tibi, 2017).

Agricultural practices and simplification of landscape structures have contributed to a reduction in French agri-ecosytem biodiversity. Specifically for field crops, the decreased biodiversity can be attributed to a combination of reduced areas of (semi-) permanent grassland, vegetation like hedgerows and tree rows, and increased usage of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, nematicides and acaricides. A drop in bird, insect and soil fauna

21 numbers is another result of the land-use changes. Furthermore, there is also evidence for a decrease in cultivated biodiversity and in perennial crops (Le Roux et al., 2009; Billeter et al., 2008; CGDD, 2018; EFESE, 2018; ONB, 2018; Mäder et al., 2002).

The conversion of grasslands in the 1970s-1990s, and corresponding reductions in organic inputs from livestock systems, has also led to reductions in the average soil organic carbon content in several regional agri-ecosystems in France. Decreases in biological activity (micro-fauna, bacteria and earthworms) associated with soil organic carbon content can also be attributed to the same factors. Synthetic input usage on French farms has slightly trended upwards, with mineral nitrogen per hectare usage remaining level on average, but pesticide use increasing at a faster clip (based on phytosanitary product sales and treatment data) (Martin et al., 2011; Sol, 2011; Arrouays et al., 1996; Agreste, 2016).

The following figure illustrates an increasing trend for agricultural land cover under nationally certified organic farming regime in France. The Grenelle 1 (2009) law, which states that "the State will promote the production and structuring of this sector so that the agricultural area useful in organic agriculture reaches 6% in 2012 and 20% in 2020” is unlikely to achieve its objectives based on the trends in the figure below (Legifrance, 2019b).

Figure 12 – Trend for land surface under organic farming in France, 2019

FOREST ECOSYSTEMS

16.4 million hectares of forest cover almost a third of metropolitan France, the fourth largest forest cover in Europe. The planted area has remained largely stable in the past 40 years, making up 13% of forest in metropolitan France. It should be noted that only 25% of

22 the metropolitan French forest cover is publicly owned. Sustainable management documentation exists for 95% of publicly owned forests and 31% of privately owned forests. Most of the forest cover in metropolitan France is in the Eastern and Southern parts of the nation, with an additional biodiversity-rich 9 million hectares of forests in overseas territories, most notably in French Guyana (EFESE, 2019b).

The metropolitan French forest cover has also grown noticeably since 1820, mostly owing to land reclamation post agricultural abandonment. In the same period, forest cover surface area has almost doubled, with the volume of standing timber also doubling the last 70 years. The growth of forest cover has been supported by government policies and dramatic reduction in logging pressure on forest cover following usage of alternative energy sources since the beginning of the twentieth century (EFESE, 2019b).

Assessments of forest ecosystem biodiversity for metropolitan France yield mixed results. Evaluations have indicated higher preservation levels as compared to other environments, with increases in tree species’ variety, improvements in natural regenerative capacity, growth in amount of big tress and dead wood, and reductions in forest fragmentation and common forest bird population erosion. At the same time, there has been concern about the dire health of forest habitats of community interest. This refers to cover of peat bogs, alluvial forest etc. Combined with the fact that in metropolitan forests, a significant portion of ecosystem is considered “threatened” (50% of forest plants, 17% of forest birds and 7% of forest mammals), there is a cause for alarm and action (EFESE, 2019b).

Over the last 20 years, forests in metropolitan France have also been adversely affected by storms and droughts, pestilence, increasing mortality rates and deficit in tree leaves. While this phenomenon has been largely focused for the South-Eastern part of France, climate change induced risks could have a negative impact on the health of the entire metropolitan French forest cover. Warmer temperatures could increase water stress, increase chances of forest fires and exacerbate the effects of pestilence and tree diseases. At present, the two main factors posing a risk to French forests are habitat degradation and pollution (EFESE, 2019b).

The following figure gives an overview of the state of conservation of the 30 forest habitats that are among the rarest, threatened or representative in France, listed in Annex I of the Habitats-Fauna-Flora Directive. Only 18% of all the forest habitats assessed were in a favourable conservation status over the 2013-2018 period. Alpine forests were in a better state of conservation than other types (Atlantic, continental, Mediterranean). Forests in the Atlantic terrestrial region are the worst affected, with only 7% of the forest habitats assessed in this territory being in a favourable conservation status (ONB, 2019b).

