Biodiversity leaks: Conservation efforts may shift harm elsewhere

Conservation is widely seen as a noble effort to protect nature from human destruction. From rewilding landscapes to establishing nature reserves, these initiatives aim to preserve biodiversity and ecosystems.

However, a growing body of research suggests that these well-intended efforts may have unintended consequences. Protecting one area can push harmful activities elsewhere, often to regions where biodiversity loss is even greater.

A team of conservation scientists and economists led by the University of Cambridge refers to this issue as a “biodiversity leak.”

When industrialized nations reclaim farmland or forests for nature, they may unknowingly shift agriculture, logging, and other industries to more biodiverse regions. As a result, conservation gains in one country may cause greater environmental damage elsewhere.

Challenge of displaced land use

Researchers from over a dozen institutions warn that rewilding farmland in countries with lower biodiversity could do more harm than good. Their findings suggest that reclaiming cropland in the UK for nature may be five times more damaging for global biodiversity than the local benefits it provides.

This is because agricultural production does not disappear when land is set aside for conservation. Instead, it moves elsewhere, often to places that are more ecologically significant.

While this issue has been recognized for decades, it remains largely overlooked in conservation policies. Even the UN’s Global Biodiversity Framework, which aims to conserve 30% of the world’s land and seas, fails to address biodiversity leakage.

The researchers argue that ignoring this displacement effect could undermine major conservation victories.

Conservation efforts and biodiversity policies

“As nations in temperate regions such as Europe conserve more land, the resulting shortfalls in food and wood production will have to be made up somewhere,” said Professor Andrew Balmford from the University of Cambridge’s Department of Zoology.

Professor Balmford noted that much of this production will shift to regions like Africa and South America. These areas often have weaker environmental regulations, making them more vulnerable to deforestation and habitat destruction.

Instead of reducing global environmental harm, conservation in wealthier nations may push the burden onto regions with far greater ecological importance.

“The first thing we need to do is collectively acknowledge that these leaks exist. If protesting a logging concession in the US increases demand for pulp from the tropics, then we are unlikely to be helping biodiversity,” said Professor Brendan Fisher from the University of Vermont.

Impact of conservation on global biodiversity

While protected areas slow deforestation within their borders, they can drive forest loss elsewhere. Research has shown that when logging is restricted in one location, it often intensifies in another.

A well-documented example occurred in the Pacific Northwest, where efforts to protect old-growth forests led to increased logging in other parts of North America.

Despite the significance of biodiversity leakage, many conservationists remain unaware of the issue. A survey of tropical conservation site managers, conducted by the Cambridge research team, revealed that 37% had never heard of leakage.

Less than half of the projects examined were actively trying to reduce displacement damage.

To better understand the global effects of conservation leakage, researchers applied real-world food production and biodiversity data to two hypothetical conservation projects. Their findings illustrate how conservation efforts in different regions can have widely varying outcomes.

Strategies must consider global biodiversity

One scenario examined the impact of rewilding a large area of Brazilian soybean farms. The researchers found that this would push agricultural production to nations like Argentina and the United States.

However, because Brazil is one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth, local conservation benefits would outweigh the negative effects of production displacement.

In contrast, a similar project in the UK would have the opposite effect. If UK farmland were reclaimed for nature, farming would likely be displaced to Australia, Germany, Italy, and Ukraine.

Since these countries have more species than the UK, the resulting biodiversity loss could be five times greater than the local gains in British biodiversity. This demonstrates why conservation strategies must consider global biodiversity rather than focusing solely on national interests.

Ways to minimize biodiversity leaks

Governments and conservation organizations must take biodiversity leakage seriously when designing environmental policies.

Addressing this issue requires a shift in how conservation efforts are planned and executed. Researchers propose several strategies to minimize leakage and ensure that conservation benefits nature on a global scale.

One approach is to reduce demand for high-footprint commodities such as red meat, which drives deforestation and habitat destruction. If conservation projects work alongside industries to lower consumption of resource-intensive products, they can lessen the pressure to expand agricultural land into biodiverse regions.

Another strategy is to prioritize conservation efforts in areas with high biodiversity but limited food or timber production.

For example, restoring abandoned tropical shrimp farms to mangroves could enhance biodiversity without displacing agricultural production. This approach ensures that conservation does not come at the cost of increased habitat destruction elsewhere.

Supporting local communities

Dr. Ben Balmford of the University of Exeter stresses the importance of integrating conservation with sustainable production.

“This issue demands far greater attention from a sector that seeks to shape how 30% of an ever hungrier and more connected planet is managed.”

Rather than simply protecting land, conservation efforts should work with local farmers and producers to maintain agricultural output while preserving biodiversity.

By supporting sustainable practices, conservationists can prevent production from shifting to more vulnerable regions. Examples include forest-friendly chocolate production and herding techniques that protect snow leopards while sustaining livestock farming.

When increasing local yields is not feasible, conservation initiatives could establish long-range partnerships with suppliers in the same markets. This would help maintain production levels while avoiding unnecessary displacement of agricultural activities.

Addressing biodiversity leaks

Dr. Fiona Sanderson from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds warned about the risks of ignoring this issue. “Without attention and action, there is a real risk that the biodiversity leak will undermine hard-won conservation victories.”

“At its worst, we could see some conservation actions cause net global harm by displacing production to regions which are much more significant for biodiversity,” noted Professor Balmford.

To make conservation truly effective, strategies must be designed with a global perspective. Protecting nature in one place should not come at the expense of greater destruction elsewhere.

By recognizing biodiversity leakage and developing smarter conservation policies, the world can ensure that efforts to protect nature contribute to real, lasting environmental benefits.

The study is published in the journal Science.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–