The Prague Post - Conservation efforts can shift nature loss to more vulnerable regions: study

EUR -
AED 4.175692
AFN 75.043056
ALL 93.695465
AMD 416.344708
AOA 1043.780649
ARS 1702.120314
AUD 1.63061
AWG 2.049471
AZN 1.931921
BAM 1.955071
BBD 2.294254
BDT 140.617551
BHD 0.429246
BIF 3402.675725
BMD 1.137016
BND 1.469471
BOB 12.820218
BRL 5.813225
BSD 1.13908
BTN 109.191273
BWP 15.639304
BYN 3.267667
BYR 22285.511724
BZD 2.290996
CAD 1.604358
CDF 2569.655869
CHF 0.931899
CLF 0.027171
CLP 1069.374867
CNY 7.693159
CNH 7.69575
COP 3648.945551
CRC 518.406639
CUC 1.137016
CUP 30.130921
CVE 110.223888
CZK 24.190803
DJF 202.845233
DKK 7.475687
DOP 66.27528
DZD 151.688108
EGP 57.501732
ERN 17.055239
ETB 182.148755
FJD 2.537536
FKP 0.853487
GBP 0.855093
GEL 2.979389
GGP 0.853487
GHS 13.259055
GIP 0.853487
GMD 84.139247
GNF 9994.579777
GTQ 8.691758
GYD 238.221146
HKD 8.916359
HNL 30.563287
HRK 7.533642
HTG 148.906424
HUF 360.161729
IDR 20559.635283
ILS 3.482335
IMP 0.853487
INR 108.866942
IQD 1489.490835
IRR 1563538.995341
ISK 142.604756
JEP 0.853487
JMD 180.212782
JOD 0.806109
JPY 186.259137
KES 147.300426
KGS 99.432123
KHR 4601.344447
KMF 492.327516
KRW 1661.930959
KWD 0.353032
KYD 0.949238
KZT 541.283346
LAK 25819.142637
LBP 102006.004199
LKR 383.033763
LRD 206.173099
LSL 19.09003
LTL 3.357313
LVL 0.68777
LYD 7.282572
MAD 10.651552
MDL 20.019357
MGA 4900.538463
MKD 61.50206
MMK 2387.209348
MNT 4083.617285
MOP 9.200787
MRU 45.473639
MUR 53.99719
MVR 17.577997
MWK 1973.859541
MXN 19.860821
MYR 4.649288
MZN 72.6665
NAD 19.090281
NGN 1553.721117
NIO 41.779651
NOK 11.034148
NPR 174.705836
NZD 1.970034
OMR 0.437168
PAB 1.139075
PEN 3.870403
PGK 4.997206
PHP 70.087365
PKR 315.931341
PLN 4.325794
PYG 6888.460964
QAR 4.143857
RON 5.23198
RSD 117.407936
RUB 89.313348
RWF 1665.7283
SAR 4.261522
SBD 9.169632
SCR 15.437295
SDG 682.772665
SEK 11.061277
SGD 1.470008
SLE 27.573071
SOS 650.957199
SRD 42.90075
STD 23533.933593
STN 24.900648
SVC 9.967195
SZL 19.084802
THB 38.260015
TJS 10.513878
TMT 3.990926
TND 3.371255
TRY 53.870787
TTD 7.736046
TWD 36.841622
TZS 3007.404804
UAH 51.158768
UGX 4277.40457
USD 1.137016
UYU 45.742938
UZS 13653.2873
VES 843.531668
VND 29942.176824
VUV 135.405325
WST 3.13398
XAF 655.712426
XAG 0.01976
XAU 0.000281
XCD 3.072842
XCG 2.052916
XDR 0.815503
XOF 652.086083
XPF 119.331742
YER 270.780205
ZAR 19.061554
ZMK 10234.504173
ZMW 21.284529
ZWL 366.118657
  • CMSD

    0.0700

    22.05

    +0.32%

  • CMSC

    0.0250

    21.75

    +0.11%

  • BCC

    0.3800

    78.22

    +0.49%

  • NGG

    -1.0900

    81.21

    -1.34%

  • RIO

    0.7300

    91.95

    +0.79%

  • BTI

    -0.1400

    60.82

    -0.23%

  • GSK

    0.6300

    51.98

    +1.21%

  • BP

    -1.5100

    42.31

    -3.57%

  • AZN

    0.3800

    169.64

    +0.22%

  • BCE

    -0.0600

    21.24

    -0.28%

  • RYCEF

    0.5600

    18.73

    +2.99%

  • VOD

    0.6500

    15.8

    +4.11%

  • RBGPF

    0.0000

    66

    0%

  • JRI

    -0.1500

    12.91

    -1.16%

  • RELX

    1.2400

    35.65

    +3.48%

Conservation efforts can shift nature loss to more vulnerable regions: study
Conservation efforts can shift nature loss to more vulnerable regions: study / Photo: Pablo PORCIUNCULA - AFP

Conservation efforts can shift nature loss to more vulnerable regions: study

Could restoring the environment in one place -- say by turning farmland in Europe into a nature reserve -- harm plants and animals on the other side of the planet?

Text size:

An international team of researchers on Thursday said these types of unintended consequences from well-meaning conservation efforts are more common than thought, yet are rarely considered or even properly understood.

In a new study, they warn that reducing farming and forestry in wealthy countries to meet local conservation goals can heap pressure on poorer regions to produce more food and timber.

The burden often falls on biodiversity hotspots rich in plant and animal species to make up this shortfall, said the study's lead author, Andrew Balmford.

These countries -- mostly in developing nations in Africa, Asia and South America -- are of much greater importance to nature yet pay the price for conservation gains in wealthier climes.

"In some cases, we might cause more harm than good," Balmford, from the University of Cambridge's Department of Zoology, told AFP.

The authors pointed to a case in the United States, where an effort to curb deforestation in old-growth forests simply shifted logging operations to neighbouring regions.

Balmford said a ban on domestic logging in China saw a sharp increase in timber imports from southeast Asia, a region of much higher biodiversity value.

It is a complex problem in terms of global trade, and one that is difficult to quantify.

For this study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science, the authors applied real-world data to two hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the trap of so-called "biodiversity leakage".

- Tradeoffs -

In one, they found that rewilding a large soybean crop in Brazil would shift production elsewhere, but deliver a net gain for conservation because of the country's high biodiversity value.

But giving the same area of UK farmland back to nature would result in higher commodity imports from countries with greater plant and animal diversity, outweighing any local conservation gain.

The authors said the simple premise that intervening in one location could have knock-on impacts in another was hardly new.

Yet this uncomfortable reality had barely registered at the highest levels of government and global policymaking.

"At larger scale there is, extraordinarily, no mention of the problem" in the UN's flagship conservation policy to protect 30 percent of Earth's land and oceans by 2030, they said.

The UN's next biodiversity meeting is this month in Rome.

Balmford said Europe for example expected to set aside one-third of its land for nature and feed its people without also shifting the cost elsewhere.

"We can't always have our cake and eat it... there are some somewhat awkward tradeoffs there," he said.

Balmford said the authors -- conservation scientists and economists from over a dozen institutions -- were "passionate about conservation and very much want it to succeed".

This paper was "constructive criticism from within, but where we feel that there is a significant issue that has largely been overlooked in conservation, and that it's serious".

C.Sramek--TPP