23 Figure 13 – States of conservation of forest habitats of communal interest by biogeographic region (2013- 2018)

Forest surface area in France has grown by about 50% in the period 1908-2010, a change of around 5.1 million ha. The region which saw the greatest increase was the Massif Central. The time period between 1975 and 1980 also included much faster growth in stock, which increased 300% more than surface area, with effects varied over geographies. In more recent time periods (2006-2015), surface area and forest stock has continued to grow, at annual rates of 120,000 ha and 44 million m3 respectively, pointing to a continuation of the long-term trends (Denardou et al., 2017).

URBAN ECOSYSTEMS

Europe has exceptionally high levels of urbanisation as compared to the rest of the world, with 75% urban population in 2013, projected to reach 90% by 2100. As one of the regions in the world where modern urbanisation took root comparatively earlier owing to the industrial revolution, initial study of the interactions between ecology and urbanisation already started 50 years ago in some parts of Europe. Berlin for example integrated biodiversity data in urban planning in the 1970s (Kronenberg et al., 2013).

Of the 55 million hectares’ French metropolitan areas, artificially built areas cover 2.7 million hectares, with 77% of population living with, or close to, variable degrees of natural environments in urban regions. These natural environments can take various shapes and forms, ranging from green roofs, private gardens and vegetable gardens to wooded areas, wetlands and green squares and parks (EFESE, 2019c).

24 Figure 14 - Evolution of artificial surface cover and population in metropolitan France, 2018

While urban populations across France continue to grow, the growth rates for overseas territories have been somewhat higher relative to metropolitan France. From 2000 to 2006, while metropolitan urban populations grew by 1.6%, average growth rates in Guadeloupe, Martinique and La Réunion were closer to 11%, with the exception of Guyana which only had 0.1% urban population growth. Per inhabitant, 39 metres of urban areas in France are natural, with significantly lower numbers for denser metropolises like Paris. Research has also found that for a sample of 28 French cities above 200,000 inhabitants, an average 40% of the total urban built environment was natural areas (EFESE, 2019c).

Diversity of species can be high in urban areas, with the majority being flora and fauna with resilient and adaptative attributes. These can be explained by the dynamic urban environment, where endemic species are often in competition with exotic and invasive species introduced by humans. Urban ecosystems in France, like their global counterparts, are also home to protected heritage areas. The French National Inventory of Natural Heritage found that on an average, 4.2% of urban areas in 12 French cities were protected areas owing to their biodiversity and associated heritage value (EFESE, 2019c).

The figure below presents the trends in artificial area development in metropolitan France by soil management type, from 2000-2015, with an overall upwards trend pointing to moderately increasing pressures.

25 Figure 15 - Evolution of artificialized surfaces in metropolitan France by soil artificialisation, 2018

Urban biodiversity is nevertheless under increasing pressure. As urban areas expand and get denser, this puts planning pressure on natural areas and soils. The landscaping status and potential of an urban environment is dependent on the soil type, which can vary greatly in composition and organic content. Urban area soils are subject to built environment treatment (compacted, polluted, processed artificially etc.), and natural areas which rely on these are also very often poorly connected (EFESE, 2019c).

MOUNTAINS AND ROCK ECOSYSTEMS

2% of metropolitan French territory is covered by “non-forest terrestrial natural environments of the subalpine, alpine and nival levels”. Almost entirely located in the Alps, the Pyrenees and Corsica, these ecosystems contain rich biodiversity and unique geologic, climatic and historical value and characteristics. The mountain national parks of Vanoise, Écrins, Mercantour and Pyrenees contain 186 flora species which are on the Red List of Threatened Species as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened of the IUCN (EFESE, 2019d).

