The war in Ukraine is changing plausible future socioeconomic scenarios leading to an unexplored outlook for biodiversity

PERSPECTIVE The war in Ukraine is changing plausible future socioeconomic scenarios leading to an unexplored outlook for biodiversity Claire Vincent 1 | Andrea Cristiano 1,2 | Ivon Cuadros-Casanova 1 | Michela Pacifici 1 | Carmen D. Soria 1 | Lisa Tedeschi 1,3 | Milena Beekmann 1 | Alessandra D'alessio 1 | Pablo M. Lucas 4,5 | Dario Nania 1 | Carlo Rondinini 1 1 Global Mammal Assessment Program, Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy 2 Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom 3 Division of BioInvasions, Global Change, and Macroecology, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria 4 Department of Biology and Biotechnologies ‘Charles Darwin’, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy 5 Departamento de Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain Correspondence Claire Vincent, Global Mammal Assessment Program, Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell'Università 32, 00185 Rome, Italy. Email: [email protected] Funding information Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research, Grant/Award Number: PON (CUP B85F21005360001); National Biodiversity Future Center, Grant/Award Number: CUP Sapienza B83C22002950007 Abstract Shared socioeconomic pathways are a key tool in predicting biodiversity scenarios and in the subsequent design of environmental policies. Here, we discuss how recent policy changes to global trade routes, agriculture, and energy production in response to the war in Ukraine are impacting socioeconomic scenarios used to set and assess biodiversity targets. We also discuss how the disruption to the global geopolitical landscape provides a window of opportunity for policy reform and the radical societal paradigm shift that is needed to tackle the global biodiversity crisis. We call for the re-evaluation of biodiversity targets with newly developed scenarios that reflect the changes made to production and consumption patterns. We also recommend establishing national biodiversity working groups to screen proposed policies for their potential risks to the drivers of biodiversity change, since policy decisions made in response to the war that seemingly are far removed from the environment can have lasting impacts on nature. KEYWORDS biodiversity, conflict, direct driver, indirect driver, multilateral environmental agreements, storylines Received: 11 October 2022 Revised: 8 August 2023 Accepted: 24 November 2023 DOI: 10.1111/csp2.13056 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2024 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. Conservation Science and Practice. 2024;6:e13056. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csp2 1of8 https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13056 1|INTRODUCTION Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), such as the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2022), and global biodiversity assessments like the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 (CBD, 2020),aresomeofthemain international tools used to address the current biodiversity crisis. MEAs are composed of goals and targets based on a scientific understanding of biodiversity trends and the effects of future changes to drivers and pressures (IPBES, 2019). Progress towards achieving these targets is assessed by modeling direct drivers of biodiversity loss according to future plausible socioeconomic scenarios or by extrapolating data from the past (IPBES, 2019). These scenarios are key to understanding the importance of future drivers of change such as climate and land use change, and to design efficient policies to minimize the loss of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services (O'Neill et al., 2014). Currently, five plausible future scenarios, known as the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP), have been developed (O'Neill et al., 2014). These scenarios fall within four broad archetypes that can be mapped on two axes of uncertainty: whether humanity moves towards a more regional or globalized world, and whether policy is focused on protecting the environment or economic interests (Hunt et al., 2012) (Figure 1). The storylines used to build these scenarios describe aspects of society that are difficult to project quantitatively, such as political stability and environmental awareness, and provide underlying logic to the quantifiable elements (O'Neill et al., 2017). Under the context of the war in Ukraine, countries and corporations are drastically changing their policies resulting in a potential shift towards de-globalization (Coles et al., 2023; Mariotti, 2022). Such a reversal of globalization trends hashappenedbefore,aswasthecasewithWorldWarI (Ferguson, 2005). De-globalization could cause a paradigm shift towards socioeconomic scenarios that have been interpreted as quite extreme and therefore less likely. These scenarios include Eco-communalism, which envisions sustainable regionalism with high equity and low economic growth, and Fortress World, that describes a divided world with an authoritarian and inequitable future where human wellbeing