Pathways for food and land use

systems to contribute to global

biodiversity targets

FABLE Policy Brief

March 2022

Headlines
• Biodiversity flourishes in areas where natural processes, such as plant and
animal reproduction and dispersion, take place without human
interruption. At present, we estimate that such land where natural
processes predominate (LNPP) covers 56% of terrestrial land.
Contents
• The evolution of global biodiversity is modelled, as indicated by LNPP,
for two scenarios for food and land-use systems change to 2050: a
1. Biodiversity in food and
“Current Trends” pathway, based on current policies and historical trends,
land-use systems
and a “Sustainable” pathway, depicting ambitious assumptions aimed at
2. Global biodiversity sustainable development.
targets and indicators • The 15% expansion target proposed by the Convention for Biological
Diversity (CBD) is missed under both pathways, yet the shortfall is much
3. Current share of land
smaller when ambitious actions are taken. The area of LNPP expands by
where natural
14% between 2010 and 2050 in the Sustainable pathway compared
processes predominate
to only 2% under Current Trends.
4. Pathways to improved • Increases in LNPP would be achieved while also improving global food
future biodiversity security and climate mitigation outcomes.
outcomes
• While restoration would enable the area of LNPP to expand, existing
5. Policy implications LNPP including mature forest would continue to disappear.
• Shifting diets, increasing crop and livestock productivity, and
limiting agricultural land expansion, were the strongest drivers of
positive change in global biodiversity. Implementing these reforms in
multiple countries would help put us on track to achieve global
biodiversity, food security and climate mitigation goals by 2050.

About FABLE
The Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land-Use, and Energy (FABLE) Consortium is a collaborative initiative to support
the development of globally consistent mid-century national food and land-use pathways that could inform policies
towards greater sustainability. FABLE is convened as part of the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU). The Consortium
brings together teams of researchers from 20 countries and international partners from Sustainable Development
Solutions Network (SDSN), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), the Alliance of Bioversity
International and CIAT, and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Reports published in 2019 and
2020 further describe the FABLE approach to developing pathways to sustainable food and land-use systems. 1
https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/fable/
[email protected]
 1. Biodiversity in food and land-use systems
Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems ensure biodiversity conservation. The
are critical to our food systems1. CBD post-2020 global biodiversity
Biodiversity includes the wide diversity framework proposes a set of global
of genetic resources which underpin biodiversity goals and targets to
vibrant food systems2. Pollinating achieve by 2050. The framework, once
animals like bees are so crucial for ratified, will shape the next few
producing nutrient-rich crops3 that decades of policy action on
more than half of the population in biodiversity. It aims to stimulate ‘urgent
some developing countries would and transformative action’ to achieve
experience malnutrition (nutrient the vision of living in harmony with
deficiencies, especially of Vitamin A) if nature by 2050. It includes an explicit
pollinators disappeared4. The very call for biodiversity-inclusive spatial
diverse species that live in soils make planning to help achieve global
up the often overlooked biodiversity biodiversity goals. Embedding
that maintain healthy soils, helping biodiversity conservation into land-use
micronutrients reach plants and planning and food production systems
ultimately our plates5. Biodiversity in is also an opportunity to achieve food
healthy ecosystems also plays a vital and nutrition security (SDG 2) and meet
role in climate regulation, and in the Paris Climate Agreement
The challenges of
lessening the impact of floods, targets16,17.
halting heatwaves and rainfall shortages on
While demand for agricultural
biodiversity loss food production and people 6.
commodities and timber continues to
and meeting Human activities such as logging of grow, for the benefit of nature and
future food forests, agricultural expansion, and people we need renewed efforts to
agricultural intensification, have put safeguard the world’s last remaining
requirements are
massive pressure on global wilderness areas18–25, restore degraded
intrinsically linked. biodiversity, resulting in rapidly natural habitat26,27, and improve the
increasing rates of species loss environmental sustainability of
everywhere7–9. Over the past two agricultural lands27–29.
decades, global cropland expansion
Comparing alternative pathways for
has accelerated, with half of the
food and land-use systems can help
expanded area replacing natural
identify ways to achieve multiple wins.
vegetation10. Populations of mammals,
This brief presents results from the
birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish
Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land-
declined globally by 68% between
Use, and Energy (FABLE) Consortium, a
1970 and 2016, driven mainly by
collaborative initiative that brings
conversion of pristine habitats into
together independent researchers
agricultural land11. Multiple studies
from 20 countries. Using the FABLE
show insect populations are also
modelling framework30, this brief
shrinking12–14. While numbers of
analyzes baseline conditions for
freshwater insects have increased,
biodiversity and potential pathways to
populations of terrestrial insects like
meeting three of the CBD post-2020
butterflies, beetles, and bees have
global biodiversity framework targets,
shrunk by 9% per decade since 192515.
while considering synergies and trade-
The Convention for Biological Diversity offs with food security and climate
(CBD) brings governments together to mitigation goals.
agree international commitments to
2
 2. Global biodiversity targets and indicators
Biodiversity conservation generally allows these species to reproduce,
refers to preventing species nest, eat or move.
extinctions. For many species, it is
This brief uses an indicator of land
difficult to get data on where they are
where natural processes predominate
and if they are threatened. This is a
(LNPP) to monitor progress towards
problem for monitoring progress
three of the area-based global
towards species-based biodiversity
biodiversity targets embedded in the
targets31–34. Area-based measures are
CBD’s post-2020 framework35 (Table
another important approach to
1). LNPP refers to land where there is
monitoring biodiversity8. These may
a low human disturbance and/or
involve, for example, monitoring
ecologically relatively intact
changes in land that is important for
vegetation, providing space and
one or multiple species, because it
habitat for biodiversity to thrive.