The French overseas territories are also home to biodiversity-rich mountain ecosystems, notably for flora. As an example, 30% of plant species on the Reunion islands are “strict endemics”, while in Mascareignes, 47% of recorded plan species are unique to the archipelago. As with metropolitan French mountain ecosystems, the overseas territories are

26 also threatened by climate change related effects and tourism. Especially for island territories, invasive species are a clear threat to native biodiversity (EFESE, 2019d).

CONTINENTAL WETLANDS AND FRESH WATER ECOSYSTEMS

Continental wetlands and fresh water ecosystems cover around 23% of the French metropolitan land-mass, an area of roughly 13 million hectares. The definition covers water bodies which can be either permanent or temporary, and surrounding areas. The salinity of water bodies can vary, and they can be natural or artificial in nature. Lakes, ponds, reservoirs, streams etc. and associated areas host unique biodiversity both in metropolitan and overseas French areas. Rapid urbanization and land use changes to make land suitable for agricultural purposes has led to a 50% decline in wetland cover across France in the 1960-1990 period (EFESE, 2019e).

As a testament to the importance of continental wetlands and freshwater ecosystems to biodiversity in France, they are home to around 33% of all listed species, and 45% of all endangered species, in metropolitan French territory. Although the level of importance given to conservation of these important ecosystems is not commensurate in national strategies, overall ecosystem health is considered stable when considering water bird populations and decreases in organic matter and phosphorus pollution in rivers from the mid-2000s to 2013 (EFESE, 2019e).

However, this should not detract from the fact that the Water Framework Directive of 2013 found less than 50% of water bodies to be in “good or very good” ecological state. Water bodies were found to have stable but disruptive levels of nitrate accumulation since the mid 2000s, with some estimates attributing 80% of all marine pollutants to human activity. Anthropogenic pollutants like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides etc and water stress from agricultural and urban activity, along with greater incidence of alien invasive species like tiger mosquitoes, jussies, nutria, and ambrosia are further exacerbating climate change related effects like droughts (EFESE, 2019e).

From a more general and broader perspective of continental areas, the figure below visualises the evolution of the metropolitan continental areas identified as “remarkable” for their ecosystem biodiversity (Zone naturelle d'intérêt écologique, faunistique et floristique, continentales de type 1 et 2) in the 1990-2012 period. A total of 0.2% of the ZNIEFF (Zone naturelle d'intérêt écologique, faunistique et floristique) surface area was lost in the period visualised, totalling around 36, 750 ha. Most of the losses were in grasslands, which were converted to urban and arable areas. Notably, this is twice the amount of natural areas lost in non-ZNIEFF metropolitan France. The rate of loss was reduced in the last period (2006-2012), perhaps pointing to reduced pressures as compared to the two previous periods.

27 Figure 16 - Yearly evolution of the metropolitan continental areas identified as “remarkable” for their ecosystem biodiversity, (1990-2012) // ZNIEFF - Zone naturelle d'intérêt écologique, faunistique et floristique