and the environment are sacrificed to meet security demands (Hunt et al., 2012;Figure1). Some reactive policy changes linked to global trade, agriculture, and energy production have been introduced and keyeconomicindicatorssuchasGrossDomesticProduct and inflation have suffered drastic changes since the escalation of the war with the 2022 invasion of Ukraine (Guenette et al., 2022). These unprecedented changes do not fit properly within the established SSP narratives. We are moving into a new and unexplored plausible scenario which can have knock-on effects on direct drivers of biodiversity change globally, namely climate and land-use change, invasive and alien species, over-exploitation of natural resources, and pollution (Figure 2). These changes will distort the interpretation of our collective progress towards achieving biodiversity goals, since the scenarios used to formulate and implement these targets will already be outdated (Nicholson et al., 2019). Additionally, the trends of the past are no longer well placed to forecast the future, and these types of extrapolation analyses now contain more uncertainty. Here we discuss how short-term policy decisions made in response to the war in Ukraine are impacting the storylines used to create socioeconomic scenarios, and the indirect effects they have on direct drivers of biodiversity loss globally. We focus on the impact of the war in Ukraine because the international policy decisions in response to the war have been immediate, far-reaching, and have influenced the global economy in an unprecedented way (Guenetteetal.,2022). We also explore the possible shift in our trajectory along scenario archetypes and the potential that this crisis creates for the transformational change needed to improve the outlook of biodiversity worldwide. 2|CHANGES TO DRIVERS OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS 2.1 |Disrupted trade routes In reaction to the war, various governments have imposed trade sanctions causing significant impacts on FIGURE 1 Progress towards achieving targets outlined in multilateral environmental agreements is assessed by modeling direct drivers of biodiversity loss according to future plausible socio-economic scenarios that fall into four broad archetypes (italic) along two axes of uncertainty (bold). The shaded area shows the world's potential direction along these axes after the consequences of the war in Ukraine. 2of8 VINCENT ET AL. 25784854, 2024, 9, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13056 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [10/06/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License international trade relations. In some cases this has led to push-back against long-haul trade, extended supply chains, and over-reliance on single-source suppliers (UNCTAD, 2022a). Consequently, there have been significant declines in economic growth and a rapid rise in inflation. A shrinking global economy implies shrinking production, which means less need for raw materials. A similar situation was found during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, where global domestic material consumption reduced by 1% (Wu et al., 2019). Although after the crisis a rebound effect was seen in certain countries and sectors, at the global level efficiency improvements through technological progress reduced material use and alleviated the environmental burden (Wu et al., 2019). Therefore, to keep natural resource use levels low, investments must be made in technological advances that can lead to reduced resource inputs. Trade and transport are also recognized as the most relevant indirect determinants of invasive alien species' potential impact as a driver of biodiversity decline (IPBES, 2019). We therefore expect that the alterations in trade modes and global transportation networks could lead to novel source pools of alien species, new pathways of introduction, and changes to the frequency of invasion events. For instance, numerous invasive alien species have already been introduced following the construction of international trade and transport infrastructure. This was the case for the Mourning gecko (Lepidodactylus lugubris), whose first record in the Americas came from Panama just two years after the canal's opening (Nania et al., 2020), and for marine species migrating across the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean Sea (Galil et al., 2015). Moreover, human migrations have been associated with increased spread of alien species (Essl et al., 2020), and therefore the human migration crisis that the conflict has caused could increase the spread of such species. However, a closed border policy combined with reduced movement of goods may help contain already established species and reduce the risk of a secondary spread (Tedeschi et al., 2022). As projections to the future are based on past trends and often underestimate stochastic events such as pandemics or wars, changes in international trade routes will influence the projected patterns of biological invasions. FIGURE 2 Global-to-local- to-global linkages of the international response to the war in Ukraine. This framework presents an example of the unintended consequences of