"Biodiversity conservation and international trade are increasingly viewed as contradictory. Our research provides a more nuanced view by showing that trade effects on biodiversity can be positive, negative, or neutral depending on the specific context and policies," said study lead author Dr. Mariama Nyantakyi, who conducted the research while at PIK and is now a research fellow at the Cambridge Conservation Initiative.
The most extensive empirical examination of its kind to date, the study analyzed agricultural imports and exports alongside national land-use and biodiversity metrics in 189 countries over two decades. The research found that overall trade does not have an entirely negative impact on national biodiversity. Instead, trade policy design and implementation determine the overall impact: if designed well, they can benefit both biodiversity and trade.
"Trade can lead to land use intensification and efficiency gains in agricultural production, which could help spare land from deforestation and hence maintain biodiversity," Nyantakyi explained. "At the same time, increasing incomes and shifting diets can also lead to more land use for food production, which can have negative impacts on biodiversity. Depending on the context and policies, the positive and negative impacts can balance out, or one might dominate the other, leading to net positive or negative effects of international trade on biodiversity."
In the agricultural sector—the main driver of global land-use change—increased agricultural trade may create market incentives to reduce agricultural intensity at home and increase it abroad. This can in turn lead to forest regrowth and biodiversity conservation in some regions. However, there is also the risk that increased trade could encourage further expansion of agriculture into environmentally sensitive areas, thereby contributing to biodiversity loss.
"There is much potential for win-win situations by designing trade policy well. For example, trade policies that promote sustainable agricultural production practices can not only benefit people's livelihoods but also conserve biodiversity," said study co-author Dr. Benjamin Bodirsky, who is a researcher in the Future Oceans Lab at the University of British Columbia.
In addition to trade policy, the study found that domestic policies—such as agricultural subsidies and protected area designations—can be as or even more important than trade in influencing the impact of international trade on national biodiversity.
"These findings have very tangible implications for policymakers," said study senior author Dr. David Leclère from PIK. "We show that trade policies can play an important role in safeguarding national biodiversity, but they have to be designed in ways that discourage environmentally damaging agricultural practices and, ideally, reward environmentally friendly ones. This will be crucial to achieving the objectives of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity post-2020."
