Chapter 5. Biodiversity: Protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty

Natural environments

The situation of natural environments in metropolitan France continues to raise concerns, with three-quarters of its habitats of Community interest assessed as at an unfavourable conservation status, without notable improvement since 2007 (Figures 5.1and 5.2). The action taken has not produced the expected results. Only 22% of natural habitats are at a favourable status, and the status of 5% of these is unknown. The status of many habitats in the Atlantic and Continental biogeographical zones in particular is unfavourable, and the status of some is poor.

Figure 5.1. Three-quarters of habitats of Community interest have an unfavourable conservation status

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933406228

Figure 5.2. Over half the species of Community interest have an unfavourable conservation status

The disappearance of wetlands is a global conservation challenge because of their special biodiversity, but also because of the various ecosystem services they provide, especially in terms of water cycle regulation (floods, droughts). France lost two-thirds of its wetlands between the end of the 19th century and the 1990s, and 50% in the second half of the 20th century. French wetlands cover a mere 3% of national territory. The assessment report on the 2010-13 National Action Plan for Wetlands (Lavoux et al., 2013) refers to “degradation that barely slowed down, where over half the sites deteriorated substantially or in part between 2000 and 2010, 28% of sites were considered to be stable and 14% had improved”. In the previous survey, covering the period between 1990 and 2000, the experts were more negative: 51% of sites were considered to have deteriorated in part and 5% to have deteriorated sharply, suggesting that progress had been made. These findings are based on experts’ consultations, since few aggregated data are available nationally to facilitate an assessment of the area and functionality of wetlands. Inventories were taken at departmental or municipal level (or by water agencies at water basin level), but small wetlands (less than 1 ha) are not usually inventoried, and methods of assessing functionalities are not standardised.

The ecological status of a significant proportion of continental aquatic environments other than wetlands is not good. The 2009 assessment of the ecological status of water bodies shows that, out of 11 523 surface water bodies (watercourses, stretches of water, transitional waters, coastal waters), 7% were heavily modified or artificial and fewer than half (45%) had a good or very good ecological status (Vial et al., 2010). The assessment of fish populations was more positive: in metropolitan France from 1990 to 2009, the average number of species by sampling point (590 points at metropolitan level) increased in 58% of cases (and fell in 34%), while species density increased in 74% of cases (Poulet et al., 2013).

With respect to marine environments, the proportion of non-assessed habitats continues to be high: 53% for the Atlantic Ocean and 67% in the Mediterranean, where many fish stocks are heavily overexploited (MEDDE, 2014). In the overseas territories, knowledge is even poorer, but a 2008 assessment suggests that 30% to 50% of reefs are degraded on the most heavily populated coasts (Antilles, Réunion, Îles de la Société, Mayotte) (Ifrecore, 2008).

Flora and fauna

Around 10% of mammals, 15% of birds and 21% of reptiles and amphibians are threatened in metropolitan France3 (Figure 5.3). While these rates are high, they are lower than those in most OECD countries.

Figure 5.3. One out of five species is threatened in metropolitan France

Some of these species benefit from targeted action plans, most of which began in 2010-11, such as those for certain birds of prey (Section 4.2). Many common species not covered by these plans, however, continue to decline (Figure 5.4), particularly specialised species in agricultural environments, whose abundance levels are significantly below 1989 levels (-32%) and probably well below 1970s levels compared to Europe as a whole. The current situation therefore continues to be a cause for concern. Stocks of general species, on the other hand, have been increasing significantly over the past 10 years, illustrating the phenomenon of homogenisation of biological communities, a key factor in biodiversity loss.

Figure 5.4. Specialised birds in agricultural environments continue to suffer from intensive farming

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933406248

The situation is even more serious in the overseas territories. In Réunion and Guadeloupe, for example, over 30% of birds are threatened or have already disappeared. A third of Réunion’s native vascular plants are threatened, as are the island’s three land reptiles. In New Caledonia, an area of less than 20 000 km2 accommodates 3 371 species of vascular plants, 75% of which are endemic. The island hosts 7% of the planet’s conifers. The rate of endemism exceeds 90% for low and medium altitude scrubland associated to heavy metal soils. These habitats have suffered most from mining activity.

Agriculture

As in other Western European countries, agriculture is regarded as the primary anthropogenic parameter with an impact on biodiversity in France. Agricultural land (arable land and crops, grassland and pasture) occupies over half the metropolitan area, and increased agricultural output resulting from the modernisation and intensification of agricultural practices since the 1950s has led to strong homogenisation of agricultural landscapes and biodiversity depletion (Le Roux et al., 2008). Grassland declined by 8% between 2000 and 2012, and where large-scale crops are grown, deep ploughing, pesticide use, nitrogen mineral fertilisation, drainage and irrigation have brought about an overall decline in biodiversity.

Synthetic plant protection products, used repeatedly for perennial crops, are now regarded as a major cause of biodiversity decline in agricultural ecosystems in industrial countries. In 2013, France was the second-largest European consumer of pesticides by total volume, behind Spain, while in 2010 it was in eighth place at world level (Chapter 1). The presence of pesticides in watercourses and groundwater is a cause for concern. This contamination is due largely to herbicides in metropolitan France and insecticides in the overseas territories. The presence of pesticides in groundwater is relatively lower than in watercourses, but the situation has developed little since the beginning of this century.4

Although surplus agricultural mineral elements (nitrogen and phosphorus) have declined in France since 2000, the impact of farming is still significant, largely because of the intensification of fodder production (grassland conversion) and the eutrophication of aquatic and coastal ecosystems, particularly in intensive farming areas in western France (Chapter 1). Phosphorus inputs have fallen by 50% since 2010, due partly to the widespread availability of soil studies to rationalise fertilisation and because of variations in phosphate prices.