local policy decisions made in response to the war on the direct drivers of biodiversity loss at a global scale. An example of how the conflict is changing the direct drivers of biodiversity loss is provided for each driver. VINCENT ET AL.3of8 25784854, 2024, 9, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13056 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [10/06/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Before the war, the number of alien species was projected to increase from 2005 levels by an average of 36% globally by 2050 (Seebens et al., 2021). While it is still too early to foresee how the war will affect the number of invasions, potential changes in rates and pathways of introductions, and a potential lower risk of secondary spread should be accounted for. 2.2 |Interrupted agricultural production The war generated shockwaves to the global food market, reducing the availability of staple foods like wheat and sunflower oil and skyrocketing global food prices by 34% compared to a year prior to the invasion (UNCTAD, 2022a). Both Russia and Ukraine play a key role in global food production, accounting for 53% of the world's sunflower oil, 27% of the wheat, and 23% of the barley (UNCTAD, 2022a). Russia and Belarus also account for 20% of global fertilizer exports (UNCTAD, 2022a), and the fertilizer shortage in countries that have imposed sanctions against them will further drive up food prices as a direct effect of reduced yields. This has the potential to exacerbate food insecurity globally. We expect these changes to global agriculture to impact four drivers of biodiversity loss. First, more land might be converted to agricultural production in some regions to fill the gap. For example, South Korea has introduced new policy to become wheat self-sufficient by aiming to increase wheat crops by 12,000 ha in 2023 (Jeon, 2023). Additionally, the European Commission is allowing European farmers to plant food and feed crops on farmland normally set aside for biodiversity under the Common Agricultural Policy (European Commission, 2022a). This change could lead to increased use of pesticides and reduce semi-natural habitats, such as fallow land and hedgerows, which has already been identified as a key driver of the decline of farmland birds (Strange et al., 2022). This is especially concerning since there has also been an indefinite delay to legalizing the EU's Farm-to-Fork policy to reduce pesticide use by half by 2030. We therefore expect this to increase pressure on farmland biodiversity across Europe, despite the commitments to protect the environment and biodiversity set under the European Green Deal. However, after World War II, Europe underwent land use change due to land abandonment and reforestation programs which led to an increase in large mammal populations across the continent (Fuchs et al., 2013). Therefore, there is hope that any short-term reductions could be reversed with the appropriate planning and policies in place. Second, a global change to the main food producing countries may promote the spread of invasive species, pests, and pathogens. Such was the case in 2016 when wheat grains from Brazil imported to Bangladesh to make flour were instead planted for local production. This led to the invasion of wheat blast, a devastating fungal disease that can halve average yields in affected areas (Ceresini et al., 2019). Under a scenario of altered agricultural production, the occurrence of analogous cases is not unlikely, and may further aggravate food insecurity. Third, the rising global food prices might increase the rate of natural resource exploitation especially in financially stressed regions. Researchers found that the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic caused an increase in the level of illegal hunting in tropical regions (Anagnostou et al., 2021), and that the 2008 Global Financial Crisis caused an increase in wildlife crime in Greece (Troumbis & Zevgolis, 2020). Currently, over 1 billion people, mainly concentrated across the tropics where there are many hotspots of biodiversity (Hillebrand, 2004), are at risk of financial stress due to the recent increase in food prices (UNCTAD, 2022a). Therefore, as the price of staple foods keeps growing, so too will the pressure on natural resources that become vital for human sustenance and as an alternative income source. Fourth, pollution from agricultural runoff might decrease in the short-term, giving temporary respite to biodiversity. Nitrogen-phosphorus fertilizers are known to negatively impact terrestrial biodiversity by slowing microbial growth and blocking decomposition in soils, as well as harming freshwater and marine biodiversity through eutrophication (IPBES, 2019). The price of fertilizers was already increasing due to the COVID-19 pandemic and has skyrocketed since the invasion. As a result, its use decreased in 2021 and 2022, especially in Africa and West Asia where it declined by 19% and 18% respectively (International Fertilizer Association, 2022). There is potential for the high price of fertilizer to incentivize farmers to move away from synthetic fertilizers, or towards crops that are less fertilizer intensive like soybeans. However, agricultural intensification and the use of fertilizers have been documented to increase in times of financial stress (Sayer et al., 2012). Government subsidies and incentives that help promote the transition away from synthetic inputs are one of the most effective potential tools to alleviate the impact of pollution on biodiversity. 