The variety of interactions and overlaps between climate-related risks, biodiversity-related risks and other nature-related risks is precisely what is being studied at the NGFS taskforce, which I will speak about later. A useful approach on which experts are currently drawing to sum up the different facets of nature-related risk is that of “planetary boundaries”. According to the latest assessment, six out of the nine planetary boundaries have been crossed, increasing the risk of reaching a tipping point, past which our impact on the planet could prove irreversible. These limits include climate change and biodiversity loss, but also freshwater use, deforestation and land use, pollution,  Page 5 sur 13 ozone depletion for example; each of these boundaries interacts significantly with the others. Let us not fool ourselves: these interconnections generate a heated political debate. Many advocate for priority to be given to climate-risks, as we know them better, and as we have the right instruments at our disposal. Some of those who, on the contrary, support a broad approach to environmental risks – like the former American administration – aim in reality at “diluting” the climate priority. Today, I would like to call for extending our scope progressively but with ambition. First, climate change, on which we must proceed as swiftly as possible; second, biodiversity, which is at an intermediary stage; third, other economically material nature-related risks, including air and water pollution, land use, etc. to the extent they are not already covered as we work on climate and biodiversity.
When attempting to assess risks, we are indeed confronted with numerous conceptual challenges that require adapted tools: the diversity of drivers and impacts; uncertainty over the time horizon (which may be relatively short for biodiversity-related risks), the importance of tail risks and non-linearities associated with tipping points; the limited substitutability of ecosystem services (for instance, forests provide flood protection services that can only partially be replaced by costly infrastructure, while ignoring many other services provided by forests), interdependencies between phenomena (climate change, biodiversity, land use pollution and fresh water use, as mentioned earlier), etc. A particular issue relates to the need for data and metrics, which is targeted by several initiatives. These include the Global Biodiversity Score (GBS), developed by CDC Biodiversité using the GLOBIO model of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) – hence a good example of fruitful French-Dutch cooperation. This tool assesses the impacts of economic activities on biodiversity and synthetizes them into one metric, the Mean Species  Page 7 sur 13 Abundance (MSA) km². It can be applied at the level of individual companies, but also allows for a global measure of our impacts: in 2010, losses were equivalent to 32% of biodiversity globally; by 2050, it is estimated that such losses could increase to 41.5%. Such an aggregated metric is not a silver bullet, but it helped us to better understand the materiality of the issues. Advances on these metrics will further enable efforts to bring forward biodiversity-related disclosure.