Land take and fragmentation

Land take increases twice as quickly as the population, mostly at the expense of agricultural areas and woodlands and habitats needed by fauna and flora. This consumption of space also breaks up habitats and ecosystems, giving rise to additional impacts on biodiversity (EEA, 2011).

Artificial areas represented over 9% of the land area in 2014, an increase of 19% compared to 2000, with a net acceleration since 2006 (Figure 5.6). Space is mostly given over to economic activities (waste treatment, trade and service companies), public amenities and transport infrastructure, particularly roads and motorways. The latter account for 80% of surfaced and stabilised land, the area of which increased by 14% between 2006 and 2014. Urban development has affected areas increasingly distant from the major conurbations and the coastline, particularly along transport infrastructure and borders (EEA, 2011; SOE, 2014).

Figure 5.6. Land take is accelerating

Alien invasive species

Alien invasive species (AIS) are one of the main threats to biodiversity in the overseas territories because these ecosystems are so vulnerable to biological invasion. In Réunion, for example, invasive species have become the primary cause of biodiversity loss, with 133 non-native plant species and 16 non-native land vertebrate species whose voluntary or chance introduction by man threatens ecosystems, habitats and native species, with negative environmental, economic and health consequences. These species represent a threat to biodiversity because biological communities have homogenised and gradually become more commonplace at world level.5 In metropolitan France, 2 623 species are considered to be AIS (DAISIE, 2013), and in 2010 few wetlands were immune to them (CGDD, 2013a).

AIS management costs France around EUR 19 million per year, 68% of which is spent in the overseas territories and 32% in metropolitan France (CGDD, 2015a). The (essentially health-related6) damage caused by these species, which persist despite management measures, has also been estimated at EUR 19 million per year.

National Biodiversity Strategy 2004-10

Pursuant to Article 6 of the CBD, the principal objective of the 2004 NBS was to halt biodiversity erosion by 2010. France, like other countries, did not achieve that objective, though the NBS did keep pace with significant developments concerning species and area protection in particular, underscored in the appraisal carried out by the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing (MEDDTL, 2012). Assessments by the Government (Alexandre et al., 2010) and the French Committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2010) or in connection with the impact study on the draft law on biodiversity (National Assembly, 2014) are more qualified. The sectoral nature of the 10 action plans7 for implementing the NBS, drawn up by the Ministries concerned, led to a lack of cohesion and an erosion of the Strategy’s ambitious objectives in favour of insubstantial changes to the sectoral policies. The commitment of the various Ministries in drawing up and piloting the plans was also rather mixed if not totally absent in the case of urban development (Juffé et al., 2012; Alexandre et al., 2010). Finally, certain sectors were not approached, such as education and industry, and there was a marked lack of planning for water and aquatic environments.

The lack of involvement of stakeholders was emphasised, the NBS being formulated initially largely by the former management of the Ministry’s Department for Nature and Landscapes and some technical contributors (associations and scientists). The Strategy was in addition not presented well to the general public. The action plans were rekindled in 2009 to include contributions from the Grenelle Forum, thus correcting the lack of consultation to some extent. In the eyes of the public, however, the Grenelle Forum took over the NBS rather than vice versa.

The Grenelle Forum, 2007

Opening in 2007, the consultation process known as the Grenelle Forum led to major developments in terms of biodiversity (Chapter 2). The Grenelle II Law resulted, in particular, in the reform of impact studies, the definition of national green and blue infrastructure and regional ecological consistency schemes, and the definition of a national strategy for the integrated management of the sea and coastline.8 Local authorities, however, particularly in the overseas territories, were not sufficiently involved in the consultations. One of the working parties set up under the Grenelle Forum focused on biodiversity and natural resource conservation. Its main proposal was to create “green infrastructure” to counter habitat fragmentation,9 taken up from 2008 under the responsibility of an operational committee dedicated to “trames vertes et bleues” [green and blue belt network] (TVB)10 (sections 3 and 6.2). Although representatives of the departments and regions had been invited, they never took part in the meetings (Vimal et al., 2012), which involved highly technical discussions. Despite these limitations, however, the consultation approach adopted by the Grenelle process is often held up as a model, particularly because of the place granted to civil society in drawing up proposals.

A Grenelle Forum working party sought to adopt sustainable production and consumption methods (agriculture, fisheries, agri-foodstuffs, distribution, forests, sustainable land use) by including representatives of employees and companies in its work. One of the project’s most notable successes was the increasing recognition by enterprises of their social and environmental responsibility (RSE).11 The results in terms of biodiversity, however, will be difficult to assess.

National biodiversity strategy 2011-20

The momentum generated by the Grenelle Forum prompted a revision of the 2004-10 NBS, with greater stress being laid on consultation among upstream stakeholders and on voluntary commitments downstream, whereby stakeholders “adhere” voluntarily to the NBS and are thus labelled. This participatory approach addresses one of the main criticisms levelled at the previous NBS, though it did not sufficiently mobilise local authorities (Juffé et al., 2012; Le Clézio, 2010). In March 2015, over 450 organisations had adhered to the NBS and were therefore committed to its implementation, yet only 74 projects had been labelled. Over and above the value of this approach in enabling a variety of stakeholders to participate in biodiversity policy, the recourse to voluntary commitments undoubtedly leads to the labelling of projects that would have been implemented even in the absence of the NBS framework. The impact of these projects is furthermore difficult to assess in anything other than qualitative terms, since they do not have specific objectives to reduce pressure according to precise deadlines.