28 REFERENCES

AGRESTE (2012), A Handbook of Agricultural Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood and Forests, December 2012. Available at http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/memo12anglais.pdf Agreste, (2016) Les Dossiers n° 36 – septembre 2016. http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/publications/dossiers/article/enquete-pratiques- phytosanitaires-12398 Arrouays, D., King, C., Vion, I., & Le Bissonnais, Y. (1996). Detection of soil crusting risks related to low soil organic carbon contents by using discriminant analysis on Thematic Mapper data. Geocarto International, 11(4), 11-16. Assessment, M. M. E. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington: Island Press. Ayres, M. P., & Lombardero, M. J. (2000). Assessing the consequences of global change for forest disturbance from herbivores and pathogens. Science of the Total Environment, 262(3), 263-286. Bakkenes, M., Alkemade, J. R. M., Ihle, F., Leemans, R., & Latour, J. B. (2002). Assessing effects of forecasted climate change on the diversity and distribution of European higher plants for 2050. Global change biology, 8(4), 390-407. Barker, J. R., & Tingey, D. T. (Eds.). (2012). Air pollution effects on biodiversity. Springer Science & Business Media. Bartlett, L. J., Newbold, T., Purves, D. W., Tittensor, D. P., & Harfoot, M. B. (2016). Synergistic impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation on model ecosystems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1839), 20161027. Béchet, B., Le Bissonnais, Y., Ruas, A., Aguilera, A., André, M., Andrieu, H., ... & Belton- Chevallier, L. (2017). Sols artificialisés et processus d'artificialisation des sols: déterminants, impacts et leviers d'action. Bernath-Plaisted, J., & Koper, N. (2016). Physical footprint of oil and gas infrastructure, not anthropogenic noise, reduces nesting success of some grassland songbirds. Biological Conservation, 204, 434-441. Billeter, R., Liira, J., Bailey, D., Bugter, R., Arens, P., Augenstein, I., ... & Cerny, M. (2008). Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. Journal of Applied ecology, 45(1), 141-150. Blaser, J., & Robledo, C. (2007). Analysis of the mitigation potential in the forestry sector. Report for the UNFCCC Secretariat. Intercooperation. Bern, Switzerland. Browne, M. A., Niven, S. J., Galloway, T. S., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, R. C. (2013). Microplastic moves pollutants and additives to worms, reducing functions linked to health and biodiversity. Current Biology, 23(23), 2388-2392. Calizza, E., Costantini, M. L., Careddu, G., & Rossi, L. (2017). Effect of habitat degradation on competition, carrying capacity, and species assemblage stability. Ecology and evolution, 7(15), 5784-5796.

29 Calvet, J. C., Gibelin, A. L., Roujean, J. L., Martin, E., Moigne, P. L., Douville, H., & Noilhan, J. (2008). Past and future scenarios of the effect of carbon dioxide on plant growth and transpiration for three vegetation types of southwestern France. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 8(2), 397-406. CBD (2014), Executive Summary, 5th French National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, October 2014 CBD (2019a), retrieved on August 14, 2019, from https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=fr#measures CBD (2019b), retrieved August 21, 2019, from https://www.cbd.int/invasive/WhatareIAS.shtml CBD (2019c), retrieved August 19, 2019, from https://www.cbd.int/agro/whatstheproblem.shtml CBD (2019d), retrieved August 27, 2019, from https://www.cbd.int/agro/whatstheproblem.shtml CBD Clearing House (2019), 6th National Report for France, submitted 20 April 2019. CDR EEE (2019), AFB & UICN France, retrieved August 30, 2019, from http://especes- exotiques-envahissantes.fr/enjeux-en-france/ Ceulemans, T., Stevens, C. J., Duchateau, L., Jacquemyn, H., Gowing, D. J., Merckx, R., ... & Dorland, E. (2014). Soil phosphorus constrains biodiversity across European grasslands. Global change biology, 20(12), 3814-3822. CEV (2019). Les enjeux de l’artificialisation des sols : diagnostic. Accessed from https://www.ecologique- solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Les%20enjeux%20de%20l%E2%80%99artificialisation%2 0des%20sols.pdf CGDD (2018) Environnement & agriculture – Les chiffres clés. Collection Datalab. Cojoc, E. I., Postolache, C., Olariu, B., & Beierkuhnlein, C. (2016). Effects of anthropogenic fragmentation on primary productivity and soil carbon storage in temperate mountain grasslands. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 188(12), 653. Concepción, E. D., Moretti, M., Altermatt, F., Nobis, M. P., & Obrist, M. K. (2015). Impacts of urbanisation on biodiversity: the role of species mobility, degree of specialisation and spatial scale. Oikos, 124(12), 1571-1582. Cook, D. C., Fraser, R. W., Paini, D. R., Warden, A. C., Lonsdale, W. M., & De Barro, P. J. (2011). Biosecurity and yield improvement technologies are strategic complements in the fight against food insecurity. PLoS One, 6(10), e26084. CREA Mont-Blanc (2019), retrieved August 31, 2019, from https://creamontblanc.org/en/climate-change-and-its-impacts-alps#impacts Crutzen, P. J. (2004). New Directions: The growing urban heat and pollution" island" effect--- impact on chemistry and climate. Atmospheric environment, 38, 3539-3540. DAISIE (2009) Handbook on Alien Species in Europe. In: Drake, J.A., Ed., Invading Nature, Springer Series in Invasion Ecology, Vol. 3. Springer, Knoxville, 1-26

