Chapter 1. Environmental performance: Trends and recent developments1

A low-carbon energy mix

The energy mix is dominated by nuclear power, which in 2014 accounted for 47% of total primary energy supply (TPES) and 78% of electricity generation (Figure 1.3). Since 2000, the share of fossil fuels in TPES has shrunk in favour of nuclear and renewables. This translates into an energy mix that is less carbon-intensive than the OECD average. Following the Fukushima incidents in 2011, the French government committed itself to reducing the nuclear share in power generation to 50% by the year 2025 (Chapter 4).

Although their share has risen since 2000 overall, renewables accounted for only 47% of total primary energy supply in 2014, and 78% of electricity generation (Figure 1.3). Similarly, 16% of French electricity generation was of renewable origin, compared to 22% for the OECD average and 31% for European countries (AIE, 2015).

Figure 1.3. Nuclear is predominant in the energy mix

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933405885

Energy intensity

The French economy is less energy-intensive than the OECD average. After rising by 8% in the years 2000-05, TPES declined by more than 10% between 2005 and 2014 (Figure 1.3). Over that period as a whole, GDP rose by 16%, with the result that the economy’s primary energy intensity dropped by 17%. This progress is however less significant than the average of OECD member countries.

The decline in final energy consumption, which began in 2005, was accentuated by the 2008 crisis, despite some fluctuations (Figure 1.4). Whereas energy demand in the residential, trade and agriculture sectors increased between 2000 and 2013, it fell sharply (by 18%) in the industrial sector and declined more modestly in the transport sector (by 4%).

Figure 1.4. Energy consumption is dropping in industry and rising in the residential-tertiary sector

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933405891

France has exceeded the intermediate objective for energy savings set for 2010 in the First National Plan for Energy Efficiency, established in 20083 (Medde, 2014a). In the context of the EU Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU4), France has set a goal of reducing its energy consumption to 131 Mtep of final energy and 236 Mtep of primary energy by 2020. Between 2005 and 2012, primary energy consumption declined more swiftly than projected by the scenario established for achieving the 2020 target. The improvement in energy efficiency in the processing industries and the reduction in losses from distribution systems could yield further gains. On the other hand, final energy consumption has been falling more slowly than expected. While there has been progress in all sectors, further efforts will be needed in transportation and the residential sector (EEA, 2014).

Renewable energies

Although the supply of energy from renewable sources has risen by 33% since 2000, it still represented only 9% of TPES in 2014. More than 60% of the renewable energy supply comes from biomass (primarily solid biomass for heat production) and renewable wastes, followed by hydropower (25%) and wind and solar energy (10%) (EEA, 2015).

France has set itself a target of 23% for the share of renewables in gross final energy consumption by the year 2020, pursuant to the applicable European directive (2009/28/EC). Solid biomass and wind power are the two main sources identified by the National Action Plan for Renewable Energies (Chapter 4). In 2014, renewables represented 14.6% of gross final consumption, short of the intermediate target set at 16% (Figure 1.5). This lag relates to both electrical and thermal components (Medde, 2015a).

Figure 1.5. The 23% target for renewables will be hard to achieve

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933405907

While the objective set for solar power has been practically achieved, if the target of 23% is to be met the efforts made since 2005 will have to be nearly tripled in the case of renewable electricity and nearly quadrupled in the case of renewable heat between 2014 and 2020.

Profile of emissions

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in France other than those due to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), declined by 10% between 1990 and 2013. France has thus surpassed the objective that it had set, in the context of the Kyoto Protocol, of limiting its GHG emissions over the period 2008-12 to their 1990 levels. Since 2000, the decoupling of GHG and CO₂ emissions from economic growth has continued (Figure 1.7).

As in most OECD countries, CO₂ emissions constitute the bulk of GHG emissions in France, accounting for 75% of total emissions in 2013; they are followed by methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N₂O), representing respectively 12% and 9% of the total, with the remainder coming from emissions of fluoride gases (HFC, PFC, SF₆). 72% of emissions are due to energy use, particularly in transportation and in the residential and tertiary sector, which account respectively for 27% and 20% of total GHG emissions apart from LULUCF. The other main contributors are agriculture (16%), manufacturing and construction (13%) and the energy industry (11%) (Figure 1.7).

Figure 1.7. GHG emissions are falling

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933405920

The manufacturing and construction industry has seen the sharpest drop in emissions (-23%) since 2000. This progress, attributable to greater energy efficiency in industrial processes as well as the replacement of oil and coal by less polluting energy sources, has been accelerated by the economic crisis (SOeS, 2014). Emissions linked to energy use in transportation dropped by 5% between 2000 and 2013, especially after the 2008 crisis. The introduction of lower-carbon vehicles has served to limit emissions from transportation, despite a slight increase in road traffic.

