The Hidden Cost of Conservation

Efforts to heal Britain’s landscapes could unintentionally fuel biodiversity loss in the world’s most species-rich regions.

What is Biodiversity Leakage?

Research led by Andrew Balmford et al. in 2025 suggests that restoring 1,000 km² of UK farmland could cause up to five times more ecological damage overseas than the benefits gained at home.

 

Biodiversity leakage such as this happens when efforts to protect nature push destructive human activities, such as intensive farming or logging, somewhere else. In theory, restoring or protecting habitats should reduce local pressures on nature. Yet in practice, these gains can cause unintentional environmental damage to other regions, often in areas that are richer in biodiversity. This essentially shifts biodiversity loss rather than reducing it overall.

Restored UK Bluebell Woodland. Photo by Dan Jones from Pixabay.

This challenge is especially relevant as nations race to meet ambitious global conservation targets, such as protecting 30% of the planet’s land and seas by 2030 - known as the 30x30 target. If wealthy nations like the UK restore farmland to wild habitats without considering where lost agricultural production will shift, they risk inadvertently fuelling deforestation and habitat destruction overseas.

The UK is relatively poor in species compared to the tropics. So when farmland here is restored, the food production space that is lost and forced to move abroad may cause more harm than good. By contrast, restoration in countries like Brazil, where ecosystems are far more biodiverse, may deliver far greater global benefits even if farming shifts to other regions.

Biodiverse forest in Brazil. Photo by David Riaño Cortés from Pexels.

Despite its significance, biodiversity leakage is largely ignored in conservation policy. Even the UN’s landmark Global Biodiversity Framework makes no mention of it. A 2025 survey of tropical conservation project managers revealed that 37% had never heard of leakage, and fewer than half actively tried to address it.

 

Many conservation projects operate in isolation, focusing on local restoration without considering wider trade, demand, or economic effects. While awareness is growing, there are still no robust tools to measure or monitor leakage risks across borders. This highlights a major blind spot in the way biodiversity strategies are currently being designed and delivered worldwide.

 

The Various Pathways of Leakage

Biodiversity leakage doesn’t follow a single route, it moves through local landscapes, global markets and even international trade.

At the local level, when conservation projects restrict logging, farming or development in one area, those same activities often shift next door to unprotected land. For instance, research by Delacote et al. 2016 found that when certain forest reserves were established to reduce deforestation, logging and agricultural expansion simply moved into nearby unprotected forests, offsetting much of the conservation gain. The damage doesn’t stop; it simply relocates.

On a global scale, leakage can occur when restoring land in one country reduces local production and increases imports from another. For example, Florence Pendrill et al. found that efforts in some European nations to convert farmland back to natural habitat have reduced domestic crop output, leading to greater imports of soy and other feed crops from South America. These are regions where agricultural expansion drives deforestation and threatens tropical biodiversity. This means that environmental gains in Europe can come at the cost of habitat loss abroad.

Palm oil production in Indonesia. Photo by Tom Fisk from Pexels

Market leakage is perhaps the most powerful and invisible form. Global demand for commodities such as beef, soy or palm oil continues to drive habitat loss elsewhere, linking everyday consumer choices to faraway forests.

What It Means for People and Planet

For people, leakage means that while nature may return to the UK countryside, the costs are exported to farmers and communities abroad, often in poorer regions with weaker governance. This can drive land grabs, displacement, and loss of livelihoods. For the planet, it means a continuing decline in global biodiversity, despite well-intentioned conservation at home.

Ultimately, the challenge reflects a deeper truth: our planet does not have enough space to simultaneously meet rising consumption and restore large areas for nature. Without demand reduction, efforts to protect biodiversity in one region will simply move destruction elsewhere.

Can We Fix It?

Reducing biodiversity leakage is possible, but it requires collaboration. The first step is tackling global demand by shifting diets, cutting food waste and reducing consumption of high impact commodities such as meat can reduce pressure on the land. Restoration efforts must also be strategic, targeting low-yield, high biodiversity areas where conservation offers the greatest global benefit.

'Save our Biodiversity' icon, created on BioRender by Ines Graham Usabiaga

Ultimately, stronger international cooperation is key. Governments, businesses and communities need to work together to anticipate and prevent the displacement of environmental harm. Protecting nature in one place shouldn’t mean destroying it in another.

Biodiversity leakage is a hidden threat that undermines conservation progress. To avoid causing more harm than good, countries like the UK must consider not just what happens on their own land, but also how their choices ripple through global markets and ecosystems.

This is not a problem with a single solution. Tackling leakage requires both bottom-up change, such as local dietary shifts and reduced consumption, and top-down policies, such as trade regulations and global biodiversity agreements. Only through collective action can conservation truly deliver net gains for people and nature.

About the author:

Inés Graham is a third-year biological sciences student at The University of Exeter with a passion for animals, nature and sport.