While the 2011-20 NBS was conceived on the basis of Aichi Targets defined in the CBD strategic plan, its targets are not quantified and do not have deadlines, which makes them difficult to assess. By way of illustration, the NBS seeks to “build a green infrastructure including a coherent network of protected areas” (Target 5) and to “preserve and restore ecosystems and their functioning” (Target 6). The corresponding Aichi Target (Target 11), meanwhile, clearly specifies the objectives to be achieved by 2020. The NBS 2004-10 targets, such as the establishment by 2020 of a coherent network of protected maritime areas for 20% of territorial waters under French jurisdiction, or the introduction of strong protection for at least 2% of the metropolitan land area before 2020, were not included in the NBS 2011-20. The NBS was nevertheless underpinned by a range of target indicators, such as the proportion of threatened species (identified under the National Strategy for the Creation of Protected Areas), for which the metropolitan network of protected areas is regarded as satisfactory or partially satisfactory in ensuring their conservation, expressed in the form of a percentage completion of the network of protected areas for endangered species. An indicator of this kind appears to be more relevant in measuring the effectiveness of actions carried out under NBS Target 5 than a simple percentage of the country’s area.

The NBS does not specify a strategy for mobilising resources, unlike the CBD. Credits for biodiversity protection and enhancement, however, are shared out among a number of tasks and programmes under the finance acts, in various ministries, making it difficult to assess their amount and their contribution to NBS implementation. Furthermore, “innovative” funding, from the private sector in particular, is not assessed, while the NBS mentions payments for ecosystem services and green offsets as levers for action. These shortcomings in the NBS in relation to the role of the State and its funding had been identified from 2011 by the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (ESEC), which correctly concluded that the issue of resources allocated to biodiversity would arise particularly acutely in coming years (Blanc, 2011). Target 9, which involves developing and perpetuating financial and human resources for biodiversity, is therefore particularly relevant.

The French State’s biodiversity commitments for 2011-13 (Prime Minister, 2011) do not adhere to the framework proposed by the NBS and do not refer to its targets. Communication regarding these commitments focused on calls for projects with a view to encouraging stakeholders to commit themselves in this area too. The communication options taken concealed or minimised the importance of planned legislative or regulatory developments, making the overall coherence of state action more difficult to perceive. The legislative changes made by ministerial departments as a whole and by Parliament must be better integrated into the strategic framework of the NBS to improve the image of these changes and to ensure that the contribution of the NBS to the National Strategy for Ecological Transition towards Sustainable Development (SNTEDD) is not watered down.

The draft law on biodiversity conservation

The draft law, currently under discussion in Parliament, seeks to renew the vision of biodiversity by ensuring that it encompasses all living things and by promoting its inherent dynamism in a context in which the disappearance of biodiversity services may have an impact on human activities. Its key measure is to rationalise biodiversity governance by setting up the French Biodiversity Authority (Section 2.2). The draft law also seeks to introduce a scheme providing access to genetic resources and to the sharing of advantages arising out of their use following the ratification of the Nagoya Protocol (Section 5.4) and the modernising of a number of instruments for preserving species and their habitats, such as environmental offsets (Section 6.2).

International commitments

France is deeply committed to development co-operation in relation to biodiversity and was one of the first OECD countries to formulate a co-operation strategy addressing this issue (Drutschinin et al., 2015; AFD, 2013). Public development aid for biodiversity has almost tripled since 2007-08, making the country the sixth largest sponsor among OECD Development Aid Committee members in 2012-13 (ONB, 2015a; OECD, 2015a). Under the CBD, France is committed to doubling financial flows for world biodiversity in 2015 (compared to the 2006-10 annual average) and maintaining them until 2020 (COP 11, Decision XI/4, 2012; COP 12, Decision XII/3, 2014).

France was a driving force in setting up the IPBES (International Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services)12 (IUCN, 2010). It is also one of the two donor countries to the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, which awards grants to NGOs and the private sector to facilitate civil society engagement in protecting biodiversity hotspots. It is also one of the two countries which finance the work of the Conservation Finance Alliance on sustainable funding mechanisms for biodiversity conservation (Drutschinin and Ockenden, 2015). The French Development Agency funds pilot projects for establishing these mechanisms in a number of sub-Saharan and Pacific countries.

In 2005, France became one of the 10 IUCN framework partners. This partnership supported the strengthening of protected areas in Africa and the development (currently under way) of a biodiversity funding tool for European overseas territories. Finally, the Small-Scale Initiatives Programme (PPI), launched by the French Global Environment Facility (FFEM) in 2005 to support African NGOs in sustainable biodiversity conservation and management, was so successful that the IUCN made it a model for developing the PPI for civil society organisations in North Africa (PPI-OSCAN), funded by the FFEM and the MAVA Foundation (Switzerland) (IUCN, 2014).

The State

In 2007, the Ministry responsible for biodiversity became part of a ministry with broader responsibilities, covering ecology, regional development and planning and subsequently energy (MEDDE, which became the Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Marine Affairs [MEEM] in 2016). This merger brought together the competence for biodiversity held by government departments responsible for infrastructure and urban development, two areas that exert intense pressure on biodiversity, together with agriculture. It also had the effect, however, of confining certain issues that could have been addressed at inter-ministerial level (Chapter 2) to discussions within MEEM. A national independent environmental authority was set up in 2009 to avoid conflicts of interest in assessing the effects on biodiversity of policies and projects promoted by MEEM. Its opinions are public and inform both public enquiries and legal decisions in the event of cases concerning authorisations granted by the administrative authority.