Under the European climate and energy package, France is committed to a 21% reduction in emissions covered by the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) between 2005 and 2020, and a 14% cut for those not covered by the EU ETS. Projections suggest that France is on track for achieving this objective (Ecologic Institute and Eclareon, 2014).

Emissions intensity

The GHG emissions intensity of the French economy, i.e. the ratio between GHG emissions and GDP, declined by 23% between 2000 and 2013, a pace faster than the OECD average. Carbon intensity (CO₂ emissions due to energy consumption per unit of GDP) also dropped by 25% over the period 2000-13, compared to the OECD average of -22%.

The GHG emissions intensity of France is among the lowest in the OECD, at 0.21 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per 1000 USD of GDP (at 2010 prices and purchasing power parity), compared to the OECD average of 0.39 tonnes. This reflects the heavy reliance on nuclear power, which is low in carbon emissions compared with fossil fuels.

Principal plans and programmes

A number of plans for combating atmospheric pollution have been adopted at different levels of government (particulates plan 2010, emergency air quality plan 2013, national environmental health plan 2004-08, 2009-13, 2015-19, regional environmental health plans, regional climate-air-energy schemes, plans to protect the atmosphere in major cities or in particularly polluted zones). They combine regulatory measures (for example technical prescriptions for combustion facilities), tax measures and incentives (such as the addition of substances to the general tax base for polluting activities, subsidies for modernisation of wood-burning devices) and provisions for policy co-ordination among local governments in the context of decentralisation laws (Chapter 2, Chapter 3, CGDD 2015b). The Energy Transition for Green Growth Act also contains provisions to enhance air quality. It includes the reduction of atmospheric pollution among the objectives of energy policy and calls for the revised national plan for reducing emissions of atmospheric pollutants to be published by June 2016.

Emissions profile

France has succeeded in decoupling emissions of the main atmospheric pollutants from economic growth (Figure 1.8). Its SO_x and NO_x emissions per unit of GDP are far below the average for the OECD. France has achieved its 2010 objectives under the EU Directive on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (2001/81/EC), with the exception of NO_x emissions, which exceeded the ceiling set for 2010 by 33% (SOeS, 2014).

Figure 1.8. The objectives for reducing emissions of atmospheric pollutants have been met, except for NO_x

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933405938

The progress achieved since 2000 in reducing emissions can be explained largely by the enforcement of stricter regulations, the decline in fossil fuel consumption, energy savings, and deindustrialisation of the economy (Citepa, 2015).

Road transportation remains the principal source of NO_x emissions (54% of the total), despite a 43% drop since 2000 (Figure 1.8). The generalised use of catalytic converters, the tightening of vehicle emissions standards, and the renewal of the automobile fleet have not been sufficient to offset the effects of growing traffic and the increasing share of diesel-powered vehicles in the vehicle fleet (62% in 2014) (SOeS, 2014) (Medde, 2015b).

NH₃ emissions dropped by only 4% over the period 2000-13. Agriculture, and livestock raising in particular, is the principal source of NH₃ emissions (98% of the total in 2013) (Figure 1.8). The fluctuations observed can be linked to changes in the size of the herd and the quantity of fertilisers used (Citepa, 2015).

There was a marked shift in the distribution of NMVOC emissions by source between 2000 and 2013. The relegation of road transport from first to third place was due primarily to the equipping of petrol-powered vehicles with catalytic converters, but also to the growing share of diesel-powered vehicles that emit less NMVOC. In 2013, the use of solvents was the biggest source of NMVOC emissions, followed by non-industrial combustion (in particular the burning of wood in small domestic devices) (Citepa, 2015) (Figure 1.8).

Fine particulate emissions have continued to decline since 2000. As of 2013, those emissions had already dropped by 26%, and France had therefore virtually achieved the goal (set by the Gothenburg Protocol) of reducing PM_2.5 emissions by 27% by 2020, from their 2005 level. Wood burning, mainly for domestic purposes, quarry operations, construction, ploughing and road transport are the principal sources of emissions (Citepa, 2015).

Air quality

Since they came into effect, France has respected the limit values for the protection of human health set by the European directives (2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC) for concentrations of SO₂, CO and lead. In 2014, most sampling points were also respecting the regulations for arsenic, cadmium and nickel content. However, 3% of sampling points were not respecting the regulations for benzo(a)pyrene (CGDD, 2015b).