Table 1: Global biodiversity targets from the CBD post-2020 framework (*)
Enhance the integrity of all ecosystems, “with an increase of at least 15%
Goal A in the area, connectivity, and integrity of natural ecosystems, supporting
healthy and resilient populations of all species” by 2050
Milestone Achieve a “net gain in the area, connectivity, and integrity of natural
A.1 systems of at least 5%” by 2030
We aim for no loss
Retain “existing intact and wilderness areas”, halting losses by 2030 or
of land where Target 1
before
natural processes (*) For simplicity, we refer to CBD Goal A, Milestone A.1 and Target 1 all as targets in this brief.
predominate after
To represent LNPP, this analysis uses datasets have some limitations in a
2030 and increases
the total land area covered by these few countries, e.g., inclusion of
of 5% by 2030 and datasets: low impact areas24, key plantation forests in Norway, Finland
15% by 2050. biodiversity areas36, and intact forest and Sweden, and exclusion of large
landscapes37 (Figure 1, Annex). These undisturbed desert regions in Mexico.

Figure 1: Map of LNPP and protected areas on terrestrial land

Data sources: Land where natural processes predominate (LNPP) represents areas inside: low
impact areas 24, key biodiversity areas36, and intact forest landscapes for 201637. Protected areas
are from WDPA (2019)38. Country administrative boundaries are from GADM v36.

3
 3. Current share of land where natural
processes predominate
Our analysis finds that, currently, LNPP unevenly distributed across the world’s
covers around 56% of terrestrial land, ecologically unique biomes40 (Figure
excluding permanent ice and rock. 2). While LNPP covers 89% of boreal
However, only 20% of this land is forests, this falls to only 20% in tropical
formally protected38. This means that, and subtropical dry broadleaf forests,
excluding permanent ice and rock, with only 5% of this land protected.
only 11% of the world’s land is covered Deserts, boreal forests, and tundra
by LNPP inside protected areas. This together account for 51.3% of the
presents a serious risk since the CBD world’s terrestrial LNPP. This
post-2020 framework35 proposes at information could be used to prioritize
least 30% of land be protected by 2030 protected area expansion, e.g., to
with scientists calling for this coverage increase protection in biomes where
to focus on ecologically intact land39. the share of land for nature is low and
pressure to convert this land is high.
Representation of LNPP, and the level
of protection of these areas, is

Figure 2: Share of LNPP, protected and unprotected on terrestrial land, per biome
Globally, natural
processes
predominate on
about 56% of ice-
free land but only
20% of this land is
formally protected.

Source: Authors’ calculations (cf. Annex).

4
The 20 FABLE countries represent a land is protected. Malaysia’s share of
wide range of biomes, providing an LNPP is just below 50% and a
opportunity to explore scenarios for significantly higher share is protected
different starting conditions. This brief compared to most other countries in
classifies these countries into three this group. This group also includes
broad groups with contrasting Argentina, China, Mexico, South
conservation contexts (Figure 3): Africa, and the US.

Group 1 - High Nature, Low Group 3 - Low Nature, High

Protection: more than half of the Protection: less than half of the land
land is LNPP, and less than 30% of is LNPP, and more than 30% of this
this land is protected. This includes land is protected. The share of LNPP
countries with parts of their territory in is critically low in India and Rwanda
the sub-polar zone, i.e., Canada, but while Rwanda protects more than
Russia, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, 60% of this land, India protects less
where human pressure is low. It also than half. Brazil is an outlier with
includes Australia, Colombia, and relatively high shares of LNPP (close
Indonesia. to 50%) and high shares of protection
over this land (>40%). This group also
Group 2 - Low Nature, Low includes Ethiopia, Germany, and the
Protection: less than half of the land UK.
is LNPP, and less than 30% of this

Figure 3. Current percentage of terrestrial LNPP and percentage of this land that is
protected, by country.
Dashed lines show the group cutoffs and represent 50% of land where natural processes
predominate (horizontal line) and 30% of this land is protected (vertical line).

Source: Authors’ calculations (cf. Annex).