Biodiversity is addressed within MEEM by the Directorate General for Planning, Housing and Nature (DGALN13), which oversees the Department for Water and Biodiversity (DEB). Co-ordination between the latter and other MEEM services is organised, inter alia, by the General Commission for Sustainable Development (CGDD), a cross-cutting MEEM structure. The sometimes difficult liaison between regulatory activities historically carried out by the DEB (e.g. in protecting species and areas) and partnership activities promoted by the CGDD (e.g. by the use of financial incentives) is ensured through dialogue between these two bodies.

This merging of ministries in 2007 had an impact on services devolved at regional and departmental level. Besides their role in administrative decisions, these services also ensure control over the application of these decisions, particularly through the “environment inspectors”, introduced in 2012,14 whose enforcement activity has been co-ordinated since 2008 by the Prefect with the activity of the Office National de l’Eau et des Milieux Aquatiques (ONEMA) [National Office for Water and Aquatic Environments] and the Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage (ONCFS) [National Office for Hunting and Wildlife]. Officials of the Office National des Forêts (ONF) [National Forestry Office] and of certain protected areas also have enforcement powers.

The State generally delegates the application of regulations covering species and area protection to an administrator while retaining the respective formal responsibility (for the content of regulations and the limits of areas to which it applies, thanks to the involvement of sworn officials). Protected area management is therefore ensured by various public institutions, local authorities or associations (but cannot now be entrusted to enterprises). The administrator then implements a management plan in the form of planning, information and education measures, or “enhancements” (parking spaces, paths, landing stages, anchorages and sometimes commercial franchises). Some of these administrators are consulted on government decisions that may have an effect on the species or areas they are responsible for, such as project authorisations.

Specialised public institutions under state supervision

A number of public institutions manage protected areas, a function that has developed since 2005 into a more partnership-based approach. The reform of national parks in 2006 increased the influence of local authorities in their decision-making bodies by creating “buffer zones” around the “core areas” of the parks, which are governed by charters which the municipalities can adhere to if they wish. While the level of protection of national park core areas has been maintained, their effectiveness now depends partly on the goodwill of the municipalities, which can sometimes be fiercely opposed to the parks, as shown by the recent setback involving Vanoise National Park. The marine natural parks and the Agency responsible for marine protected areas (MPAs) were also created at the same time (Box 5.1).

After the MPA Agency, the ONF15 is by far the public institution which manages the largest natural area: 120 000 km² of public forests, 44 000 km² of which are in metropolitan France and 76 000 km² in the overseas departments (mostly Guiana). These areas include almost 50 000 ha of reserves and 650 000 ha of Natura 2000 sites, which may also be situated in a regional national park, for example (ONF, 2012; Attali et al., 2013). The ONCFS also manages national hunting and wildlife reserves (covering over 28 000 ha), but its supervisory and enforcement tasks in relation to the environment and hunting cover national territory as a whole, giving it a key role in managing biodiversity. ONEMA also plays a part in enforcement but is not an administrator with the same status as the ONCFS or the ONF. The French Biodiversity Agency (AFB), provided for in the draft law on biodiversity, would bring these establishments together and rationalise their governance (Box 5.2).

Several administrators may be in charge of the same area, such as when a nature reserve is situated in a Natura 2000 site which is itself within the buffer zone of a national park or in a regional natural park. The draft law on biodiversity provides for the piloting of a procedure to designate a “single administrator”, a welcome move in improving the clarity and effectiveness of public action.

The proliferation of structures involved in managing natural areas is offset in part by the work of the Atelier Technique des Espaces Naturels (ATEN) [Technical Workshop for Natural Areas], whose membership increased significantly in 2010. ATEN organises technical exchange networks between administrators and develops shared management tools (e.g. for Natura 2000 and the TVB).

Regional and local authorities

The departments, which are responsible for over 200 000 ha of sensitive natural areas (ENS), are among the most important biodiversity stakeholders. The law on the modernisation of territorial policy and the cities (MAPAM), however, adopted in 2014, gave the regions a leading role in biodiversity (including the management of EU funds allocated to Natura 2000 and agri-environment measures). It was also the regions, together with the State, that drew up the regional ecological consistency schemes (green and blue infrastructure). These changes helped to clarify the decentralisation of public-sector biodiversity measures, though without depriving the departments of their capacity for initiative. Due to these overlapping responsibilities, ad hoc co-operation structures between regional and local authorities (local government boards) grew in number. Regional natural park charters came to be applied in this way (Box 5.3). Decentralisation naturally gives rise to a non-uniform application of national guidelines according to the intentions of local elected officials, though the State generally retains an important role in validating proposals put forward by the authorities, as occurred with the regional natural parks. Within certain limits, the rare exceptions are the regional nature reserves, which are the prerogative of the regions (including Corsica’s nature reserves and the sites listed in Corsica), the ENS and the protected and enhanced areas of departmental peri-urban agricultural and natural areas (PAEN).

Although they do not have dedicated instruments, the municipalities and intermunicipal authorities are involved in implementing biodiversity policies, particularly in designating protected areas or the scope of land policies (e.g. departmental ENS and PAEN), for which their opinion or agreement may be required. They are also the administrators of a significant number of nature reserves and areas owned by the Coastal Protection Agency.