In 2014, France was compliant with the threshold set by the European directive on concentrations of benzene, with the exception of an overrun at one industrial site. Those concentrations have been dropping since 2000, thanks to the limit placed on the benzene content of petrol (CGDD, 2015b).

Since European legislation came into effect in 2005, the maximum daily limits for PM₁₀ have been regularly exceeded (Figure 1.9), most notably in 10 zones: Paris, Lyon, Grenoble, Marseille, Martinique, PACA-ZUR (Zone urbaine régionale), Rhône-Alpes-ZUR (Vallée de l’Arve), Nice, Toulon, and Douai-Béthune-Valenciennes. In 2011, the European Commission brought France before the Court of Justice for failing to respect EU legislation on air pollution and for not having taken sufficient measures to reduce such pollution. The Commission handed down a reasoned opinion on the subject in 2015. PM₁₀ levels are higher on average in places close to vehicle traffic, and also in the winter and spring (SOeS, 2014). For PM_2.5, the fluctuations observed from one year to another are explained in part by meteorological conditions. Thanks to a mild winter in 2014, only one of 127 sampling sites exceeded the threshold for protection of human health set by the EU (CGDD, 2015b).

Figure 1.9. A declining percentage of the population is exposed to concentrations of atmospheric pollutants exceeding regulatory thresholds

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933405945

It is in urban areas, and particularly along the main highways, that NO₂ concentrations are highest. They declined on the whole over the period 2000-14 but remain twice as high in areas close to road traffic and in urban zones. The rising number of diesel vehicles and the evolution of diesel technology (certain diesel vehicles are equipped with particle filters that emit NO₂) explain in part why the European thresholds for the protection of human health have not been met (Figure 1.9). France is the target of European dispute proceedings for NO₂ (SOeS, 2014) (CGDD, 2015b).

As with NO₂ and fine particles, average annual concentrations of O₃ in the air vary with meteorological conditions. Although the situation has improved compared to early 2000, the European daily threshold is frequently exceeded, particularly in Île-de-France and in the PACA region (Figure 1.9) (CGDD, 2015b).

The many plans adopted to combat atmospheric pollution have not made it possible to respect regulatory thresholds. They are not very restrictive, they have no precise timetable for achieving their objectives, and they are not systematically assessed. Moreover, the lack of articulation between the documents established at the different territorial levels and the dispersion of responsibilities have impeded their implementation. For example, during the pollution spike in Paris in 2015, the alternate-day circulation authorisation requested by the Mayor of Paris was only granted by the Prefect one week later. Urban road tolls and restricted circulation zones where access is barred for the most polluting vehicles as called for in the Grenelle 2 Law were not established until 2015 (Box 1.1). The introduction in 2016 of the air quality certificate, which establishes a national identification standard for vehicles according to their pollution level, could facilitate enforcement of restricted circulation zones. However, the classification of older vehicles should be sufficiently refined to allow their circulation to be gradually restricted, as this would be more readily acceptable to the public. On the other hand, a coherent tax framework has yet to be adopted: the taxation of fuels and vehicles has favoured diesel, without considering the consequent harm in the form of air pollution (Chapter 3).

The OECD has estimated the health costs of air pollution (the cost of the 21 158 premature deaths linked to ambient air pollution by particulates and ozone in 2013) at close to EUR 54 billion or 2.5% of GDP (WHO/Europe and OECD, 2015). While a large part of this cost can be attributed to road transportation (notably to diesel vehicles), to residential heating, to industry and also to agriculture through NH₃ emissions, the precursor gas to secondary particulates, there are other important sources of air pollution as well (Ademe, 2015). Their contribution to the impacts on health deserves to be studied further.

Principal plans and programmes

France was one of the first European countries to develop a national waste prevention plan: it did so in 2004, before the European Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) made this mandatory. That plan was followed by the national plan to support household composting (2006) and the two Grenelle laws, the provisions of which were integrated into the waste action plan 2009-12 (Medde, 2014d). This last plan has fostered the implementation of territorial plans for waste prevention and management, as required by the Grenelle laws.