5
 4. Pathways to improved future biodiversity
outcomes
Comparing trajectories
This brief compares future outcomes feasible action towards environmental
for LNPP across two pathways: sustainability. It includes measures
such as the adoption of Bonn
The Current Trends pathway depicts
Challenge afforestation targets,
a low ambition of feasible action
constraints on agricultural land
towards environmental sustainability
expansion, increases in crop and
with a future strongly dependent on
livestock productivity, shifts to healthier
current policy and historical trends.
diets41, and decreases in food loss and
The Sustainable pathway waste (see Annex).
Globally, with corresponds to a higher ambition of
ambitious actions,
we can achieve a Figure 4. Global changes in LNPP by 2050, compared to 2010, by land cover
7% increase by
2030 and 14%
increase by 2050 in
land where natural
processes
predominate,
representing more
than five-times the
increases expected
in Current Trends.

Source: FABLE 2021 Scenathon (https://scenathon.org/).

Our models assume that LNPP 1) is 1.1% increase in LNPP by 2030 and
lost when it is converted into 2.2% by 2050, compared to 2010.
agricultural or urban land, and 2) Under the Sustainable pathway,
increases through passive restoration LNPP increases by 6.5% by 2030
in areas where cropland or pasture is achieving one of the CBD’s
abandoned, and through proposed post-2020 targets, and
afforestation. by 13.9% by 2050, almost
achieving a second post-2020
Based on these assumptions, our
target (Figure 4).
analysis shows that global
biodiversity targets will not be A third CBD-proposed target (halt
achieved under Current Trends. losses by 2030) is not achieved in
Following this pathway leads to only a either pathway, but losses are
6
 substantially reduced in the target of expanding these areas by
Sustainable pathway. Under Current 15% by 2050 (see Annex). These
Trends, 58 Mha of mature forest countries span Groups 1, 2 and 3 (see
Halting the loss of where natural processes predominate Section 3), indicating that even in
existing land where is lost by 2030, and a further 44 Mha countries that already have a high
by 2050, while 71 Mha of other share of LNPP, restoration will be
natural processes
natural land is lost by 2030 and an critical to achieve global biodiversity
predominate by additional 39 Mha by 2050. In our targets. The largest relative increases
2030 is a Sustainable pathway, loss of mature in LNPP are for countries in Groups 2
challenging target forest where natural processes and 3 (Figure 5), suggesting that
predominate is halved overall, with appropriate national targets may vary
and neither losses of 32 Mha by 2030 and a with countries’ conservation contexts.
pathway achieves further 23 Mha by 2050, together with
Under Current Trends, while most
it. More ambitious a loss of 45 Mha of other natural land
countries achieve net gains in LNPP
by 2030 and an additional 28 Mha by
actions would be between 2010 and 2050, seven
2050.
needed to halt countries experience net losses with
In our Sustainable pathway, China, US, losses of 25% in Argentina (Figure 5).
losses.
Brazil, India, and Australia are the In our Sustainable pathway, over the
countries with the largest area same period, there are net gains in
increases in LNPP, thus contributing LNPP in all countries except Indonesia
the most to achieving the global and Rwanda.

Figure 5. Modelled percentage changes in LNPP, compared to 2010

By 2030: By 2050:

Restoration will be
needed
everywhere. Even
small relative
increases in land
where natural
process
predominate will
be important for
reaching global
targets

Source: FABLE 2021 Scenathon (https://scenathon.org/).

7
 Indonesia holds one of the world’s taken to completely halt deforestation
largest remaining expanses of after 2030.
rainforest, the preservation of which is
In Rwanda, LNPP increases more under
critical to the welfare of thousands of
Current Trends than in the Sustainable
plant and animal species, including
pathway which is driven by a larger
Sumatran tigers and orangutans.
increase in consumption of meat and
Compared to 2010, LNPP is reduced
milk compared to Current Trends
by 11.5% by 2050 under Current
(current animal-sourced food
Trends, and by 2.5% in our Sustainable
consumption is low). Even if in the
pathway. Under both pathways,
Sustainable pathway, Rwanda would
restoration is enabled through a
pledge no conversion of forests to
reduction in cropland area after 2030
agricultural land by 2030 (compared to
due to the combination of lower
free agricultural land expansion under
international demand for palm oil and
Current Trends) and assume larger
domestic productivity gains for the
than expected increases in livestock
main crops. Higher LNPP under the
productivity, pastureland expands into
Sustainable pathway is explained by
other natural land areas.
the assumption that action will be

Levers for positive change

Assumptions about changes in diets, assumed either forbidden or very
crop and livestock productivity, food limited agricultural land expansion.
waste, population growth, and other Most of these countries, including the
factors, in each of the pathways varied six countries with the largest
with each country (see Annex). percentage increases in LNPP (Figure
Increases in land Constraints are also introduced to 5), also assumed larger increases in
where natural ensure estimated future imports are crop productivity and (except Ethiopia
balanced against future exports. This and the UK) livestock productivity,
processes
section considers which assumptions compared to Current Trends.
predominate are and model constraints drive positive
In the seven countries with the largest
driven mainly by changes in LNPP.
area increases in LNPP (see Annex),
shifts in diets, All countries where the share of other assumptions include substantial
increases in crop LNPP increased in the Sustainable decreases in population growth (Brazil,
and livestock Pathway have decreases, or smaller India, China), a higher livestock
increases, in per capita calorie intake stocking density (Australia, Brazil, and
productivity, and compared to Current Trends, except Mexico), and more extensive
constraints on for Argentina, Malaysia and Russia afforestation (Australia, US), compared
agricultural land where no dietary shifts occurred in to Current Trends.
either pathway. All these countries also
expansion.
Trade-offs and synergies
In our Sustainable pathway, globally and reducing greenhouse gas
increasing the share of LNPP by emissions (GHG) from agriculturea.
14% by 2050 can be achieved Global food consumption per person
while simultaneously achieving per day reaches 2350 kcal in 2050
increases in global food security and includes enough food to meet

