Copyright 2016 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved.Land use and related pressures have reduced local terrestrial biodiversity, but it is unclear how the magnitude of change relates to the recently proposed planetary boundary ( safe limit ).We estimate that land use and related pressures have already reduced local biodiversity intactness-the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems-beyond its recently proposed planetary boundary across 58.1%of the worlds land surface, where 71.4% of the human population live. Biodiversity intactness within most biomes (especially grassland biomes), most biodiversity hotspots, and even some wilderness areas is inferred to be beyond the boundary. Such widespread transgression of safe limits suggests that biodiversity loss, if unchecked, will undermine efforts toward long-term sustainable development

Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy Summary paragraph Increased efforts are required to prevent further losses of terrestrial biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides 1,2. Ambitious targets have been proposed, such as reversing the declining trends in biodiversity 3-yet, just feeding the growing human population will make this a challenge 4. We use an ensemble of land-use and biodiversity models to assess whether (and if so, how) humanity can reverse terrestrial biodiversity declines due to habitat conversion, a major threat to biodiversity 5. We show that immediate efforts, consistent with the broader sustainability agenda but of unprecedented ambition and coordination, may allow to feed the growing human population while reversing global terrestrial biodiversity trends from habitat conversion. If we decide to increase the extent of land under conservation management, restore degraded land, and generalize landscapelevel conservation planning, biodiversity trends from habitat conversion could become positive by mid-century on average across models (confidence interval: 2042-2061), but not for all models. Food prices could increase and, on average across models, almost half (confidence interval: 34-50%) of future biodiversity losses could not be avoided. However, additionally tackling the drivers of landuse change may avoid conflict with affordable food provision and reduces the food system's environmental impacts. Through further sustainable intensification and trade, reduced food waste, and healthier human diets, more than two thirds of future biodiversity losses are avoided and the biodiversity trends from habitat conversion are reversed by 2050 for almost all models. Although limiting further loss will remain challenging in several biodiversity-rich regions, and other threats, such as climate change, must be addressed to truly reverse biodiversity declines, our results show that bold conservation efforts and food system transformation are central to an effective post-2020 biodiversity strategy. Reversing biodiversity trends by 2050 Without further efforts to counteract habitat loss and degradation, we projected that global biodiversity will continue to decline (BASE scenario; Fig. 1). Rates of loss over time for all nine BDIs in 2010-2050 were close to or greater than those estimated for 1970-2010 (Extended data Extended Data Table 1). For various biodiversity aspects, on average across IAM and BDI combinations, peak losses over the 2010-2100 period were: 13% (range: 1-26%) for the extent of suitable habitat, 54% (range: 45-63%) for wildlife population density, 5% (range: 2-9%) for local compositional intactness , 4% (range: 1-12%) for global extinctions, and 4% (range: 2-8%) for regional extinctions (Extended Data Table 1). Percentage losses were greatest in biodiversity-rich regions (Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, South East Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America; Extended Data Fig. 2). The projected future trends for habitat loss and degradation and its driv...

Abstract. Coordinated experimental design and implementation has become a cornerstone of global climate modelling. Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) enable systematic and robust analysis of results across many models, by reducing the influence of ad hoc differences in model set-up or experimental boundary conditions. As it enters its 6th phase, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) has grown significantly in scope with the design and documentation of individual simulations delegated to individual climate science communities.The Coupled Climate-Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project (C4MIP) takes responsibility for design, documentation, and analysis of carbon cycle feedbacks and interactions in climate simulations. These feedbacks are potentially large and play a leading-order contribution in determining the atmospheric composition in response to human emissions of CO 2 and in the setting of emissions targets to stabilize climate or avoid dangerous climate change. For over a decade, C4MIP has coordinated coupled climate-carbon cycle simulations, and in this paper we describe the C4MIP simulations that will be formally part of CMIP6. While the climate-carbon cycle community has created this experimental design, the simulations also fit within the wider CMIP activity, conform to some common standards including documentation and diagnostic requests, and are designed to complement the CMIP core experiments known as the Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima (DECK).C4MIP has three key strands of scientific motivation and the requested simulations are designed to satisfy their needs: (1) pre-industrial and historical simulations (formally part of the common set of CMIP6 experiments) to enable model evaluation, (2) idealized coupled and partially coupled simulations with 1 % per year increases in CO 2 to enable diagnosis of feedback strength and its components, (3) future scenario simulations to project how the Earth system will rePublished by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. This paper documents in detail these simulations, explains their rationale and planned analysis, and describes how to set up and run the simulations. Particular attention is paid to boundary conditions, input data, and requested output diagnostics. It is important that modelling groups participating in C4MIP adhere as closely as possible to this experimental design.