2.3 |Energy transition Russia has historically been a top exporter of natural gas, oil, and coal, but sanctions imposed by many western countries are causing them to shift away from importing Russian energy (UNCTAD, 2022a). For example, Europe released the REPowerEU plan to phase out the import of 4of8 VINCENT ET AL. 25784854, 2024, 9, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13056 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [10/06/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Russian fossil fuels (European Commission, 2022b) with the long-term vision for Europe to move to renewable energy. Yet, the short-term strategies to replace Russian energy sources include importing liquefied natural gas from the United States, oil from the Middle East, and reverting coal-fired power plants to full capacity. These strategies could lead to a prolonged reliance on fossil fuels, resulting in further greenhouse gas emissions. The extremely rapid post-COVID economic recovery and the increase in gas prices already caused an increase in coal use in 2021. The result is that global CO 2 emissions from the energy and other industrial sectors, which account for almost 90% of total global emissions, increased in 2022 to reach levels never recorded before (IEA, 2023). Although renewable energy and nuclear power provided their largest ever share of electricity generation in 2022, and the global use of natural gas declined, this improvement was outpaced by the record high emissions from coal (IEA, 2023). Gas-to-coal switching led by increases in Asian emerging markets and developing economies was the main driver of increased emissions (IEA, 2023). An increase in the use of coal can directly impact biodiversity through pollution and land-use change (Harfoot et al., 2018). A heightened European demand for coal is anticipated to drive the opening or expansion of coal mines in countries like Colombia (Box 1). Future areas of extraction of coal in Africa and Latin America are expected to overlap with areas of high species richness and range rarity (Harfoot et al., 2018). Pollution from coal mining also impacts freshwater biodiversity and is known to increase aqueous solute concentrations in downstream ecosystems leading to disrupted osmoregulation and the death of stream biota (Giam et al., 2018). Nevertheless, the high price of fossil fuels can add pressure to reduce demand, incentivize more efficient production, and can make renewable energy prices more competitive (UNCTAD, 2022b). However, there needs to be strong policies in place to attract investment to expand clean energy, especially with support to developing economies where renewable energy investments must increase by four times their current rate to achieve the Paris Agreement (UNCTAD, 2022b). This is a realistic ambition since in reaction to the effects of the war, the EU has already made their emissions targets more ambitious, moving from a 40% reduction to a 57% reduction (Coles et al., 2023). Additionally, between 2020 and 2022, global economic recovery packages included over 1.2 billion USD in clean energy investments, which is twice as much as was made to this sector after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (IEA, 2023). These changes can directly affect the outlook for biodiversity since climate change currently stands as one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and can interact with, and exacerbate, other drivers such as habitat loss, over-exploitation, and biological invasions (IPBES, 2019), causing shifts in species' distribution, phenology, and physiology. The severity of climate change's impacts on biodiversity increases with each degree of temperature rise. For example, the projected median percentage of species at high risk of extinction due to climate change increases from 9% (max 14%) at 1.5C to 10% (max 18%) at 2C, and to 15% (max 48%) at 5C (IPCC, 2022). Therefore, it is of utmost importance for biodiversity that policies and investments to push the green transition are realized. BOX 1 Unintended consequences of trade sanctions on nature: an example from Colombia. Colombia is one of Germany's biggest coal suppliers, providing it with 2.3 million tons of coal in 2021. In the wake of European sanctions against Russia, Colombia has agreed to increase its supply of coal to Germany. About 90% of coal production in Colombia is extracted from El Cerrej on, a 69,000 ha coal mine located in La Guajira department, which is home to indigenous communities and one of the few remnants of the dry forest ecosystem in Colombia. The mine was scheduled to close in 2021 due to slowing global demand for coal, but the recent request from Germany and other EU countries has triggered its reactivation (El Espectador, 2022). The dry forest is a critical ecosystem with endemic and endangered species in Colombia. It has lost more