a
FABLE 2021 Scenathon (https://scenathon.org/).
8
minimum daily calorie intake crop and pastureland to woodland,
recommendations. Global GHG from heathland, shrubland, wetlands and
crops and livestock would be reduced other natural land (Figure 6a). The UK
to 3.3 GtCO2e/yr in 2050 (compared continues to meet its food needs, by
to 6.4 GtCO2e/yr under Current shifting to a diet based on the UK
Trends). national guidelines for a balanced
diet46. This diet includes reduced fat
Expanding the area of LNPP often
and sugar consumption and calorie
involves restoration of agricultural land.
intake to just above minimum
In countries with an over-consumption
recommended levels, driving a
of food and in particular of animal-
reduction in consumption of livestock
based products, this is enabled by
products (notably red meat, milk, and
shifting to healthier diets41, for example
animal fats). Agricultural land is further
by reducing total daily food
freed up by productivity gains for some
consumption and per capita meat
crops by 2030 (including +57% for
intake, and increasing food and
wheat to 12t/ha), a 50% increase in
vegetable consumption. Together with
livestock stocking density, increased
an increase in agricultural land
reliance on fruit and vegetable imports,
productivity, this can create synergistic
and a 50% reduction in household
improvements for human nutrition42–45
food waste and post-harvest losses.
and biodiversity conservation.
Under the Sustainable Pathway, the
For instance, in the UK, the share of UK achieves to cut its GHG emissions
LNPP would more than double to from agriculture by 39% (from 38
cover 50% of the country by 2050 in MtCO2e/yr in 2010 to 23 MtCO2e/yr in
the Sustainable Pathway, through 2050), driven largely by reduced
restoration of 7 Mha of abandoned emissions from the livestock sector.

Figure 6: Modelled changes in biodiversity and other outcomes in UK and Mexico

between 2010 and 2050.

Source: FABLE 2021 Scenathon (https://scenathon.org/).

9
 Win-win outcomes for biodiversity For instance, in Mexico, in the
conservation and climate mitigation Sustainable pathway, LNPP achieves
are probable when actions involve an increase of 72%, with a mature
halting deforestation (especially of forest loss of 0.7 Mha but net forest
mature forests) and afforestation gain of 1.9Mha (Figure 6b). It would
with a diversity of local species. require the restoration of 35.8 Mha of
Careful planning These actions increase LNPP while also abandoned crop and pastureland to
will be needed to increasing carbon storage and shrubland, wetland, and other natural
secure synergistic sequestration. land to achieve such increases in LNPP.
This reduction in agricultural land
positive outcomes But restoring forest cover alone is not
would be possible through a decline in
for biodiversity sufficient for biodiversity recovery
meat and animal products in Mexican
because there are many organisms
conservation, diets and an increase in imports of
which depend on habitat with low or
livestock products (notably milk) and
nutritional health, no tree cover, such as grasslands,
animal feed (corn). Pastureland would
and climate savanna, and wetlands. Restoration of
also decline through large increases in
grassland, wetlands and other natural
mitigation. pasture productivity. In the Sustainable
land positively impacts on biodiversity
pathway, Mexico would be able to
outcomes. In this situation, win-win
cut its GHG emissions from
outcomes for biodiversity conservation
agriculture by 28% (from 70
and climate mitigation can still be
MtCO2e/yr in 2010 to 50 MtCO2e/yr in
achieved by, for example,
2050), largely through reduced
simultaneously increasing productivity
emissions from livestock.
to reduce GHG emissions from cattle
production and other agricultural
sources.

