We found that both conservation strategies result in a reduction in the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services globally, but without additional measures to achieve effective climate mitigation they will be insufficient to restore biodiversity. The HE strategy performs better for terrestrial biodiversity protection (biodiversity intactness (MSA), Red List Index, geometric mean abundance) in currently still natural regions, reflecting global conservation priorities. The SP strategy yields more improvements for biodiversity in human-used areas, aquatic biodiversity and for regulating ecosystem services (pest control, pollination, erosion control), reflecting regional priorities. However, ‘conservation only’ scenarios show a considerable increase in food security risks (especially in Sub-Saharan Africa) compared to the baseline and limited reduction of global temperature increase. Only when conservation strategies are combined with climate change mitigation efforts and additional actions especially in the agricultural and energy system into a portfolio of ‘integrated sustainability measures’, both conservation strategies result in restoring biodiversity to current values or even some improvement, while keeping global warming below two degrees and keeping food security risks below baseline. Minimizing food wastes and reducing consumption of animal products will be crucial
FingerprintDive into the research topics of 'Assessing ambitious nature conservation strategies within a 2 degree warmer and food-secure world'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Assessing ambitious nature conservation strategies in a below 2 degrees warmer and food-secure world – supplementary spatial data
Kok, M. T. J. (Creator), Meijer, J. (Creator), van Zeist, W. (Creator), Hilbers, J. P. (Creator), Immovilli, M. (Creator), Janse, J. H. (Creator), Stehfest, E. (Creator), Bakkenes, M. (Creator), Schipper, A. M. (Creator) & Alkemade, R. (Creator), PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 30 Mar 2022