30 Denardou, A., Hervé, J. C., Dupouey, J. L., Bir, J., Audinot, T., & Bontemps, J. D. (2017). L’expansion séculaire des forêts françaises est dominée par l’accroissement du stock sur pied et ne sature pas dans le temps. Revue forestière française. Drolet, A., Dussault, C., & Côté, S. D. (2016). Simulated drilling noise affects the space use of a large terrestrial mammal. Wildlife Biology, 22(6), 284-294. EDGE (2019), retrieved August 21, 2019, from https://www.edgeofexistence.org/what-is- edge/ EEA (2014). Good practice guide on quiet areas. EEA Technical report No 4/2014. EEA (2015), France country briefing - The European environment — state and outlook 2015. Accessed from https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/countries/france EFESE (2018). DD-EFESE – Les milieux humides et aquatiques continentaux. Collection Théma Analyse. EFESE (L’évaluation française des écosystèmes et des services écosystémiques), (2019a), Agricultural ecosystems in France - Key messages for decision makers, April 2019, Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire. EFESE (L’évaluation française des écosystèmes et des services écosystémiques), (2019e), Continental wetlands and freshwater ecosystems in France - Key messages for decision makers, April 2019, Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire. EFESE (L’évaluation française des écosystèmes et des services écosystémiques), (2019b), Forest ecosystems in France - Key messages for decision makers, April 2019, Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire. EFESE (L’évaluation française des écosystèmes et des services écosystémiques), (2019d), Mountain and rock ecosystems in France - Key messages for decision makers, April 2019, Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire. EFESE (L’évaluation française des écosystèmes et des services écosystémiques), (2019c), Urban ecosystems in France - Key messages for decision makers, April 2019, Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire. Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P. J., McDonald, R. I., ... & Wilkinson, C. (Eds.). (2013). Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global assessment. Springer. EU (2018), Land Cover and Land Use. DG Agriculture and Rural Development. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/statistics/facts-figures/land-cover- use.pdf EU (2019a), retrieved on August 22, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/statistics/facts-figures/land-cover- use.pdf EU (2019b), retrieved on August 23, 2019, from https://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/pollution FAO (2013). Toolkit: Reducing the Food Wastage Footprint. Food Agriculture Organization (FAO). FAO (2019), retrieved August 27, 2019, from http://www.fao.org/3/y5609e/y5609e02.htm

31 Fedele, G., Locatelli, B., Djoudi, H., & Colloff, M. J. (2018). Reducing risks by transforming landscapes: Cross-scale effects of land-use changes on ecosystem services. PloS one, 13(4), e0195895. Forman, R. T. (2000). Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation biology, 14(1), 31-35. Fragkias, M., Güneralp, B., Seto, K. C., & Goodness, J. (2013). A synthesis of global urbanization projections. In Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 409-435). Springer, Dordrecht. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Barton, D. N., Langemeyer, J., McPhearson, T., O'Farrell, P., ... & Kremer, P. (2013). Urban Ecosystem Services.–I: T. ea Elmqvist, editor. Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities: A Global Assessment. Gorham, E., & Gordon, A. G. (1963). Some effects of smelter pollution upon aquatic vegetation near Sudbury, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany, 41(3), 371-378. Grimm, N. B., Faeth, S. H., Golubiewski, N. E., Redman, C. L., Wu, J., Bai, X., & Briggs, J. M. (2008). Global change and the ecology of cities. science, 319(5864), 756-760. Guthrie, S., Giles, S., Dunkerley, F., Tabaqchali, H., Harshfield, A., Ioppolo, B., & Manville, C. (2018). The impact of ammonia emissions from agriculture on biodiversity. Hanski, I. (2011). Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. Ambio, 40(3), 248-255. Harrower, C. A., Scalera, R., Pagad, S., Schonrogge, K., & Roy, H. E. (2018). Guidance for interpretation of CBD categories on introduction pathways. Report to the European Commission. Hartono, D., Lioe, B., Zhang, Y., Li, B., & Yu, J. (2017). Impacts of particulate matter (PM2. 5) on the behavior of freshwater snail Parafossarulus striatulus. Scientific reports, 7(1), 644. Hölker, F., Wolter, C., Perkin, E. K., & Tockner, K. (2010). Light pollution as a biodiversity threat. Trends in ecology & evolution, 25(12), 681-682. Howard, L. (1833). The climate of London: deduced from meteorological observations made in the metropolis and at various places around it, vol 2. Harvey and Darton. J. and A. Arch, Longman, Hatchard, S. Highley [and] R. Hunter. Hulme, P. E. (2009). Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of applied ecology, 46(1), 10-18. Hurtt, G. C., Chini, L. P., Frolking, S., Betts, R. A., Feddema, J., Fischer, G., ... & Jones, C. D. (2011). Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Climatic change, 109(1-2), 117. INSEE (2017), Les acteurs économiques et l’environnement, édition 2017. Isbell, F., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Loreau, M. (2015). The biodiversity-dependent ecosystem service debt. Ecology letters, 18(2), 119-134. IUCN (2019), retrieved August 30, 2019, from https://uicn.fr/especes-exotiques- envahissantes/