10
 5. Policy implications
As countries enter the final grasslands. In all countries, further
negotiations at the CBD COP15, global agricultural land expansion should be
action is needed to bring about a avoided. Degraded land, together
transformation in society’s relationship with some agricultural land, will need
with biodiversity. to be freed up and restored to natural
land. Finding ways to increase crop
The Sustainable pathway modelled in
and livestock productivity through
The pathway to this brief, demonstrates that
biodiversity-friendly agricultural
ambitious actions can help safeguard
sustainable food practices is likely to be critical, to free
the world’s remaining biodiversity and
up agricultural land while making it
and land-use achieve synergies with food and
easier for species to inhabit managed
systems requires climate mitigation objectives. Shifting
landscapes and move between
to healthier diets, increasing crop and
ambitious actions natural land areas.
livestock productivity, limiting
by government, agricultural expansion, and large- To help halt biodiversity loss,
agribusinesses, scale restoration are pivotal actions countries should strengthen and
farmers, and needed to lead countries into a expand protected areas to cover
sustainable trajectory. In our more LNPP. Such initiatives should
consumers. Sustainable pathway, LNPP would recognize the essential stewardship
increase by 14% globally by 2050 role of indigenous peoples and seek
compared to 2010, achieving the locally appropriate conservation
2030 target (5% increase) and almost approaches that empower local
achieving the 2050 target (15% people47,48. Thus, conservation
increase) proposed in the post-2020 strategies should target key species,
framework. We would fall far short of land-use types, and traditional
both targets under Current Trends. practices, integrating the entire
Even though in our Sustainable socioecological system49.
pathway, we are not able to meet a
Our study shows how countries can
third global target (halt losses by
contribute to achieving global
2030), loss of mature forest would be
biodiversity targets, without
halved compared to Current Trends.
compromising food security or
Our analysis shows that countries with climate mitigation goals. The
different biodiversity conservation challenge lies in implementation.
contexts can each contribute to Immediate action is crucial and will
meeting global biodiversity targets. require that governments, education
For countries with high shares of LNPP systems, farmers, agri-food
(Group 1), halting losses and even businesses, and consumers mobilize
relatively small restoration efforts can to catalyze a transition towards
make major contributions to global sustainable food and land systems.
biodiversity targets. In countries with Importantly, it requires cooperation
low shares of LNPP (Group 2 & 3), it between countries to collectively
may be easier to achieve large relative achieve targets, recognizing that
increases. This is likely to have major choices made by one country can
benefits for biodiversity especially in have a profound impact on global
biomes with critically low levels of biodiversity, and the whole food and
land left for nature, such as tropical land system.
dry broadleaf forests and temperate

11
Acknowledgements
This policy brief was developed with support from the Norwegian Climate and Forest
Initiative (NICFI) and World Resources Institute (WRI).

Recommended citation
FABLE (2022). Pathways for food and land use systems to contribute to global
biodiversity targets. FABLE Policy Brief. Alliance of Bioversity International and the
International Center for Tropical Agriculture & Sustainable Development Solutions
Network (SDSN), Montpellier/Paris. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10950090

This brief was prepared by Sarah Jones, Aline Mosnier, Clara Douzal, Fabrice
DeClerck, Maria Diaz, Ingo Fetzer, Adrian Monjeau, Serina Ahlgren, Federico Frank,
Charles Godfray, Paula Harrison, Karin Morell, Alison Smith, Charlotte E. Gonzalez-
Abraham, Tord Snäll, and Jan Steinhauser. The brief is based on the FABLE
consortium results from the 2021 Scenathon.
Contributors include: Valeria Javalera-Rincon, Michael Obersteiner, Guido Schmidt-
Traub, Katya Pérez-Guzmán, Rudolf Neubauer, Fernando Orduña-Cabrera, Ximena
Sirimarco, María Paula Barral, Pablo García Martinez, Sebastián Villarino, Raymundo
Marcos-Martinez, Javier Navarro Garcia, Michalis Hadjikakou, Brett Bryan, Romy
Zyngier, Eli Court, Wanderson Costa, Marluce Scarabello, Aline Cristina Soterroni,
Fernando Ramos, René Reyes, Hisham Zerriffi, Avery Maloney, Xinpeng Jin, Zhaohai
Bai, Hao Zhao, Xiaoxi Wang, Jinfeng Chang, Fangyuan Hua, Lin Ma, John Chavarro,
Andrés Peña, Armando Sarmiento, Juan Benavides, Efraín Dominguez, Kiflu Gedefe
Molla, Firew Bekele Woldeyes, Uwe Schneider, Livia Rasche, Heikki Lehtonen, Janne
Rämö, Chandan Kumar Jha, Vartika Singh, Satyam Saxena, Ranjan Kumar Ghosh,
Miodrag Stevanovíc, Jan Philipp Dietrich, Isabelle Weindl, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky,
Hermann Lotze-Campen, Alexander Popp, Habiburrachman A H Fuad, Nurul L.
Winarni, Sonny Mumbunan, Jatna Supriatna, Nurlaely Khasanah, Rizaldi Boer, Gito
Immanuel, Lukytawati Anggraeni, Annuri Rosita, Wai Sern Low, Andrew Chiah Howe
Fan, Jeremy Jiang Shen Lim, Danesh Prakash Chacko, Jit Ern Chen, Chun Sheng Goh,
Gordon McCord, Cynthia Flores Santana, Marcela Olguin, Juan Manuel Torres Rojo,
Arturo Flores, Camilo Alcantara Concepcion, Gerardo Bocco, Oscar Cardenas, Daniel
I. Avila O., Anne Sophie Daloz, Robbie Andrew, Bob van Oort, Anton Strokov,
Vladimir Potashnikov, Oleg Lugovoy, Dative Imanirareba, Fidèle Niyitanga, François
Xavier Naramabuye, Odirilwe Selomane, Belinda Reyers, Shyam Basnet, Torbjörn
Jansson, Line Gordon, Elin Röös, Amanda Wood, Anna Woodhouse, Nicholas Leach,
Saher Hasnain, Jim Hall, Grace Wu, Justin Baker, Chris Wade, Scarlett Benton,
Morgan Gillespy, Talia Smith, Sophie Mongalvy, and Guillaume Lafortune.