Following the 2013 environmental conference, which devoted a roundtable to the circular economy, a national waste prevention programme 2014-20 was drawn up, setting out objectives for decoupling and priorities for eco-design, prolonging product life, recycling, repair and reuse (Medde, 2014d). These efforts resulted in the inclusion of a section devoted to combating wastage and promoting the circular economy in the 2015 Energy Transition for Green Growth Act. It provides a five-year strategy for the circular economy, including a plan for programming the resources the economy will need and optimising their use. The law sets targets for: boosting material productivity by 30% between 2010 and 2020; reducing the quantities of household and similar wastes per capita by 10% between 2010 and 2020 and cutting the volumes of wastes from economic activities per unit of value produced, especially in the building and public works sector; reducing by half the volume of wastes dumped between 2010 and 2025 and achieving 65% material recovery by 2025. It prohibits the distribution of single-use plastic bags as of 1 January 2016.

Primary wastes

In 2012, France produced 339 million tonnes of primary waste5, representing an increase of 17% from the level in 2004, while over the same period the waste produced by European countries as a whole fell by 3%. On a per capita basis, the volume of waste produced (including secondary waste6) stood at 5.3 tonnes in 2012, slightly above the European average (Figure 1.12).

The bulk of waste is produced by the construction sector, followed by households, services and manufacturing industries (Figure 1.12). The production of primary waste rose by 20% between 2004 and 2010, and then declined by 3% between 2010 and 2012, reflecting the slowdown in the construction sector, which was hit particularly hard by the economic crisis. Apart from mining wastes, France generates 1.5 tonnes per capita of primary waste, below the European average (1.8 tonnes per capita).

In 2012, 64% of primary waste was recovered – either recycled, composted or incinerated with energy recovery – and that proportion was virtually unchanged from 2004. The recycling rate for packaging wastes in 2012 was 65%, and the total recovery rate was 75%, but there were sharp disparities depending on the materials in question: while 92% of paper and cardboard packaging collected was recycled, only 25% of plastic packaging and 29% of wood packaging was recycled. The rates for all packaging materials were however up from their level in 2000 (Figure 1.12).

Figure 1.12. Primary waste volumes are rising

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933405976

In France 22 product groups are covered by Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), more than in any other country. According to this principle, producers bear the responsibility (financial in particular) for managing their discarded products. Fourteen new product groups were added between 2006 and 2015, seven of them imposed by national regulation beyond European obligations,7 and one based on a voluntary agreement8 (Ademe, 2013).

Municipal waste

France has decoupled its municipal waste generation from economic activity. This decoupling is only relative: the volume of municipal waste has risen (8%) less quickly than GDP (16%) since 2000 (Figure 1.13).

Figure 1.13. Municipal waste production is slowing, while waste recovery is progressing slowly

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933405982

In 2014, France produced 510 kg of municipal waste per capita, above the European average (480 kg per capita). However, the volumes produced per capita have dropped since the economic crisis, with the slowing of private final consumption (OECD, 2015g).

In contrast to some northern European countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Germany), France has not banned the use of direct landfill for municipal waste. Therefore, despite a 35% decline between 2000 and 2014, stored municipal waste still accounted for 26% of the volumes handled in 2014. However, the volume of recovered municipal waste represented 73% of the quantities handled in 2014, compared with only 53% in 2000. This progress has been made possible by the opening of sorting and composting facilities between 2000 and 2006, as well as the closure of landfill sites and the shutdown of numerous incinerator plants that were not recovering energy (Figure 1.13) (SOeS, 2014).

The objective of the 2009-12 waste action plans relating to the reclamation of household and similar wastes has been achieved, but it was not very ambitious: in 2014, 39% of municipal waste was recycled or composted, a rate well below those for Germany (65%), Austria (58%), Belgium (50%) or the Netherlands and Sweden (50%).

Agricultural inputs

France is the leading agricultural producer in the European Union. Its output has declined slightly since 2000. Excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) have also declined, both in absolute terms and per hectare of farmland. In 2010, the highest nitrogen surpluses were to be found mainly in the intensive livestock raising zones of Western France, especially in Brittany (the Massif armoricain) (SOeS, 2014).

Over the same period, the phosphorus load fell by 50%, thanks in part to the generalised resort to soil analysis, carried out by the government in order to rationalise fertiliser use. The sharp price volatility of phosphates (prices soared by 700% in 2008, then collapsed during the crisis, and have been rising again since 2011) has also been a key factor behind this downward trend. Phosphate content is especially high in Brittany, due to intensive livestock raising, as well as in Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Alsace, where industrial slag was used on a massive scale in the past (SOeS, 2014).

