Imbalanced nature conservation causing ‘biodiversity leak’
Nature conservation in wealthier countries shifts harmful land use to nations with more biodiversity, say researchers.
This issue, which researchers have called the biodiversity leak, could drive an even steeper decline in the planet’s species.
It has been detailed by a team of conservation scientists and economists including Dr David Williams in the School of Earth and Environment.
Led by the University of Cambridge, the international team of researchers call on the global community to acknowledge the biodiversity leak.
They argue that rewilding farmland and forestry in industrialised nations with lower levels of biodiversity may do more harm than good on a planetary scale.
Their analysis shows that reclaiming UK farmland for nature may be five times more damaging for global biodiversity than the benefit it provides local species, because it displaces food production to more biodiverse regions.
Dr David Williams said: “This paper raises a really important point for any organisation interested in trying to conserve biodiversity. There is a real risk that if we don’t think about the unintended consequences of environmental actions, we could actually do more harm than good!
“To be clear, we are not saying that we shouldn’t look after the environment in places like the UK or Europe. But we must account for the biodiversity leak when planning environmental strategies like rewilding or the UK’s Environmental Improvement Plan.”
Their article is now published in the journal Science.
Importance of policy and regulations
While the leakage has been known about for decades, it's largely neglected in biodiversity policy and actions, say the researchers. They that argue it undermines the EU’s environmental policies and local nature-friendly action.
In the paper, the experts point out that even the UN’s landmark Global Biodiversity Framework, which aims for 30% of the world’s land and seas to be conserved, doesn’t mention the leak.
Professor Andrew Balmford from the University of Cambridge said: “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.
“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.”
Consider the biodiversity leak in conservation plans
The researchers explored how leakage caused by protected areas could affect global biodiversity by applying real-world food and biodiversity data to two hypothetical conservation projects.
They found that rewilding a sizeable area of Brazilian soybean farms would push production to nations such as Argentina and the USA, but because Brazil is so important for biodiversity, the local conservation gains could be around five times greater than the harms of displacement.
The opposite would be true if the same area of UK farmland was reclaimed for nature. In that case, production would be displaced to Australia, Germany, Italy and Ukraine.
As the UK has fewer species than these other countries, the damage from leakage could be five times greater than the benefit to British biodiversity.
The experts call on governments and the conservation sector to take leakage far more seriously when making environmental policy at national and global levels.
They suggest ways that the biodiversity leak could be limited, including:
- Conservation projects include reducing demand for high-footprint products
- Focusing on conservation for areas with high biodiversity and limited food or timber production
- More caution around restoring natural habitats on productive farmland in areas with less biodiversity
- Working with and supporting local farmers and communities.