12
References
1. Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on
Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science.
2019;366(6471):eaax3100. doi:10.1126/science.aax3100

2. DeClerck FAJ, Jones SK, Attwood S, et al. Agricultural ecosystems and their
services: the vanguard of sustainability? Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability. 2017;23:92-99. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.016

3. Aizen MA, Aguiar S, Biesmeijer JC, et al. Global agricultural productivity is

threatened by increasing pollinator dependence without a parallel increase in
crop diversification. Global change biology. 2019;25(10):3516-3527.
doi:10.1111/gcb.14736

4. Ellis AM, Myers SS, Ricketts TH. Do Pollinators Contribute to Nutritional Health?
PLOS ONE. 2015;10(1):e114805. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114805

5. Rillig MC, Lehmann A, Lehmann J, Camenzind T, Rauh C. Soil Biodiversity

Effects from Field to Fork. Trends in Plant Science. 2018;23(1):17-24.
doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2017.10.003

6. E.S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, H. T. Ngo (editors). Global Assessment Report

on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat; 2019.
doi:10.5281/zenodo.5657041

7. WWF. Living Planet Report 2020. (Almond REA, Grooten M, Petersen T, eds.).
WWF; 2020.

8. Leclère D, Obersteiner M, Barrett M, et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial

biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 2020 585:7826.
2020;585(7826):551-556. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y

9. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Raven PH. Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of

biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Published online June 1,
2020. doi:10.1073/pnas.1922686117

10. Potapov P, Turubanova S, Hansen MC, et al. Global maps of cropland extent
and change show accelerated cropland expansion in the twenty-first century.
Nat Food. 2022;3(1):19-28. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00429-z

11. WWF. Living Planet Report–2020: Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss.
(Grooten M, Almond REA, Petersen T, eds.). WWF; 2020.
https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/LPR/PDFs/ENGLISH-
FULL.pdf

12. Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27
years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLOS ONE.
2017;12(10):e0185809. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0185809

13. Sánchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KAG. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A

review of its drivers. Biological Conservation. 2019;232:8-27.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020

13
14. Seibold S, Gossner MM, Simons NK, et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and
forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature. 2019;574(7780):671-
674. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1684-3

15. van Klink R, Bowler DE, Gongalsky KB, Swengel AB, Gentile A, Chase JM. Meta-
analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect
abundances. Science. 2020;368(6489):417-420. doi:10.1126/science.aax9931

16. Carroll C, Ray JC. Maximizing the effectiveness of national commitments to

protected area expansion for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem carbon
under climate change. Global Change Biology. 2021;27(15):3395-3414.
doi:10.1111/gcb.15645

17. Warren R, Price J, VanDerWal J, Cornelius S, Sohl H. The implications of the

United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change for globally significant
biodiversity areas. Climatic Change. 2018;147(3):395-409. doi:10.1007/s10584-
018-2158-6

18. Bhola N, Klimmek H, Kingston N, et al. Perspectives on area-based conservation

and its meaning for future biodiversity policy. Conservation Biology.
2021;35(1):168-178. doi:10.1111/cobi.13509

19. Visconti BP, Butchart SHM, Brooks TM, et al. Protected area targets post-2020.
Science. 2019;364(6437):239-241. doi:10.1126/science.aav6886

20. Allan JR, Possingham HP, Atkinson SC, et al. Conservation attention necessary
across at least 44% of Earth’s terrestrial area to safeguard biodiversity. bioRxiv.
Published online 2019. doi:10.1101/839977

21. Riggio J, Baillie JEM, Brumby S, et al. Global human influence maps reveal clear
opportunities in conserving Earth’s remaining intact terrestrial ecosystems.
Global Change Biology. 2020;26(8):4344-4356. doi:10.1111/gcb.15109

22. Maron M, Simmonds JS, Watson JEM. Bold nature retention targets are
essential for the global environment agenda. Nature Ecology and Evolution.
2018;2(8):1194-1195. doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0595-2

23. Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Li B V. How to protect half of earth to ensure it protects
sufficient biodiversity. Science Advances. 2018;4(8). doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat2616

24. Jacobson AP, Riggio J, M. Tait A, E. M. Baillie J. Global areas of low human
impact (‘Low Impact Areas’) and fragmentation of the natural world. Scientific
Reports. 2019;9(1):1-13. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-50558-6

25. Kennedy CM, Oakleaf JR, Theobald DM, Baruch-Mordo S, Kiesecker J.

Managing the middle: A shift in conservation priorities based on the global
human modification gradient. Global Change Biology. 2019;25(3):811-826.
doi:10.1111/gcb.14549

26. Strassburg BBN, Iribarrem A, Beyer HL, et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem
restoration. Nature. 2020;586(7831):724-729. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9

27. Locke H, Ellis EC, Venter O, et al. Three global conditions for biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use: an implementation framework. National
Science Review. 2019;6(6):1080-1082. doi:10.1093/nsr/nwz136