Pesticides

The presence of pesticides in watercourses and in groundwater is a matter of concern. In 2011, pesticides were detected in 93% of watercourse analyses done in metropolitan France and in 85% of those conducted in Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion. This situation is virtually unchanged from the late 1990s. Such pollution is due primarily to the use of herbicides in metropolitan France and insecticides overseas (SOeS, 2014). In 2013, France ranked second among European countries, behind Spain, in terms of the quantities of active pesticide substances sold (Eurostat, 2014). In 2010, it stood eighth in the world ranking (FAO, 2014).

The pesticide content of groundwater is somewhat lower than in watercourses, but the situation has changed very little since 2000. All territories are affected by this pollution, and quality standards relating to pesticide concentrations were exceeded at 18% of sampling points in 2011 (SOeS, 2014). Pesticides are also a source of air and soil pollution for which current control measures are inadequate.

France is unlikely to meet the Ecophyto plan’s target of a 50% cut in the consumption of phytosanitary products. Since its launch in 2008, the plan has not yielded the expected results: while pesticide sales have fallen, the global quantitative monitoring indicators of usage show no downward trend (MAAF, 2014). In particular, the “number of unit doses” (Nodu), which calculates the average number of treatments per hectare of farmland, rose by 29% between 2008 and 2014 (Figure 1.14). As a result, France has pushed back the achievement of this objective by separating it into two stages: a 25% reduction in consumption of phytosanitary products by 2020, on the strength of measures already in place for optimising production systems, and a 50% reduction by 2025, to be made possible by more significant changes to production systems, scientific and technological progress, crop diversification and conversion to organic farming (MAAF, 2014).

Figure 1.14. Pesticide use is rising

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933405993

Protected areas

France has already achieved the objectives, defined in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, of protecting at least 17% of its land area and at least 10% of its territorial waters by 2020 (Figure 1.16). As of 2015, however, barely 0.7% of metropolitan France was covered by protected areas in categories I and II (the strictest protection levels) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classification, compared to the OECD average of 3%. The level of protection is considerably higher overseas (Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, Reunion, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Martin, Saint Barthélemy and the French Southern and Antarctic Lands), where category I and II protected areas cover 23% of the territory.

France relies primarily on two types of management for protected areas: the regulatory route and the contractual route. Human activity is banned or limited in the areas under regulatory protection, such as the core areas of national parks, natural reserves etc. (categories I to IV of the IUCN classification). Contractual protection (category V of the IUCN classification) seeks to reconcile preservation of the natural heritage and local development by involving the various users of the territory (community-controlled buffer zones or aires d’adhésion adjacent to the core area of national parks, regional natural parks [PNR] and marine natural parks) (SOeS, 2014).

Figure 1.16. Protected areas are expanding in metropolitan France

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933406272

In 2015 the area under regulatory protection was 45% greater than in 1998, and represented 1.4% of the metropolitan territory. However, France is far from reaching its objective of having 2% of its territory under regulatory protection by 2020, as proclaimed in the Grenelle I Law of 2009. Between 1998 and 2015, the surface area under contractual protection nearly doubled, to 25% of the territory (INPN, 2015). The 49 PNRs, which represent the majority of these areas (7 million hectares), constitute the first territorial ecological infrastructure (Figure 1.16).

Overseas (in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, Reunion, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Martin, Saint Barthélemy and French Antarctica), the areas under regulatory and contractual protection both cover a virtually identical share of the territory (35%) (INPN, 2015).

In 2015, the marine protected areas (including those overseas) covered 16.5% of waters under French jurisdiction. The recent increase reflects the creation of the Coral Sea Natural Park in New Caledonia (1.29 million km²). The country has set itself a target of protecting 20% of waters under its jurisdiction by 2020 (Medde, 2014b).

Natura 2000 ecological network

The Natura 2000 network gives effect to the European “Habitats, Flora and Fauna” and “Birds” directives via the creation of special conservation zones (ZSC) and special protection zones (ZPS). The ZPS target the conservation of wild bird species listed in Annex 1 of the “Birds” Directive, as well as the protection of breeding, moulting and wintering areas and staging posts for migratory species not listed there. The ZSC target the conservation of habitat types and of animal and plant species listed in annexes I and II of the “Habitats” Directive (INPN, 2015). These sites, which in 2013 represented 12.6% of the metropolitan territory and 12.3% of waters under French jurisdiction, are managed under the contractual approach. For the most part, they are concentrated in regions along the eastern border of France and the Mediterranean coast, and in the Pyrenees.