Since 2015, the municipalities have been responsible for preventing floods and managing aquatic environments, and for protecting and restoring the respective sites, aquatic ecosystems, wetlands and neighbouring forest areas. The possibility of delegating this task to établissements publics territoriaux de bassin [regional water basin authorities] (EPTB, existing) or to établissements publics d’aménagement et de gestion de l’eau [planning and water management authorities] (EPAGE, to be created), operating at water basin level, retains the advantages of a water planning and management policy historically based on the water basin, through the respective Master Plans (SDAGE) and Schemes (SAGE) for Water Development and Management, with the participation of users who sit on local water committees, together with state and local authority representatives.

Private biodiversity stakeholders

France has a significant pool of ecology professionals employed by associations and companies that provide ecological engineering services or manage natural areas. Under the NBS 2011-20, the State undertook to promote the organisation of a more effective and more visible ecological sector that could contribute towards “the green economy”. In 2014, this led to the creation of a federation of engineering and ecological stakeholders. In 2015, several of these stakeholders signed an undertaking for consultancy firms focusing, in particular, on the content of environmental assessments to make the technical expertise underpinning environmental decisions and therefore biodiversity more understandable. Their experience could be better harnessed to improve the interface between science and public-sector action. These structures moreover generate significant volumes of biodiversity data, the inclusion of which in the Nature and Landscapes Information System (SINP) should be promoted.

Scientific and technical expertise

French scientific biodiversity research is abundant and relatively well funded16 but not yet sufficiently mobilised to play a guiding role.17 There are no strong links between the research bodies, working together since 2008 in the Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité [Biodiversity Research Foundation] (FRB),18 and bodies such as the Conseil National de la Protection de la Nature (CNPN) [National Council for the Protection of Nature], the Conseils Scientifiques Régionaux du Patrimoine Naturel [Regional Scientific Councils for Natural Heritage] (CSRPN), the Conseil Scientifique du Patrimoine Naturel et de la Biodiversité [Scientific Council for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity] (CSPNB) or the Office Parlementaire d’Évaluation des Choix Scientifiques et Techniques [Parliamentary Office for Evaluating Scientific and Technical Choices]. The uncoordinated proliferation of these organisations was reported on a number of occasions at the time of the successive assessments commissioned by the Ministry of Ecology, several of which addressed the reform of the CNPN, founded in 1978 (Badré and Duranthon, 2010; Le Maho and Boucher, 2011; Schmitt, 2012; Michel and Chevassus-au-Louis, 2013).

The lack of clarity of the CNPN as a scientific and technical body does not encourage researchers to invest in it for fear that it could be detrimental to their professional career. It nevertheless plays an important role in drawing up opinions on draft laws and on certain administrative decisions. Since 2007, the CNPN has been designated as an independent body exclusively responsible for protecting biodiversity interests in connection with granting exemptions from the strict protection of certain fauna and flora species. These exemptions are generally conditional upon measures to avoid, reduce and offset (in kind) the impacts of planning projects (Section 6.2). Its opinions, however, are merely advisory. In the absence of an independent organisation capable of opposing authorisations,19 conflicts of interest and economic pressure will always tend to favour sectoral interests to the detriment of biodiversity preservation objectives (Mermet et al., 2005), particularly when the administrative authority authorising projects – often the Prefect of a department or region – is also responsible for ensuring the economic development of the areas concerned.

In view of the multiplicity of authorities, the draft law on biodiversity proposes to create a consultative body, the Comité National de la Biodiversité (CNB) [National Biodiversity Committee], which would bring several existing bodies together, and which the NBS national committee is a precursor of. Provision would be made to co-ordinate the CNB with other national consultative bodies addressing issues directly linked to biodiversity. The CNPN should also be given the role of a strictly scientific and technical body by merging it with the current Scientific Council for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity. The role foreseen for the CNPN, however, is not that of an independent authority, which therefore means that certain difficulties such as the uniform application of the “avoid, reduce, offset” sequence (ARO), which is regularly challenged for its anti-biodiversity bias, will not be resolved.

At regional level, it is proposed to convert the regional TVB committees into regional biodiversity committees. The existing CSRPN would play the role of the CNPN at regional level. While these developments are welcome, in terms of mobilising researchers and experts, a distinction must be drawn between technical opinions concerning particular decisions (e.g. the conditions for granting an exemption from the protection of a particular fauna and flora species) and opinions concerning guidance of a more general nature (e.g. in connection with a draft law).

Civil society

The Grenelle Forum marked a turning point in civil society involvement in the drafting of biodiversity policies, with pride of place going to environmental protection NGOs in particular. The latter are now associated at the very highest level with national policy formulation in this area in connection with MEEM initiatives. This new role for NGOs through MEEM was consolidated by the revision of the NBS and subsequently by NGO participation in the Conseil National de la Transition Écologique (CNTE) [National Council for Environmental Transition]. Some other ministries, however, such as those responsible for agriculture or economic and financial affairs, to name but two, have not adopted the Grenelle principles and give only a minor role to biodiversity stakeholders, thereby automatically restricting the inclusion of biodiversity in their sectoral policies.

NGOs are now better able to influence legislative processes, even though they are still less well-equipped than representatives of other sectoral interests. They have, in fact, benefited from the higher media profile20 of the Grenelle process and from the establishment of a parliamentary committee to monitor the implementation of its 268 commitments.

Natura 2000

In Natura 2000 network areas, EU Member States undertake to maintain or restore the most threatened natural habitats and species (listed in Directive 92/43/EEC) so that they have a favourable conservation status. EU Directives impose a performance obligation with respect to the objectives to be achieved, while leaving it to each State to decide on the (largely legal) means by which to do so (regulatory or contractual).

