Forests play a major role in two of the biggest challenges humans face today, climate
change and biodiversity loss. Increased interest in nature-based solutions, the expectation of increased dependence on negative emission technologies such as Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), and biodiversity conservation goals, puts forest management and land use change decisions in the spotlight. Forest and land management decisions respond to economic incentives of landowners or forest managers, but frequently ignore the related biodiversity impacts. So, what happens if we include biodiversity in the decision making? Which are the trade-offs? Could we find solutions that favor both biodiversity conservation and forestry economic outputs? Here, we tackled this issue and included biodiversity impacts in forest management decision making, in a spatially explicit manner, by incorporating the countryside species area relationship (cSAR) model into the partial equilibrium model GLOBIOM-forest. We tested three forest management intensities (low, medium and high) and limited biodiversity loss via an additional constraint on total species loss. We present the results for 6 scenarios that correspond to the combinations between 2 climate change scenarios and 3 different constraints on biodiversity loss. Our results indicate that (1) omitting biodiversity loss in forest management decisions imply significantly more species
loss, however the magnitude varies by taxa, (2) there are combinations of ecoregions and taxon that have more species loss when biodiversity constraint is introduced because the model allows for reallocation between species loss between taxa and ecoregions, (3) RCP1.9, the higher mitigation scenario, has more biodiversity loss than the reference RCP7.0 due to increase areas of intensively managed forests and (4) there are no significant changes on a global basis of harvest volumes for roundwood, but there are differences in the boreal and temperate zones.