28. Garibaldi LA, Schulte LA, Oddi FJ, et al. Working landscapes need at least 20 %
native habitat. 2020;(September):1-10. doi:10.1111/conl.12773

14
29. Mokany K, Ferrier S, Harwood T, et al. Reconciling global priorities for
conserving biodiversity habitat. bioRxiv. Published online November 21,
2020:PREPRINT. doi:10.1101/850537

30. FABLE. Pathways to Sustainable Land-Use and Food Systems. 2020 Report of
the FABLE Consortium. doi:10.22022/ESM/12-2020.16896

31. De Palma A, Hoskins A, Gonzalez RE, et al. Annual changes in the Biodiversity
Intactness Index in tropical and subtropical forest biomes, 2001–2012. Sci Rep.
2021;11(1):20249. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-98811-1

32. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Arnell AP, et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial
biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science.
2016;353(6296):288-291.

33. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL, et al. Global effects of land use on local
terrestrial biodiversity. Nature. 2015;520(7545):45-50. doi:10.1038/nature14324

34. Rounsevell MDA, Harfoot M, Harrison PA, Newbold T, Gregory RD, Mace GM. A
biodiversity target based on species extinctions. Science. 2020;368(6496):1193-
1195. doi:10.1126/science.aba6592

35. CBD. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

(CBD/WG2020/3/3).; 2021.

36. BirdLife International. Digital boundaries of Important Bird and Biodiversity

Areas from the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. February 2019
Version. Published online 2019. Accessed August 2, 2019.
http://datazone.birdlife.org/site/requestgis

37. Potapov P, Hansen MC, Laestadius L, et al. The last frontiers of wilderness:
Tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Science Advances.
2017;3(1):e1600821. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600821

38. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected
Areas (WDPA). WCMC and IUCN; 2019. www.protectedplanet.net

39. Roberts CM, O’Leary BC, Hawkins JP. Climate change mitigation and nature
conservation both require higher protected area targets. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
2020;375(1794):20190121. doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0121

40. Dinerstein E, Olson D, Joshi A, et al. An Ecoregion-Based Approach to

Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm. Bioscience. 2017;67(6):534-545.
doi:10.1093/biosci/bix014

41. FABLE. Environmental and Agricultural Impacts of Dietary Shifts at Global and
National Scales. FABLE Policy Brief. Vol 2021.; 2021.

42. Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human
health. Nature. 2014;515(7528):518-522.
doi:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html

43. Tilman D, Clark M, Williams DR, Kimmel K, Polasky S, Packer C. Future threats to
biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature. 2017;546(7656):73-81.
doi:10.1038/nature22900

15
44. Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, et al. Options for keeping the food
system within environmental limits. Nature 2018 562:7728. 2018;562(7728):519-
525. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0

45. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–
Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet.
2019;393(10170):447-492. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

46. Public Health England. The Eatwell Guide.; 2018. Accessed March 4, 2022.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-eatwell-guide

47. Newton A. Social-ecological Resilience and Biodiversity Conservation in a 900-

year-old Protected Area. Ecology and Society. 2011;16(4). doi:10.5751/ES-
04308-160413

48. Obura DO, Katerere Y, Mayet M, et al. Integrate biodiversity targets from local
to global levels. Science. 2021;373(6556):746-748.
doi:10.1126/science.abh2234

49. Dorresteijn I, Loos J, Hanspach J, Fischer J. Socioecological drivers facilitating

biodiversity conservation in traditional farming landscapes. Ecosystem Health
and Sustainability. 2015;1(9):1-9. doi:10.1890/EHS15-0021.1

50. Le Mouël C, Dumas P, Manceron S, Forslund A, Marajo-Petitzon E. The

GlobAgri-Agrimonde-Terra database and model. Land use and food security in
2050: a narrow road. Published 2018. Accessed July 22, 2021.
https://agritrop.cirad.fr/588822/

51. Poux X, Aubert PM. An Agroecological Europe in 2050: Multifunctional

Agriculture for Healthy Eating. Iddri-AScA; 2018:74p. Accessed June 28, 2021.
https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and-events/study/agroecological-
europe-2050-multifunctional-agriculture-healthy-eating

52. Dietrich JP, Bodirsky BL, Weindl I, et al. MAgPIE - An Open Source Land-Use
Modeling Framework. Zenodo; 2021. doi:10.5281/zenodo.5776306

16
Annex
Data sources and processing to calculate the current share of land where
natural processes predominate
Land where natural processes predominate represents areas inside low impact areas 24,
Key Biodiversity Areas36, and intact forest landscapes for 201637. Protected area data
obtained from the World Database of Protected Areas (2019)38 were cleaned and
converted into raster layers following UNEP-WCMC guidelines. GADM v36 data were
used to delineate country boundaries and were intersected with globally unique
ecoregions obtained from Dinerstein et al. (2017)40, excluding ecoregions classified as
permanent ice and rock, to create country-ecoregion boundaries. We used ESACCI land
cover maps to compute the share of LNPP and protected land inside each country-
ecoregion. We reclassified the 24 ESACCI land cover classes into eight classes (Table 1)
for consistency with the FAO land cover classification system used in the FABLE calculator.
The land covers used have two major limitations. First, natural grasslands and intensive or
extensive pasture are not distinguished in the ESACCI land cover map, or in any other
readily available global dataset, and are both classified as ‘grassland’ in our analysis.
Second, natural and plantation forests are not distinguished in the ESACCI land cover
map, or in any other global dataset, and are both classified as ‘forest’ in our analysis. All
data processing was completed using tools in ArcGIS and R.