Local stakeholder participation in implementing the network of natural protected areas was necessary to unveil the creation of the Natura 2000 network in France, the implementation of which from 1992 to 2005 generated considerable tension among rural private-sector stakeholders. Having been penalised on three occasions for failing to implement the Habitats Directive, France finally opted for consultation to implement Natura 2000. A steering committee bringing together the principle stakeholders had to be set up for each Natura 2000 site.26 The committee was tasked in particular with validating the “document d’objectifs” (DOCOB) [management plan] of the site, which is ultimately validated by the competent Prefect27. France is one of the few EU Member States in which a management plan is obligatory.

This procedure proved its effectiveness. In 2013, 12.6% of the metropolitan area was classified as Natura 2000 sites, and the network was regarded as stable. On 1 January 2013, 1 277 Natura 2000 sites had a completed DOCOB (73% of sites) and DOCOBs for 280 land sites and 48 marine sites were under preparation (18%). Following legal proceedings brought by the European Commission, France met28 the requirements of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive, which stipulate the circumstances in which projects with implications for the natural habitats and species that had justified the designation of a Natura 2000 site may be authorised.

Landowner stakeholders

The review of protected areas includes properties covered by the Coastal Protection Agency and Natural Area Protection Agencies (CEN). The CEN bring together several public and private stakeholders that manage natural sites at regional and departmental level. An approval recognising their action has been in force since 2011. In 2015, the 29 CEN managed a network of 2 921 sites covering 152 788 ha in metropolitan France and Réunion,29 over 800 of which they own or rent on long-term leases (CEN, 2015a). The Protection Agencies are also involved in controlling usage, mainly by means of management agreements, and they may be involved in implementing measures to offset the impacts of planning projects (Section 6.2). This raises the question of ensuring that this land is compatible with the achievement by France of its CBD commitments. Since mere ownership of the land remains a fragile means of protection in the long term, the Protection Agencies also enjoy regulatory protection30 (35% of their sites have protection status), and the land can be assigned to dedicated endowment funds (CEN, 2015b) and thus made non-transferable.

The Coastal Protection Agency, meanwhile, is a state-run public administrative institution which acquires plots of land on the coast which are degraded or threatened by urban development. It holds over 160 000 ha on 700 sites, corresponding to 1 450 km of coast, i.e. 13% of the national shoreline. From 2009 to 2012, 13 426 ha of wetlands were acquired with water office support, over half of which are salt marshes in the Midi (Camargue), henceforth the property of the Coastal Protection Agency. The aim (established in 2009) was to acquire 20 000 ha of wetlands by 2019, a seemingly realistic target that in fact corresponds to a mere 1% of the wetlands area in France, the protection and restoration of which must therefore be ensured by other means, particularly regulatory and contractual measures.

Marine protected areas

In 2015, marine protected areas (MPAs) covered almost 16.5% of waters under French jurisdiction (including the overseas territories), accounting for 1.68 million km² (Figure 5.7), representing 23% of metropolitan waters and 16% of overseas waters (MPA Agency, 2015a).

France has therefore exceeded the 10% target established by the CBD, though its own target had been 20% of French waters under protection by 2020. The surface area of marine protected areas must therefore be further extended. Since the possibilities for extension are mainly in the overseas territories, the policy set out through the MPA Agency to persuade the overseas authorities to contribute to the national effort should therefore be continued (Féral, 2011). On the basis of this co-operation, a marine natural park with an area of 1 291 000 km² was designated in 2014 in the Coral Sea, corresponding to the total maritime area of New Caledonia.31 This French success in establishing a significant and vast MPA network was facilitated by the far from restrictive status of marine natural park, a recent innovation in terms of the protection status available to France.32 Marine natural parks are defined by the 2006 law as “structures to ensure protection through the integrated management of a maritime area of particular interest for biodiversity and human activities”, and their creation is not associated to any rules restricting rights of usage over the marine environment. They are, in fact, areas for consultation which allow local and decentralised ownership of national objectives that may eventually lead to the adoption of administrative regulations. On 1 January 2015, half of over three-year-old French MPAs had a management plan (ONB, 2015b), though few had a complete assessment system. France developed an MPA scoreboard to assess their individual effectiveness and contribute towards the national assessment of the French network.

Species protection schemes

The principal innovation in terms of protection was the action taken in 200733 to bring the exemption procedure into line with that provided for under Articles 12 and 16 of the 1992 Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Besides the specimens of species, some of their habitats are now protected under certain conditions,34 and exemptions can be granted only if they do not lead to a decline in the conservation status of the respective species. The CNPN issues a consultative opinion on applications for exemptions, and in practice acts as an independent regulator for the developer and the environmental authority. This exemption procedure, introduced in 2007, was partly motivated by farmers’ opposition to wolves, a protected species. The 2014 law on the future of agriculture, food and forestry relaxed the circumstances in which exemptions could be granted. This decision led, in particular, to the authorisation to cull over 10% of the wolf population, which numbered fewer than 300 individuals in 2015.35 France also submitted an official application to amend the status of the species through the Berne Convention and the European Commission. Some in the agricultural sector also objected to the conservation of the brown bear in the Pyrenees.

