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.

As an illustration, recent research showed that exposure to degraded land could  Page 3 sur 13 impact the value of listed companies in the food supply chain in Brazil: the market value of farmers operating on degrading land declined by 13 per cent following extreme weather, while those on healthy soils increased by 6 per cent.vii  3. Climate change, biodiversity loss and other nature-related risks are intricately linked First, biodiversity-related risks and climate-related risks are deeply intertwined, and subject to feedback phenomena – what we call the “climate-biodiversity nexus”. Climate change is indeed already the third driver of biodiversity loss behind land use change and overexploitation of living organisms; in turn, the loss of biodiversity undermines the capacity to adapt to and mitigate climate change. The canonical example of Amazonian deforestation is prime evidence of the synergies between these drivers: the Amazon rainforest is both a carbon reserve and a unique ecosystem hosting many endangered species. In fact, nature-based solutions represent several of the most valuable options to progress toward net zero according to the IPCC.viii  Page 4 sur 13  These interdependences also extend to several other aspects of nature-related risks: for example, both climate and land-use change drive imbalances in freshwater availability, notably caused by droughts – which we have been acutely aware of lately. Let’s acknowledge that so far, the contours of naturerelated risks are more vague, as they relate to risks posed by any phenomena relating to nature. We still have here a definition challenge.