Efforts to restore nature may backfire by shifting land use elsewhere. Scientists warn that rewilding farmlands in wealthy nations can harm biodiversity in other regions. This process, called “biodiversity leak,” poses a severe threat to global ecosystems.
When countries protect or restore natural areas, industries relocate to other regions. This displacement can cause greater environmental harm than the conservation benefits achieved. Experts argue that this critical issue is widely overlooked.
GLOBAL EFFECTS OF LAND USE DISPLACEMENT
A study led by the University of Cambridge found that reclaiming UK cropland for conservation could be significantly harmful. It could be five times more harmful to global biodiversity than beneficial. The reason? Food production shifts to highly biodiverse areas in Africa and South America, leading to deforestation and habitat destruction.
FLAWS IN CONSERVATION POLICIES
The United Nations’ Global Biodiversity Framework aims to conserve 30% of land and seas. Nonetheless, researchers argue that it fails to address biodiversity leaks. Ignoring this issue may result in increased destruction of species-rich regions rather than preserving them.
Prof. Andrew Balmford from Cambridge states, “As Europe conserves land, there is a need to increase food production elsewhere. Timber production must also rise, often in regions with weaker protections.”
Co-author Prof. Brendan Fisher adds, “If logging bans in the U.S. drive up demand for tropical wood, biodiversity suffers.”
AN IGNORED ISSUE IN CONSERVATION
While conservationists recognize carbon credit leaks, biodiversity leaks remain largely unaddressed. Studies show that protected areas can reduce deforestation locally but increase it elsewhere. For example, restrictions in the Pacific Northwest led to higher logging rates in other U.S. regions.
TROPICAL CONSERVATION SITES UNAWARE OF THE ISSUE
A Cambridge survey found that 37% of tropical conservation project managers were unaware of biodiversity leakage. Less than half of conservation initiatives actively mitigate displacement effects.
EXAMINING THE COSTS OF REWILDING
To assess biodiversity leaks, researchers applied food production and biodiversity data to two conservation scenarios:
- Rewilding Brazilian soybean farms—While some production shifted, conservation efforts had five times more positive impact than negative displacement effects due to Brazil’s rich environment.
- Rewilding UK farmland—Production moved to Australia, Germany, Italy, and Ukraine, where biodiversity is higher. The result? Five times greater biodiversity loss than local UK conservation gains.
STRATEGIES TO PREVENT BIODIVERSITY LEAKS
1. Integrate Leakage Considerations in Policies
Governments must acknowledge biodiversity leaks when shaping conservation strategies. Overlooking them risks undermining the goals.
2. Reduce Demand for High-Impact Products
Conservation efforts should reduce consumption, particularly for resource-intensive goods like red meat, to lower production pressures.
3. Focus on Low-Production, High-Biodiversity Areas
Rewilding abandoned shrimp farms into mangroves has minimal displacement risks. These projects restore ecosystems without shifting production.
4. Avoid Rewilding Highly Productive Land
Experts caution against repurposing fertile farmland in low-biodiversityregions. The damage from displaced production can outweigh conservation benefits.
5. Support Sustainable Farming Practices
Rather than eliminating farmland, conservationists should collaborate with farmers to enhance productivity while protecting biodiversity. Examples include:
- Sustainable cocoa farming in Sierra Leone
- Livestock management techniques that protect snow leopards
6. Build Global Partnerships for Sustainable Production
Where boosting local yields is challenging, partnering with farmers in other regions can offset production losses and prevent harmful displacement.
A SMARTER APPROACH TO CONSERVATION
Dr. Fiona Sanderson from the Royal Society for Protection of Birds warns, “Ignoring biodiversity leaks may erase conservation gains.”
Prof. Andrew Balmford adds, “Poorly planned conservation may unintentionally cause more harm by shifting production to biodiversity hotspots.”