than 90% of its original cover and is expected to lose about 155 ha more due to the expansion of the coal mine (CCRC, 2017). As part of the expansion, a permit to permanently deviate the Bruno creek, one of the main tributaries of the Rancheria river, was requested. This recent development is expected to have a major impact on the dry forest ecosystem since the Rancheria river is the only river in the arid region, with expected changes to the local fauna and vegetation, its freshwater diversity, and the fragile hydrological equilibrium of the region. Human rights groups have also warned that this will cause irreparable damage to the indigenous communities that use the river as one of their only sources of water and for which the river represents a sacred site. VINCENT ET AL.5of8 25784854, 2024, 9, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13056 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [10/06/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 3|AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDEFINE OUR FUTURE? We discussed the potential indirect drivers that could intensify and those that could alleviate the drivers of biodiversity loss but found that the overall impact is more likely to exacerbate threats if biodiversity is ignored in new policy decisions. Nonetheless, the war in Ukraine is ongoing at the time of writing and therefore the impact on global drivers of biodiversity loss remains unknown. If the biodiversity crisis is not addressed with rapid transformative changes to our social and economic systems, the future of biodiversity and the vital services it provides to humans is at risk. However, there is still scope for policy decisions for the medium and long term to be made now that could push us away from a future scenario that falls within the Fortress World archetype (Figure 1). Societal paradigm shifts, such as a transition from one socioeconomic storyline to another, have historically required a period of transformation that is often chaotic and turbulent before arriving at a new normal (Global Scenario Group, 2002). This conflict has created a shock to the geopolitical system that could provide the period of transformation needed for a shift in our trajectory along the environment–economy axis (Figure 1)if policy decisions are made now that can benefit biodiversity. This type of change requires adaptation from all institutions with public pressure playing an important part in setting our desired path towards an equitable and sustainable future (Global Scenario Group, 2002). Tackling the biodiversity crisis requires action at both national and international levels. However, the potential for this conflict to create a multipolar world, where global influence is split between different groups of countries, would result in less soft power to steer the world in one clear direction. Political tensions can have a direct impact on MEAs, for example the conflict in Ukraine has blocked the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (United Nations, 2022) when Russia rejected the wording referencing the war. Specifically, the war threatens the governance system for biodiversity conservation due to changes in international and domestic policy priorities (Gallo-Cajiao et al., 2023). The war could also reduce the amount of funding available for the sustainability agenda as governments grapple with minimizing the societal impacts of the conflict (Gallo-Cajiao et al., 2023). However, it is promising that agreement was reached in December 2022 with the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. With many other negotiations failing to reach consensus, it is hopeful that agreement was reached on this crucial global issue. Socioeconomic scenarios play a key role in designing and informing effective conservation targets, and evaluating the actions needed to achieve them (Nicholson et al., 2019). Therefore we recommend reevaluating the progress made towards goals set in MEAs with more focus on the regionalization scenarios that were previously deemed unlikely. Additionally, we recommend developing new socioeconomic storylines that reflect the changes made to production and consumption patterns and that focus on a de-globalization pathway. This would provide an updated view of what challenges we might face in the coming years to reverse the biodiversity crisis. We also stress the need for mainstreaming biodiversity and recommend that policy decisions in response to the war, including temporary and short-term changes, have a long-term vision to conserve nature. This could include at the national level establishing and empowering an inter-ministerial biodiversity working group that can screen and analyze proposed policies for their potential impact on the drivers of biodiversity change, and to ensure policies are aligned with existing national environmental commitments. As we discussed here, many policy decisions that superficially do not seem to be associated with nature can have large impacts on the drivers of biodiversity change. Without a specialized biodiversity lens assessing these policy changes, some of their impacts may go unnoticed until it is too late. There is potential for governments to shift from fossil fuel to renewable energy, from destructive agriculture to sustainable agrifood systems, and from exploitative to equitable supply chains. But we cannot delay. Biodiversity is the life insurance of humanity in the long term (IPBES, 2019), and we cannot afford to ignore it in the policy decisions we make now. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Conceptualization, Carlo Rondinini; Investigation, Milena Beekmann,Andrea Cristiano,Ivon Cuadros- Casanova,Alessandra D'alessio,Dario Nania, Michela Pacifici,Carmen D. Soria,Lisa Tedeschi, Claire Vincent; Writing—Original Draft, Andrea Cristiano,Ivon Cuadros-Casanova,Milena Beekmann, Michela Pacifici,Carmen D. Soria,Lisa Tedeschi, Claire Vincent; Writing—review & editing, Pablo M. Lucas,Carlo Rondinini,Claire Vincent. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Alessandra D'alessio, Claire Vincent, and Michela Pacifici kindly acknowledge the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research, Programma Operativo Nazionale (CUP B85F21005360001) for funding their research activities. This work was also supported partly by the European Union - NextGenerationEU within the framework of the National Biodiversity Future Center (CUP Sapienza B83C22002950007). 6of8 VINCENT ET AL. 25784854, 2024, 9, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13056 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [10/06/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors declare no competing interests. ORCID Claire Vincent https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8171-1642 Andrea Cristiano https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8197- 9518 REFERENCES Anagnostou, M., Moreto, W. D., Gardner, C. J., & Doberstein, B. (2021). Poverty, pandemics, and wildlife crime. Conservation and Society,19, 294–306. CBD. (2020). Global biodiversity outlook 5. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD. (2022). Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. CCRC. (2017). Sentencia SU698/17. Derecho a la Salud, al Agua y a la Seguridad Alimentaria de Comunidades indígenas - Caso en Que Accionantes Consideran Vulnerados Sus Derechos Fundamentales Con ocasi on del Proyecto de desvío del Cauce del Arroyo Bruno Que Adelanta el Cerrej on. Ceresini, P. C., Castroagudín, V. L., Rodrigues, F. ´ A., Rios, J. A., Aucique-Pérez,C.E.,Moreira,S.I.,Croll,D.,Alves,E.,de Carvalho, G., Maciel, J. L. N., & McDonald, B. A. (2019). Wheat blast: From its origins in South America to its emergence as a global threat. Molecular Plant Pathology,20, 155–172. Coles, S., Rellstab, L., Bergsen, P., Kampfner, J., Bland, B., Vines, A., Vakil, S., Billon-Galland, A., Shea, J., Wolczuk, K., Jie, Y., Karalis, M., Giles, K., Lewis, P., Froggatt, A., Lough, J., Wellesley, L., Benton, T., Nixey, J., …Ash, T. (2023). Seven ways Russia's war on Ukraine has changed the world. Chatham House - The Royal Institute of International Affairs. El Espectador. (2022). Arroyo Bruno (La Guajira): comunidades protestan ante posible aval a desviaci on. El Espectador,39,1–24. www.elespectador.com/ambiente/blog-el-rio/arroyo-bruno-la-gu ajira-ante-posible-aval-a-desviacion-comunidades-protestan/ Essl, F., Lenzner, B., Bacher, S., Bailey, S., Capinha, C., Daehler, C., Dullinger, S., Genovesi, P., Hui, C., Hulme, P. E., Jeschke, J. M., Katsanevakis, S., Kühn, I., Leung, B., Liebhold, A., Liu, C., MacIsaac, H. J., Meyerson, L. A., Nuñez, M. A., …Roura-Pascual, N. (2020). Drivers of future alien species impacts: An expert-based assessment. Global Change Biology,26, 4880–4893. European Commission. (2022a). Safeguarding food security and reinforcing the resilience of food systems. European Commission. European Commission. (2022b). Communication REPowerEU plan (No. COM(2022) 230 final). European Commission. Ferguson, N. (2005). Sinking globalization. Foreign Affairs,84, 64–77. Fuchs, R., Herold, M., Verburg, P. H., & Clevers, J. G. P. W. (2013). A high-resolution and harmonized model approach for reconstructing and analysing historic land changes in Europe. Biogeosciences,10, 1543–1559. Galil, B. S., Boero, F., Campbell, M. L., Carlton, J. T., Cook, E., Fraschetti, S., Gollasch, S., Hewitt, C. L., Jelmert, A., Macpherson, E., Marchini, A., McKenzie, C., Minchin, D., Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A., Ojaveer, H., Olenin, S., Piraino, S., & Ruiz, G. M. (2015). ‘Double trouble’: The expansion of the Suez Canal and marine bioinvasions in the Mediterranean Sea. Biological Invasions,17, 973–976. Gallo-Cajiao, E., Dolˇ sak, N., Prakash, A., Mundkur, T., Harris, P. G., Mitchell, R. B., Davidson, N., Hansen, B., Woodworth, B. K., Fuller, R. A., Price, M., Petkov, N., Mauerhofer, V., Morrison, T. H., Watson, J. E. M., Chowdhury, S. U., Zöckler, C., Widerberg, O., Yong, D. L., …Biggs, D. (2023). Implications of Russia's invasion of Ukraine for the governance of biodiversity conservation. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 4, 989019. Giam, X., Olden, J. D., & Simberloff, D. (2018). Impact of coal mining on stream biodiversity in the US and its regulatory implications. Nature Sustainability,1, 176–183. Global Scenario Group. (2002). Great transition: The promise and lure of the times ahead. Stockholm Environment Institute. Guenette, J. D., Kenworthy, P. G., & Wheeler, C. M. (2022). Implications of the war in Ukraine for the global economy. World Bank. Harfoot, M. B. J., Tittensor, D. P., Knight, S., Arnell, A. P., Blyth, S., Brooks, S., Butchart, S. H. M., Hutton, J., Jones, M. I., Kapos, V., Scharlemann, J. P. W., & Burgess, N. D. (2018). Present and future biodiversity risks from fossil fuel exploitation. Conservation Letters,11, e12448. Hillebrand, H. (2004). On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. The American Naturalist,163, 192–211. Hunt, D. V. L., Lombardi, D. R., Atkinson, S., Barber, A. R. G., Barnes, M., Boyko, C. T., Brown, J., Bryson, J., Butler, D., Caputo, S., Caserio, M., Coles, R., Cooper, R. F. D., Farmani, R., Gaterell, M., Hale, J., Hales, C., Hewitt, C. N., Jankovic, L., …Rogers, C. D. F. (2012). Scenario archetypes: Converging rather than diverging themes. Sustainability,4, 740–772. IEA. (2023). CO2 emissions in 2022. International Energy Agency. International Fertilizer Association. (2022). Public summary: Shortterm fertilizer outlook 2022–2023. IFA Strategic Forum. IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secretariat. IPCC. (2022). Summary for policymakers. In H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, & A. Okem (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press. Jeon, Y. (2023). South Korea: Grain and feed annual. Global Agricultural Information Network. Mariotti, S. (2022). A warning from the Russian–Ukrainian war: Avoiding a future that rhymes with the past. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics,49, 761–782. Nania, D., Flecks, M., & Rödder, D. (2020). Continuous expansion of the geographic range linked to realized niche expansion in the invasive mourning gecko Lepidodactylus lugubris (Duméril & Bibron, 1836). PLoS One,15, e0235060. Nicholson, E., Fulton, E. A., Brooks, T. M., Blanchard, R., Leadley, P., Metzger, J. P., Mokany, K., Stevenson, S., Wintle, B. A., Woolley, S. N. C., Barnes, M., Watson, J. E. M., & Ferrier, S. (2019). Scenarios and models to support global conservation targets. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,34,57–68. O'Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Ebi, K. L., Kemp-Benedict, E., Riahi, K., Rothman, D. S., van Ruijven, B. J., van Vuuren, D. P., Birkmann, J., Kok, K., Levy, M., & Solecki, W. (2017). The VINCENT ET AL.7of8 25784854, 2024, 9, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13056 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [10/06/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environmental Change,42, 169–180. O'Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Ebi, K. L., Hallegatte, S., Carter, T. R., Mathur, R., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change,122,387–400. Sayer, J. A., Endamana, D., Ruiz-Perez, M., Boedhihartono, A. K., Nzooh, Z., Eyebe, A., Awono, A., & Usongo, L. (2012). Global financial crisis impacts forest conservation in Cameroon. The International Forestry Review,14,90–98. Seebens, H., Bacher, S., Blackburn, T. M., Capinha, C., Dawson, W., Dullinger, S., Genovesi, P., Hulme, P. E., van Kleunen, M., Kühn, I., Jeschke, J. M., Lenzner, B., Liebhold, A. M., Pattison, Z., Pergl, J., Pyˇ sek, P., Winter, M., & Essl, F. (2021). Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Global Change Biology,27, 970–982. Strange, N., Geldmann, J., Burgess, N. D., & Bull, J. W. (2022). Policy responses to the Ukraine crisis threaten European biodiversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution,6, 1048–1049. Tedeschi, L., Biancolini, D., Capinha, C., Rondinini, C., & Essl, F. (2022). Introduction, spread, and impacts of invasive alien mammal species in Europe. Mammal Review,52, 252–266. Troumbis, A. Y., & Zevgolis, Y. (2020). Biodiversity crime and economic crisis: Hidden mechanisms of misuse of ecosystem goods in Greece. Land Use Policy,99, 105061. UNCTAD. (2022a). Global impact of war in Ukraine on food, energy and finance systems. (Brief No. 1). United Nations. UNCTAD. (2022b). Global impact of war in Ukraine: Energy crisis (Brief No. 3). United Nations. United Nations. (2022). Statement attributable to the spokesperson for the secretary-general—On the tenth review conference of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. United Nations. Wu, Z., Schaffartzik, A., Shao, Q., Wang, D., Li, G., Su, Y., & Rao, L. (2019). Does economic recession reduce material use? Empirical evidence based on 157 economies worldwide. Journal of Cleaner Production,214, 823–836. How to cite this article: Vincent, C., Cristiano, A., Cuadros-Casanova, I., Pacifici, M., Soria, C. D., Tedeschi, L., Beekmann, M., D'alessio, A., Lucas, P. M., Nania, D., & Rondinini, C. (2024). The war in Ukraine is changing plausible future socioeconomic scenarios leading to an unexplored outlook for biodiversity. Conservation Science and Practice,6(9), e13056. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2. 13056 8of8 VINCENT ET AL. 25784854, 2024, 9, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13056 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [10/06/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License