Some efforts to preserve or reconsider natural habitats change harmful land use to other parts of the world – and this can drive an even steeper decline in the nature of the planet, according to a team of conservation researchers and economists led by the University of Cambridge.

Researchers from over a dozen institutions all over the world have gathered to encourage global society to recognize “biological diversity leak”: the shift in nature -injured human activities caused by ringfencing certain areas for protection or restoration.

They claim that rebuilding of productive agricultural land or forestry in industrialized countries that have low levels of biodiversity can do more harm than good in the planetary scale.

Investigative analysis of the team suggests that recycling of typical British crops for nature may be five times more harmful to global biodiversity than the advantage it provides local species due to the displacement of production to more biodiversity.

Although this “leakage” has been known II decades, it is largely neglected in the preservation of biodiversity, the researchers say. They claim that it undermines measures that extend from establishing new nature reserves to EU environmental policy.

Writing in the magazine ScienceThe experts point out that even the UN landmark global biological diversity frameworks – which aims at 30% of the world’s land and sea to be preserved – does not mention the leak problem.

“Since nations in temperate regions that Europe preserves more soil, the resulting deficiencies in food and wood production must be made somewhere,” said Prof Andrew Balmford from the University of Cambridge’s Department of Zoology.

“Much of this is likely to happen in more biodndivers but often less well -regulated parts of the world, such as Africa and South America. Areas of much greater importance to nature are likely to pay the price for conservation efforts in rich nations if we do not work to fix this leak. “

“The first thing we need to do is collectively admit that these leaks exist,” said co -author Prof Brendan Fisher from the University of Vermont. “If protest against a felling concession in the United States increases the demand for mass from the tropics, it is unlikely that we help biodiversity.”

Co -author Dr Ben Balmford from the University of Exeter said: “This question requires much more attention from a sector trying to shape how 30% of a constant hungry and more connected plane is handled.”

‘Leakage’ is already an important issue for coal credits tied to forestry, says researchers. But they claim that it is also a real problem for conservation efforts for biodiversity.

While protected areas can slow deforestation within their boundaries, there is evidence that it can simply switch to adjoining areas. Production can also be shifted much longer. Efforts to protect Pacific Northwest’s old growth forests resulted in, for example, increased harvesting in other North American regions.

Nevertheless, a survey of site managers for tropical conservation projects conducted by the Cambridge team found that 37% had not encountered the concept of leakage, and less than half of the projects tried to limit any displacement injury.*

The researchers investigated how leaks caused by protected areas can affect global biodiversity by applying real food and biological diversity data to two hypothetical conservation projects.

They found that rebuilding a large area in Brazilian soybeans would drive production to nations such as Argentina and the United States, but since Brazil is so important for biodiversity, local conservation gains can be about five times greater than the shift.

The opposite would be true if the corresponding area in agricultural land in the UK was recovered for nature. Here, production would be moved to Australia, Germany, Italy and Ukraine. **

Since the United Kingdom has fewer species than these other countries, damage from “leakage” may be five times greater than the local benefit for British biodiversity.

The experts offer a number of ways to help connect the biological diversity leak. They urge governments and the preservation sector to take leaks much more seriously when doing environmental policy at national and global level.

They also point out that leaks can be reduced if conservation projects work with others to reduce demand for goods with high footprints such as red meat.

There is room to limit leakage by targeting conservation to areas with a lot of biodiversity but where current or potential production of food or timber is limited, says researchers. An example is to restore abandoned tropical shrimp to mangroves.

However, we should also be much more cautious about restoring natural habitats on currently productive agricultural land in smaller beekeeping parts of the world, they claim.

In addition to planning where to preserve, large conservation initiatives should cooperate with partners in other sectors to support local farmers, so that the total production levels are maintained in the region despite protected areas. The team quotes examples that range from forest -friendly chocolate to crew methods that protect snow leopards.

Where local return increases are difficult, larger programs can establish long -term partnerships with suppliers in the same markets to make deficiencies in production.

“Without attention and action, there is a real risk that the biological diversity leak will undermine hard -winning conservation victories,” said co -authors Dr Fiona Sanderson from the Royal Society for Protection of Birds, which works to reduce the effects of cocoa production in Sierra Leone.

Chief author from Cambridge, Prof Andrew Balmford, added: “At the worst, we could see certain conservation measures cause net global damage by moving production to regions that are much more important for biodiversity.”

Notes:

*Examination of 100 practitioners involved in area -based tropical conservation projects, including board members, managers, coordinators and researchers. The respondents came from 36 countries in all five continents. More information:

** Two hypothetical habitat recovery programs covering 1000 km2 Brazilian soy -producing soil and restore 1000 km2 of agricultural land in the UK, which produces wheat, barley and oil seeds.