32 Jacob, D., Petersen, J., Eggert, B., Alias, A., Christensen, O. B., Bouwer, L. M., ... & Georgopoulou, E. (2014). EURO-CORDEX: new high-resolution climate change projections for European impact research. Regional environmental change, 14(2), 563-578. Jeffery, S., Gardi, C., Jones, A., Montanarella, L., Marmo, L., Miko, L., ... & Van der Putten, H. R. S. G. (2010). European atlas of soil biodiversity. European Commission. Publications of the European Union, Luxemburg. Jones A, Ballabio C, Fernandez Ugalde O, Hervas J, Lugato E, Montanarella L, Orgiazzi A, Panagos P, Paya Perez A, and Van Liedekerke M, (2018). SOIL: how much do we value this critical resource? Highlights from recent JRC research. Kaufmann, R. K., Seto, K. C., Schneider, A., Liu, Z., Zhou, L., & Wang, W. (2007). Climate response to rapid urban growth: evidence of a human-induced precipitation deficit. Journal of Climate, 20(10), 2299-2306. Krauss, J., Bommarco, R., Guardiola, M., Heikkinen, R. K., Helm, A., Kuussaari, M., ... & Pöyry, J. (2010). Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels. Ecology letters, 13(5), 597-605. Kronenberg, Jakub, Azime Tezer, Dagmar Haase, and Johan Colding. "Regional assessment of Europe." In Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities, pp. 275-278. Springer, Dordrecht, 2013. Krupa, S. V. (2003). Effects of atmospheric ammonia (NH3) on terrestrial vegetation: a review. Environmental pollution, 124(2), 179-221. Le Clerc, V., Bazante, F., Baril, C., Guiard, J., & Zhang, D. (2005). Assessing temporal changes in genetic diversity of maize varieties using microsatellite markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 110(2), 294-302. Le Roux, X., Barbault, R., Baudry, J., Burel, F., Chauvel, B., Couvet, D., ... & Garnier, E. (2009). Agriculture et biodiversité: valoriser les synergies: expertise scientifique collective INRA juillet 2008. Legifrance (2019a), retrieved on August 13, 2019, from http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006176521&cidTex te=LEGITEXT000006074220&dateTexte=20090330 Legifrance (2019b), retrieved August 28, 2019, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000020949548 Legrand, H., Rébeillé-Borgella, E., IGA, D. C., FLAM, G., MARCHAL, Y., & SOULIE, M. C. (2015). Evaluation de la police de l’environnement. Rapport CGEDD, (008923-01). Loustau, D., Bosc, A., Colin, A., Ogée, J., Davi, H., François, C., ... & Le Bas, C. (2005). Modeling climate change effects on the potential production of French plains forests at the sub-regional level. Tree physiology, 25(7), 813-823. Lungarska, A., & Chakir, R. (2018). Climate-induced land use change in France: impacts of agricultural adaptation and climate change mitigation. Ecological economics, 147, 134-154. Mäder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., & Niggli, U. (2002). Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296(5573), 1694-1697.