Over the years 2007-12, more than half of the species of European Community interest evaluated revealed an unfavourable state of conservation, while the conservation status of 18% of the species (primarily marine species, lichens and certain invertebrates) was unknown. The Atlantic and continental biogeographical regions are the most affected: the conservation status of 70% of their fauna and flora is considered “unfavourable-inadequate” and “unfavourable-bad” (Figure 1.17). Only the flora of the Alps and the fauna of the Mediterranean are in a good state of conservation. In the absence of data and information on marine species it is not possible to make a full assessment of their conservation status (INPN, 2015).

Figure 1.17. Most habitats and species of Community interest are not in a good state of conservation (2007-12)

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933406029

Over the same period, three quarters of the habitats of Community interest evaluated presented an unfavourable situation, a finding similar to the previous assessment (Figure 1.17). It is the marine and coastal habitats, dunes, bogs and fens, as well as freshwater habitats that are in the worst shape, regardless of the region. The same holds for grasslands, only 13% of which have a “favourable” conservation status. This is explained primarily by agricultural abandonment and intensification, as well as by urbanisation (INPN, 2015).

Threatened species

France is one of the 10 countries worldwide that are home to the greatest number of threatened species, as a result of the pressures exerted on biodiversity in the overseas areas as well as in the Mediterranean region, which is regarded as a biodiversity “hot spot” (SOeS, 2014).

In metropolitan France there are some 6 000 species of “higher plants”, placing the country in fourth position in Europe. France is also home to the greatest number of bird species and vascular plant species in Europe, and ranks third in amphibian species (Figure 1.18). The country therefore has an important role to play in conserving the European heritage of fauna and flora (INPN, 2015).

In 2014, it was estimated that one species in five was threatened in metropolitan France. However, the level of knowledge on many species and their habitat is uneven and inadequate for taking stock of their status at the national level. Vertebrates alone have been the subject of monitoring for several decades now. The results show an improvement for some species, such as the otter, the beaver, the wolf and certain wintering water birds. It is estimated that 15% of indigenous vertebrates, including marine species, are under threat (endangered or vulnerable) – these rates vary from 8% for fish to 31% for amphibians. However, the status of marine fish is not known with certainty. Considering only freshwater or brackish-water fish, the rate is 51%. The number of specialist birds (habitat-specific) is also declining, while generalist birds (occupying a range of habitats) show a net increase. Not enough is known about invertebrates to evaluate their status precisely, but it is apparent that their habitats are suffering significant degradation (SOeS, 2015) (INPN, 2015).

With respect to the non-indigenous species evaluated, around 10% of mammals, 15% of birds and 21% of reptiles and amphibians are threatened: these rates are relatively low comparison to those for most OECD member countries (Figure 1.18).

Figure 1.18. In metropolitan France, one species in five is threatened

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933406230

The overseas areas (including New Caledonia and French Polynesia, but excluding Adelie Land) give France an exceptional degree of biodiversity. They are estimated to harbour 96% of the vertebrate fauna and 97% of the vascular plants specific to France (SOEs, 2014). These territories also exhibit a high degree of endemism due to their insularity (INPN, 2015).

The available data are inadequate for taking thorough stock of the status of fauna and flora in the overseas areas. The French “red list” of threatened species indicates that 45% of the reptile species of Reunion are threatened; the equivalent rate for freshwater fish is 33%, and for vascular plants 30%. That list also shows that 33% of nesting bird species in Guadeloupe are threatened (MNHN, 2014). According to the international assessment conducted by IUCN in 2013 of the vulnerability status of biodiversity in the overseas areas, it is apparent that these are home to a significant number of threatened species.

Forests

With more than 16 million hectares of forest, France ranks third among European countries in terms of its forested area. In 2012, forests represented 29% of the French territory, up by 5% from 2000 (Figure 1.15). Yet this trend, linked to the increase in hardwood and mixed forest, masks a decline of around 30 000 ha per year in non-forest wooded areas, such as hedges, groves and tree rows. These scattered natural features, which are found in agricultural and urban settings, in fact play an essential role as natural habitats, but also as linkages between environments. On the other hand, the growth in forested areas at the expense of farmland (also referred to as “agricultural abandonment”) has the effect of diminishing chalk grasslands, which are rich in orchids and invertebrates. Moreover, this loss of biodiversity is not being offset by any gain in forest biodiversity, as most forested areas are young and destined for exploitation (SOeS, 2014).

Three-quarters of the forest land in metropolitan France (12.2 million hectares) is privately owned. This includes 1.9 million hectares of plantations, representing 12% of the forested area, which are for the most part planted in conifers, while 67% of the French forest as a whole is comprised of hardwood species. The remaining 88% of forest cover consists of semi-natural, essentially mixed forest (IGN, 2014).

