Conservation scientists warn that rewilding farmland in wealthy nations may harm global biodiversity by shifting harmful practices to more biodiverse areas. Understanding and addressing this ‘biodiversity leak’ is crucial for effective conservation efforts.
A new study led by researchers at the University of Cambridge highlights a troubling paradox in conservation efforts: rewilding and restoring natural habitats in industrialized nations might inadvertently accelerate the extinction of species in more biodiverse regions.
This phenomenon, referred to as the “biodiversity leak,” occurs when human activities detrimental to nature shift to other parts of the world as a result of land protection in wealthier countries.
The research, conducted with input from scientists and economists across over a dozen institutions, and published in the journal Science, urges global acknowledgment of this “biodiversity leak.”
The researchers caution that rewilding productive farmland in countries with low biodiversity could ultimately be more harmful on a global scale.
For instance, their exploratory analysis suggests that converting typical UK cropland for nature restoration could be five times more damaging to global biodiversity than the benefits it yields locally. This is due to the displacement of agricultural activities to regions with higher biodiversity, such as Africa and South America.
The researchers argue that this displacement effect has been largely ignored in biodiversity conservation efforts, undermining actions such as creating new nature reserves and implementing environmental policies in the European Union.
Even the UN’s Global Biodiversity Framework, which aims to conserve 30% of the world’s land and seas, fails to address the leakage problem, the study notes.
“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,” lead author Andrew Balmford, a professor of conservation science at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Zoology, said in a news release. “Much of this is likely to happen in more biodiverse but often less well-regulated parts of the world, such as Africa and South America. Areas of much greater importance for nature are likely to pay the price for conservation efforts in wealthy nations unless we work to fix this leak.”
Co-author Brendan Fisher, a professor at the University of Vermont, added, “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.”
The team conducted a survey of tropical conservation project managers and found that 37% had never encountered the concept of leakage, and less than half were attempting to mitigate its effects. This highlights a significant gap in awareness and action within the conservation sector.
By applying real-world food and biodiversity data to hypothetical conservation scenarios, the researchers further illustrated the impact of leakage.
For example, rewilding a large area of Brazilian soybean farms could push production to countries like Argentina and the United States. However, because Brazil is crucial for global biodiversity, the local conservation gains could outweigh the harms from displacement.
Conversely, rewilding an equivalent area of UK arable farmland would displace production to more biodiverse countries, causing greater overall harm.
To mitigate these issues, the researchers propose several strategies. They call on governments and conservation organizations to seriously consider leakage when designing environmental policies.
Reducing demand for high-footprint commodities, such as red meat, and targeting conservation efforts to areas with high biodiversity but low production potential can help.
Additionally, integrating conservation projects with local agricultural practices to maintain production levels despite protected areas is vital.
“Without attention and action, there is a real risk that the biodiversity leak will undermine hard-won conservation victories,” added co-author Fiona Sanderson, a principal conservation scientist at the Royal Society for Protection of Birds.
“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,” concluded Balmford.
As the world strives to protect and restore natural habitats, understanding and addressing the biodiversity leak is crucial for ensuring that these efforts do more good than harm on a global scale.