The regulation of hunting, meanwhile, has developed little but continues to generate heated public debate, particularly on dates for opening the hunting season for migratory birds, for which the State systematically issues judgments which are then invalidated by the Conseil d’État because they authorise hunting outside the periods defined by the 1979 Birds Directive. Hunters will, in the meantime, have enjoyed an extended hunting season. This highlights the political weight of hunting in France (1.2 million licence holders) (BIPE, 2015). Hunters are nevertheless involved in managing biodiversity, firstly through hunting reserves (defined jointly by the ONCFS and the hunting federations), and subsequently through the French Wildlife Habitats Foundation. The Foundation is funded by regional hunters’ federations and owns almost 5 500 ha in 60 departments, which it manages in such a way as to maintain conditions favouring prey.

Since the establishment of protected species status in 1976, administrative practice has differentiated protection measures on an area basis by drawing up “regional” lists of protected species (for flora above all). This practice is also followed in the overseas territories, where these lists replace national lists (except for marine mammals36 and sea turtles,37 which are protected on national territory as a whole). The provisions in place are nevertheless incomplete and sometimes inconsistent (Stahl, 2011). The forest thrush, for example, is protected in Martinique but regarded as prey in Guadeloupe. The most threatened species, particularly strictly endemic species which are not present in France, should naturally be included on the national lists.

National action plans for threatened species

The national action plans are medium-term strategies which define the specific actions and deadlines for conserving and restoring threatened species. Although the initial plans were implemented in 1996, they developed rapidly after being strengthened by the Grenelle Forum in 2007 and included in the Grenelle I and II Laws (MEDDE, 2012a). Vultures, the European otter and the Alpine ibex illustrate the real progress made due to effective action by public authorities and nature protection associations in the framework of dedicated action plans (Box 5.6).

Despite significant efforts and notable successes, however, there is no action plan for the majority of threatened species (Figure 5.9). A report drawn up in 2014 by the Conseil Général de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable [General Council for the Environment and Sustainable Development] proposes to re-establish national action plans to strengthen their operational nature in a strongly developing institutional context with increasingly limited resources (Challéat and Lavarde, 2014). One of the proposed approaches is to bring together under the same actions species which share habitats and have similar ecological requirements.

Figure 5.9. There is no action plan for most threatened species

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933406299

The overseas territories accommodate a large number of threatened species to which particular attention should be paid by mobilising the authorities concerned and sometimes neighbouring countries. The importance of regional co-operation in conserving overseas territory biodiversity38 is illustrated by the action plans for the dugong in New Caledonia (2010-15) (MPA Agency, 2015b) and Mayotte (2012-16) (Pusineri and Caceres, 2012), under the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Dugongs and their Habitats throughout their range (States signatory to the CMS, 2007).

Alien invasive species control plans

Alien invasive species are covered by a national strategy and a dedicated 2011 NBS objective. A particular facet of the strategy is an expertise and surveillance network and the possibility since 2009 (Grenelle Law, Article 23) of developing targeted control plans.39 The plans currently in place, however, concern only a few species, and their effectiveness has yet to be assessed.

A special programme has been developed for the overseas territories, where the authorities have been brought together under an initiative fostered by the French committee of the IUCN (2005-08) (Soubeyran et al., 2015). Réunion, a partner in this approach, now has its own strategy (Parc National de la Réunion, 2010). These initiatives must be continued and, if necessary, put on a federal basis and co-ordinated at regional level, particularly under the European BEST 2.0 programme (Box 5.4).

Biodiversity in the Common Agricultural Policy

Biodiversity-friendly agricultural policies principally arise from the “further greening” of the CAP by means of agri-environment measures (AEMs) and the environmental conditionality of subsidies. Biodiversity has been gradually integrated into the CAP in France since 2004 through direct or contractual aid for the voluntary implementation of AEMs, which allow farmers to receive subsidies in exchange for certain environmentally-friendly agricultural practices, some of which focus directly on biodiversity. Farmers must adhere to one or more measures for at least five years, their remuneration for doing so being dependent on the degree of constraint of the practices. In its agricultural programming for 2007-13, France introduced “regionalised” AEMs which allowed resources to be focused on areas with priority challenges, including biodiversity, notably in Natura 2000 sites.

Between 2007 and 2012, around 21 000 regionalised AEM contracts were signed, covering some 65 500 ha of agricultural land. The agri-environment payments, however, including those linked to Natura 2000, accounted for less than 5% of CAP expenditure in France from 2007 to 2014 (Agreste, 2015). Total public subsidies devoted to AEMs for 2014 to 2020 will be doubled compared to 2007-13. The AEM mechanism was also strengthened in the French agri-environmental project “Produisons autrement” [Produce differently].

“Conditionalities” have been imposed on direct aid since 2003. The most recent CAP reform, operative since 2015, provides for making around 30% of subsidies (EUR 2.2 billion per year) conditional upon three environmental criteria: maintenance at regional level of the ratio between permanent grassland and agricultural areas; diversity of crop rotation, with three annual crops as a general rule; and maintenance of “areas of environmental interest” on holdings. These may be topographic features (trees, hedges, ponds) or areas (buffer zones, or nitrogen-fixing crops such as vegetables). They are often refuge habitats for cultivated landscape biodiversity.

The green payment, in effect since 2015, also seeks to maintain permanent grassland by controlling the ratio between the latter and usable agricultural area (UAE) at regional level. If the regional ratio declines by more than 5%, the Government may ask certain farmers to replant new grassland. Some grasslands are classified as “sensitive” because of the presence of heritage species identified by the MNHN and cannot be reconverted. The scheme for “areas subject to environmental constraints”, provided for in the draft law on biodiversity, must ensure the legal means for imposing these objectives.