Table 2: ESACCI to FABLE land cover reclassifications

FABLE classes ESA classes (codes)
Cropland (10,11,12,20), Mosaic cropland>50% - natural vegetation
Cropland
<50% (30), Mosaic cropland><50% - natural vegetation >50% (40)

Broadleaved tree cover (50,60,61,62), Needleleaved tree cover

Forest (70,71,72,80,82,82), Mosaic trees and shrub >50% - herbaceous <50%
(100), Tree cover flooded water (160,170)
Mosaic herbaceous >50% - trees and shrubs <50% (110), Grassland
Grassland
(130)
Shrubland (120,121,122), Lichens and mosses (140), Sparse vegetation
Other land
(150,151,152,153), Shrub or herbaceous flooded (180)
Bare areas Bare areas (200,201,202)
Snow and ice Snow and ice (220)
Urban Urban (190)
Water Water (210)

Models
For the Scenathon 2021, two models have been used: the FABLE Calculator for 19
countries and the rest of the world regions, and MAgPIE for India.
• The FABLE Calculator is an Excel accounting tool b used to study the potential evolution
of food and land-use systems over the period 2000-2050 for each five-year time step. It
focuses on agriculture as the main driver of land-use change. It includes 76 raw and
processed agricultural products from the crop and livestock sectors. Details are
provided in the model documentation. The FABLE Calculator can be downloaded here.
• MAgPIE is a recursive dynamic cost-minimization model of global land systems
developed at PIK. The model simulates crop production, land-use patterns, water use
for irrigation, and carbon stock changes at a spatial resolution of 0.5° × 0.5°. Associated
with the REMIND energy-economy model, it is used in global integrated assessments to
support the IPCC52.
Each pathway is defined by a combination of scenarios that allow for variation across key
parameters of the models. Each of our country teams could select different values for the

b
The FABLE Calculator has a very similar structure as the GLOBAGRI50 and TYFA models51.
17
following parameters: affecting demand (GDP, diets, biofuel use), trade, food loss and
waste, productivity, land-use restrictions, afforestation, and climate change. In the
MAgPIE model, carbon tax is an additional scenario.
Assumptions for all countries
Figure 7: Assumptions per country

Note: crop productivity is computed as the sum of kilocalories produced from crops
divided by the total cropland area; pasture productivity is the sum of kilocalorie
production from all animal products divided by all livestock units; ruminant density
is computed as the total ruminant livestock units (beef, sheep and goats) divided by
the total pasture area.

Result Indicators
Land where natural processes predominate: A country’s projected share of land where
natural processes predominate is computed by summing the baseline area to the sum of
loss and gain in land area where natural processes predominate and dividing by the
total country area based on GADM v36.
Food intake overall and for animal-sourced products: Average per capita food calorie
intake based on consumption at the national level. Animal-sourced products refer to
beef, mutton, goat, pork, chicken, milk, and eggs.
GHG emissions from agriculture and livestock: GHG emissions from agriculture
include emissions from enteric fermentation, manure management, rice cultivation,

18
agricultural soils, and on-farm energy use. GHG emissions from the cultivation of organic
soils are included for Finland and Indonesia.
Land cover change: Land cover change is the sum of land cover loss and gain for each
land cover type (cropland, pasture, forest, other natural land). Forest loss is the
deforestation associated with agriculture and urban expansion. Forest gain is the land
which is taken out of pasture, cropland and/or other natural land to be afforested.
Extended results
Figure 8: Modelled area changes in land where natural processes predominate,
compared to 2010
By 2030: By 2050:

Limitations and future research priorities

Several refinements of our analysis will be needed to support national biodiversity
strategies. Our assumptions that passive rewilding of abandoned agricultural land, or
afforestation, can restore areas where natural processes predominate might be too
optimistic in certain contexts. Too many restoration efforts have followed a mono-
species approach that ultimately threatens biodiversity. We assume that future
restoration efforts will be centered on diverse, local species of trees and other plants,
arranged to increase complexity and connectivity across scales to support biodiversity.
The pollution risks associated with higher fertilizer and pesticide use to increase
productivity, especially for aquatic biodiversity and insects, have not been considered in
this study. New maps with a better representation of current land management, e.g., for
forestry activities or natural grassland use, would also improve the assessment of the
evolution of the land where natural processes predominate. Finally, our analysis would
be strengthened with a spatially-explicit representation of where restoration of land
where natural processes predominate should be prioritized to ensure positive outcomes
for biodiversity and minimize trade-offs with food production and climate mitigation
goals. Several countries in the FABLE network are already moving forward with this
approach, such as Argentina, where researchers are considering the implications of
land-use change on different ecoregions, local and threatened species.

19