33 Malcolm, J. R., Liu, C., Neilson, R. P., Hansen, L., & Hannah, L. E. E. (2006). Global warming and extinctions of endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conservation biology, 20(2), 538-548. Marti, R., Gascoin, S., Houet, T., Ribière, O., Laffly, D., Condom, T., ... & Soubeyroux, J. M. (2015). Evolution of Ossoue Glacier (French Pyrenees) since the end of the Little Ice Age. Martin, Gabrielle, Vincent Devictor, Eric Motard, Nathalie Machon, and Emmanuelle Porcher. "Short-term climate-induced change in French plant communities." Biology letters 15, no. 7 (2019): 20190280. Martin, M. P., Wattenbach, M., Smith, P., Meersmans, J., Jolivet, C. C., Boulonne, L., & Arrouays, D. (2011). Soil organic carbon stocks distribution in France. Biogeosciences, 8, 1053-1065. MASSU, N., & Landmann, G. (2011). Connaissance des impacts du changement climatique sur la biodiversité en France métropolitaine, synthèse de la bibliographie. ECOFOR, 180 p. McDonald, R. I., & Urban, D. L. (2006). Edge effects on species composition and exotic species abundance in the North Carolina Piedmont. Biological Invasions, 8(5), 1049-1060. McGill, Brian. "Biodiversity: Land use matters." Nature 520, no. 7545 (2015): 38. Meehl, G. A., Karl, T., Easterling, D. R., Changnon, S., Pielke Jr, R., Changnon, D., ... & Mearns, L. O. (2000). An introduction to trends in extreme weather and climate events: observations, socioeconomic impacts, terrestrial ecological impacts, and model projections. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 81(3), 413-416. Ministry of Food and Agriculture (2019), retrieved August 20, 2019, from https://agriculture.gouv.fr/overview-french-agricultural-diversity Müller, N., Ignatieva, M., Nilon, C. H., Werner, P., & Zipperer, W. C. (2013). Patterns and trends in urban biodiversity and landscape design. In Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 123-174). Springer, Dordrecht. N. Brisson, F. Levrault (Eds.), (2010). Livre vert du projet Climator, Changement climatique, agriculture et forêt en France: simulations d’impacts sur les principales espèces. ANR, INRA, ADEME, ADEME éditions 334 pp NatureFrance, retrieved on August 14, 2019, from http://www.naturefrance.fr/onb/presentation-de-lonb/historique Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Hill, S. L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R. A., ... & Day, J. (2015). Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature, 520(7545), 45. OECD (2017). Land-Use Planning Systems In The Oecd: Country Fact Sheets, from https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/land-use-France.pdf ONB (2018) Menaces sur le vivant : quand la nature ne peut plus suivre. Publication 2018 : bilan de l’état de la biodiversité en France. Agence française pour la biodiversité. http://indicateurs-biodiversite.naturefrance.fr/ ONB (2019a), retrieved August 21, 2019, from http://indicateurs- biodiversite.naturefrance.fr/fr/indicateurs/etat-de-conservation-des-habitats-naturels ONB (2019b), retrieved August 22, 2019, from http://indicateurs- biodiversite.naturefrance.fr/fr/indicateurs/etat-de-conservation-des-habitats-forestiers