Of the total forest area in metropolitan France, only 1.3% is under strict biodiversity protection (categories I, II and IV of the IUCN classification). This proportion, far lower than that to be found in Scandinavia or North America, is due in part to French property ownership arrangements and also to the country’s high population density, both of which make it difficult to create large contiguous reserves. On the other hand, nearly a quarter of the forested area is classed as “protected inhabited spaces”, i.e. it falls under category V, corresponding essentially to the Regional Natural Parks (PNR). (IGN, 2014).

Although there has been an improvement in recent years, the defoliation rate (an indicator of tree vitality) has risen by 14% for hardwoods and by 17% for conifers, over the levels prevailing in the late 1990s. In other words, the health status of the tree species studied is deteriorating slowly, mainly because of climatic fluctuations (in particular the storms of Christmas 1999 and the drought of 2003) and the impact of human activities (Medde, 2014c).

The overseas areas, and French Guiana in particular, endow France with more than 8 million hectares of primary forests and forest ecosystems that shelter a rich biodiversity. Illegal gold mining is the biggest threat posed by human activity for the Guyanese forest. It results in the clearing of forest lands along small watercourses, the pollution of soils and surface waters by mercury and suspended particles, and a decline in fish and game stocks, in addition to indirect consequences for human health and the way of life for local inhabitants. In New Caledonia, where the forest is highly endemic, it is nickel mining that poses the greatest threat: it is responsible for the pollution of watercourses around mining sites, as well as of river waters flowing into the lagoon (Medde, 2014c).

To address these environmental challenges, the government has instituted a departmental plan for mining guidance (schéma départemental d’orientation minière, SDOM) in French Guiana, which came into force at the end of 2011. It prohibits all mining activity in certain zones, and authorises or limits it in other zones. It also establishes a legal framework for gold mining, intended to take into account environmental externalities and to ensure the rehabilitation of degraded sites (Medde, 2014c).

Water resources

France has around 2 980 m³ of renewable freshwater per capita, less than that of the majority of OECD countries. In 2012 it extracted around 30 billion m³ of water, or 16% of its renewable resource, thus placing the country in a situation of moderate water stress. In relative terms, France extracted 472 m³ of water per capita in 2012, down by 15% from 2000: this constitutes a level below the OECD Europe average (around 518 m³/capita) and below the overall OECD average (829 m³/capita) (Figure 1.19).

Figure 1.19. Water abstraction is declining

 https://doi.org/10.1787/888933406041

With the exception of energy-producing industries, all users have reduced their water abstractions since 2000. After a peak due to the 2003 drought, total abstractions declined steadily until 2011, but they rose again in 2012 with the increase in abstractions for electricity production (Figure 1.19).

The drop in abstractions for production of drinking water is due in part to technological advances that have made household electric appliances and sanitation equipment more economical in their use of water, as well as to a shift in the habits of individuals, who are more sensitive to environmental concerns. The repair of leaks in the water distribution system has also helped in this regard, although there is much progress yet to be made in this area (SOeS, 2014).

Abstractions for irrigation are seasonal and vary with precipitation levels and the type of crop. In 2010 it was estimated that only 6% of farmland was irrigated, a figure virtually unchanged from 2000 (SOeS, 2014).

Water is still a resource under relative pressure, and it is important to preserve it. A study of surface waters covering the period 1968-2007 showed that the severity of low-water events was worsening and that the average annual flow was declining significantly, especially in the South. To address these concerns, France has implemented a benchmark system for the surveillance of low water flows (Réseau de référence pour la surveillance des étiages, RRSE). Other studies have shown that the water table is dropping in certain areas. However, the report conducted under the Water Framework Directive indicates that, in 2013, 90% of the groundwater resource was in a “good quantitative state” (SOeS, 2014) (Onema, 2012).

Water quality

In 2013 more than half of surface waters in France were in a poor ecological state, and for 36% the chemical state was unknown. The results are more encouraging for subterranean waters, where the chemical state was considered good for 67% of the bodies that were assessed (i.e. roughly 2/3 of the existing bodies). These ratings are however below the European average (80%).

The pollution of watercourses by organic and phosphorous materials, in particular phosphates and ammonium, has declined in the wake of stricter standards for detergents and the falling use of phosphate fertilisers (SOeS, 2014). Orthophosphates and nitrates are still important sources of watercourse pollution. The European Court of Justice found France in breach of the European directive on nitrates in 2013 and 2014, deeming its action programmes inadequate. Despite shifting agricultural practices, there is as yet no observable improvement in the concentrations of nitrates and pesticides in water (Medde, 2015).