Organic farming and the ecological intensification of agriculture

Organic farming brings together a range of practices that exclude the use of synthetic chemical inputs (fertilisers, pesticides). Despite their potential consumer health benefits, these practices have less impact on biodiversity. Organic farming still constitutes a very small minority in France, covering less than 5% of the agricultural area, though it is currently expanding after stagnating from 2003 to 2007 (Agence Bio, 2015). Demand has developed more rapidly than supply, which means that 30% of the organic produce consumed has to be imported (Quelin, 2010).

The Grenelle I Law sought to expand the area devoted to organic farming from 2% of the UAE in 2004 to 6% in 2012 and 20% in 2020. In 2013, the area given over to organic farming represented a mere 4% of the UAE, suggesting that the target for 2020 is out of reach. According to a survey in 2010, farmers cited economic difficulties, the administrative burden of the aid, lack of technical expertise, problems in organising product lines and poor acceptance by neighbouring producers as barriers to setting up in organic farming (Quelin, 2010).

The “Ambition Bio 2017” programme seeks to overcome these barriers and to double the proportion of areas under organic farming between 2013 and 2017 (Minagri, 2014). Funded by the second pillar of the CAP up to an average of EUR 160 million per year (European and ministerial credits) from 2014 to 2020 (compared to EUR 90 million in 2012), the programme provides aid for converting to and maintaining organic farming, in combination with product line organisation, marketing, R&D promotion, training and regulatory adjustments.

Measures to promote organic farming fall within the 2012 French agri-environmental project (Minagri, 2012). The aim of this project, reflected in the 2014 law on the future of agriculture, food and forestry, is to reconcile the economic and environmental performance of agriculture by 2025 on the basis of a variety of action plans, including: the teaching of links between agronomic sciences and ecology, the development of a farmer support service bringing together economic, environmental and social performance factors (Box 5.9), and financial support for farmers moving towards agri-environmental practices by increasing start-up and investment aid (Minagri, 2015).

Urban planning documents

Since 2013, the various plans and programmes, particularly urban planning documents, have been subject to the ARO sequence,42 yet the treatment of biodiversity continues to be mixed. The regional consistency schemes (SCOT, intermunicipal strategic planning tools introduced in 2000) include a sustainable planning and development project that may encompass biodiversity in the event of a challenge identified by local elected officials. Failing this (still the majority of cases), biodiversity continues to be addressed at project level, particularly with respect to wetlands or protected species.

Mirroring the poor mobilisation with respect to wetlands, the programme to develop local biodiversity atlases, launched in 2010, did not significantly raise local elected officials’ awareness of the subject43 (MEDDE, 2015). The preparation of SRCE, on the other hand, which government services (DREAL) contributed to with the regions, did raise their awareness of biodiversity challenges thanks to the TVB, which all urban planning documents must factor in44. The drafting of TVB thus corrected the lack of involvement of local elected officials and authorities in the Grenelle Forum. This positive outcome has, at times, been achieved to the detriment of the relevance and accuracy of the proposed environmental mapping, but the principal criticism of SRCE is that they are “non-binding”. Many regions already have an SRCE, and all regions should have one by the end of 2015.

The “avoid, reduce, offset” (ARO) sequence

The ARO sequence, a feature of French environmental law since 1976, seeks to ensure that land use planning and infrastructure projects do not entail net losses in environmental quality. The sequence requires developers to avoid and reduce the negative impacts of projects before offsetting their residual impacts. Offset measures should be long-lasting and implemented close to the affected site and should maintain or improve the environmental quality of the natural environments concerned at the relevant regional scale (MEDDE, 2012b). Offsetting also includes a biodiversity funding mechanism which mobilises private-sector funds.

Despite the long history of the ARO sequence in France, offsets have been overlooked or poorly applied for some time. Since the reform of exemptions from the strict protection of certain protected species in 2007 and the reform of the impact study in 2012, monitoring requirements and the effective implementation of the sequence have been strengthened (Quétier et al., 2014). In this context, the French Government published further information on the ARO sequence in the form of a legal principle (MEDDE, 2012b) and guidelines (MEDDE, 2013).

The requirements of these documents are consistent with good international practices, such as those in the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, and are underpinned by an international comparison carried out by the MEDDE (Morandeau and Vilaysack, 2012). The “no net loss” objective also mirrors the EU objective set out in its 2011 biodiversity strategy, which involves halting biodiversity loss and ecosystem service degradation by 2020 and restoring them as far as feasible.45

In practice, the ARO scheme is still beset by significant weaknesses (Quétier et al., 2015; de Billy et al., 2015): the ability to achieve the objective of no net loss of biodiversity is often poorly assessed, and the legal and financial arrangements for putting compensation into effect are often weak. It is frequently criticised for lack of transparency, and applications for exemptions for protected species have been available for public consultation only since September 2013. A committee to monitor the implementation of the sequence was established in updating the law on the environment (2013-14). Its findings feed debate in Parliament on the draft law on biodiversity.

Besides technical issues, the institutional framework still does not allow offsets to be implemented effectively. Offsets must help to minimise the impacts of development on biodiversity and must fund sustainable environmental restoration action. At the moment, the performance standards and criteria according to which measures are conceived and followed up remain very mixed, and the residual impacts of projects are addressed on a case-by-case basis. The draft law on biodiversity now outlines a number of solutions (Pirard et al., 2014), such as the creation of “natural asset reserves” (a forecasting and pooling mechanism drawing on American or German clearing “banks”), an offset trader status and real environmental obligations (a legal mechanism to protect the environmental value of land). These developments are underpinned by the piloting of “on demand” offsets, available since 2008 (Box 5.11).