34 Paini, D. R., Sheppard, A. W., Cook, D. C., De Barro, P. J., Worner, S. P., & Thomas, M. B. (2016). Global threat to agriculture from invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), 7575-7579. Panagos, P., Van Liedekerke, M., Yigini, Y., & Montanarella, L. (2013). Contaminated sites in Europe: review of the current situation based on data collected through a European network. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2013. Paoletti, E., Schaub, M., Matyssek, R., Wieser, G., Augustaitis, A., Bastrup-Birk, A. M., ... & Serengil, Y. (2010). Advances of air pollution science: from forest decline to multiple-stress effects on forest ecosystem services. Environmental Pollution, 158(6), 1986-1989. Parmesan, C. (2006). Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 37, 637-669. Pérez, A. P., & Eugenio, N. R. (2018). Status of local soil contamination in Europe. Puydarrieux, P., Kervinio, Y., & Darses, O. (2016). EFESE-Evaluation Française des Ecosystèmes et des Services Ecosystémiques-Rapport intermédiaire. Rheindt, F. E. (2003). The impact of roads on birds: Does song frequency play a role in determining susceptibility to noise pollution? Journal Fur Ornithologie, 144(3), 295–306 Rochman, C. M., Browne, M. A., Halpern, B. S., Hentschel, B. T., Hoh, E., Karapanagioti, H. K., ... & Thompson, R. C. (2013). Policy: Classify plastic waste as hazardous. Nature, 494(7436), 169. Roussel, V., Koenig, J., Beckert, M., & Balfourier, F. (2004). Molecular diversity in French bread wheat accessions related to temporal trends and breeding programmes. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 108(5), 920-930. Scanes, C. G. (2018). Human activity and habitat loss: destruction, fragmentation, and degradation. In Animals and Human Society (pp. 451-482). Academic Press. Sekercioglu, C. H., Schneider, S. H., Fay, J. P., & Loarie, S. R. (2008). Climate change, elevational range shifts, and bird extinctions. Conservation biology, 22(1), 140-150. Shem, W., & Shepherd, M. (2009). On the impact of urbanization on summertime thunderstorms in Atlanta: Two numerical model case studies. Atmospheric Research, 92(2), 172-189. Smithwick, E., Harmon, M., & Domingo, J. (2003). Modeling multiscale effects of light limitations and edge-induced mortality on carbon stores in forest landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 18(7), 701–721 Sol, G. (2011). L’état des sols de France. Groupement d’intérêt scientifique sur les sols, 188. Sordello, R., De Lachapelle, F. F., Livoreil, B., & Vanpeene, S. (2019). Evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence, 8(1), 8. Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G. K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., ... & Midgley, P. M. (2013). Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Intergovernmental panel on climate change, working group I contribution to the IPCC fifth assessment report (AR5). New York. Sun, J. W., & Narins, P. M. (2005). Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biological conservation, 121(3), 419-427.

35 Teuten, E. L., Saquing, J. M., Knappe, D. R., Barlaz, M. A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A., ... & Ochi, D. (2009). Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2027-2045. Therond, O., Tichit, M., & Tibi, A. (2017). Volet" écosystèmes agricoles" de l’Evaluation Française des Ecosystèmes et des Services Ecosystémiques. Rapport d'étude, Inra (France) Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Araújo, M. B., Sykes, M. T., & Prentice, I. C. (2005). Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(23), 8245-8250. Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 20260-20264. Touroult, J., Witté, I. & Thévenot, J. (2016). Construction d’un indicateur d’évolution de la distribution des espèces exotiques envahissantes en France métropolitaine. Rapport SPN 2016-90. Trömel, S., & Schönwiese, C. D. (2007). Probability change of extreme precipitation observed from 1901 to 2000 in Germany. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 87(1-4), 29- 39. UNECE (2019), retrieved on August 30, 2019, from http://www.unece.org/environmental- policy/conventions/envlrtapwelcome/cross-sectoral-linkages/air-pollution-ecosystems-and- biodiversity.html US EPA, (2011). Global anthropogenic non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions: 1990 – 2030 EPA 430-D-11-003. (Draft.) Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Available from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/nonco2projections.html) Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., & Ingram, J. S. (2012). Climate change and food systems. Annual review of environment and resources, 37. Virely, B. (2017). "Artificialisation, de la mesure à l’action", Thema, CGDD, 2017 Visconti, P., Bakkenes, M., Baisero, D., Brooks, T., Butchart, S. H., Joppa, L., ... & Maiorano, L. (2016). Projecting global biodiversity indicators under future development scenarios. Conservation Letters, 9(1), 5-13. Wall, D. H., Nielsen, U. N., & Six, J. (2015). Soil biodiversity and human health. Nature, 528(7580), 69. Warren, P. S., Katti, M., Ermann, M., & Brazel, A. (2006). Urban bioacoustics: it's not just noise. Animal behaviour, 71(3), 491-502.