Like the majority of European countries, France has requested a postponement (to 2021) of the target dates concerning the ecological status of its surface waters, deeming itself incapable of achieving the “good status” objective set for 2015 by the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Figure 1.20). It is also among the six European countries that have asked for the most exemptions with respect to groundwater quality (SOeS, 2014).

Figure 1.20. France will not achieve its water status objective in 2015

To achieve its objectives, France has implemented master plans for water planning and management (Schémas directeurs d’aménagement et de gestion des eaux, SDAGE) in 12 major river basins, along with measurement programmes that are revised every six years and are managed in metropolitan France by the water agencies (Agences de l’eau) and in the overseas departments by the water offices (Offices de l’eau) (SOeS, 2014).

Water supply and sanitation

In 2013, 82% of the French population was connected to a public wastewater treatment network, and 18% to an independent sanitation system. While the proportion of the population connected to a treatment network has remained stable since the year 2000, the percentage of residents connected to an independent treatment system has risen by 14% over the same period. In 2013, 33% of the population was connected to a secondary-type treatment system, and 22% to an “advanced” treatment system. The type of treatment to which 25% of the population is connected is unknown. This relates in particular to the rural population, connected to small purification stations that are not subject to systematic supervision and for which information is therefore incomplete (OECD, 2015h).

In order to comply with the European Urban Wastewater Treatment (UWWT) Directive, France has made major investments to bring up to standard its urban purification plants with a capacity exceeding 2000 population equivalent. At the end of 2013 it was estimated that 91% of those plants were compliant in terms of treatment, and 96% in terms of equipment (SOeS, 2014).

The situation in the overseas departments (DOM) is hampering France’s efforts to achieve its objectives under the European water and wastewater directives. This is due in particular to the size of the river basins, to the fact that the “water offices” were only recently created, and to the scarcity of funding (low tax revenue potential) and technical capabilities available. Since 2013 the DOM have fallen well behind in complying with the UWWT directive, and are thus a priority for France. Upgrading the equipment is heavily dependent on inter-basin solidarity, given the sizable financial investments required. (Levraut et al., 2013).

In April 2015, the European Commission took France before the EU Court for failing to comply with the legislation on urban wastewater treatment. The EU cited some 17 agglomerations as not having waste water treatment up to EU standards. France was first warned in 2009 about this matter, which concerns areas with a population equivalent ranging between 2 000 and 15 000 (EC, 2015).

The average national rate of loss from the drinking water networks is estimated at around 30%, or 20% if sanitation networks are included. This rate could be as high as 80% in rural areas, where the networks are more seriously degraded. The Grenelle 2 Law sets an overall performance objective of 85%, leaving 15% for losses. The public water utilities will therefore have to improve their surveillance systems and establish an action plan for the end of 2015 (Levraut et al., 2013, Cours des comptes, 2015).

However, 99.5% of the French population has access to drinking water of very high quality. The bacteriological and physical-chemical conformity rates were 99.4% and 99.2% respectively in 2012. Around 65% of drinking water comes from subterranean sources and the remainder from surface water, with some regional disparities. The regions of Brittany, Ile-de-France and Midi-Pyrénées rely essentially on surface water while the Northeast is supplied primarily from groundwater (Onema, 2015).

Water governance

The system of integrated management by watershed basin with decentralised and participatory governance is the strong point of French water policy, recognised by all stakeholders as “a fundamental achievement that must be preserved” (Levraut et al., 2013). The national government prepares water policy in line with European directives, while planning and financial incentives are handled at the individual river basin level through “basin committees”9 and the water agencies. The responsibility for project oversight as well as management of the resource and services falls essentially to the local authorities, within a regulatory framework set by the State. A great diversity of stakeholders, including users and the local and regional authorities, is involved in the design and implementation of water policies (OECD, 2012, Cour des Comptes, 2013).

Nevertheless, the large number of stakeholders, the complexity of their interaction and the dispersal of responsibilities tend to undermine effective governance and policy implementation. At the national level, water policy is not sufficiently taken into account by sector policies (e.g. agriculture, urban development and energy) (Levraut et al., 2013). Sub‐nationally, the decentralised government services at the watershed, regional and departmental levels suffer from a dispersion of co-ordination functions. At the local level France has more than 35 000 water and sanitation utilities, most of them too small to reap economies of scale (Cours des comptes, 2015). The consolidation of these utilities, as called for in the Notre Law, should improve their performance (Chapter 2).