Wealthy nations are driving global biodiversity loss by destroying habitats abroad at a rate 15 times higher than within their own borders, according to recent research.

This phenomenon, termed “exporting extinction,” is primarily fuelled by the demand for commodities such as beef, palm oil, timber, and soybeans.

A study published in Nature found that high-income countries are responsible for 13% of global forest habitat destruction beyond their own territories. The United States alone accounts for 3% of worldwide deforestation outside its borders.

“That just underscores the magnitude of the process,” said lead researcher Alex Wiebe, a doctoral student in ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University in the US.

Other nations with significant international environmental footprints include Germany, France, Japan, China, and the UK.

Habitat destruction, largely driven by agricultural expansion, poses the greatest threat to global biodiversity. An estimated 90% of species loss is attributed to converting wild habitats into farmland.

“By importing food and timber, these developed nations are essentially exporting extinction,” said Prof David Wilcove, co-author of the study from Princeton University. “Global trade spreads out the environmental impacts of human consumption, in this case prompting the more developed nations to get their food from poorer, more biodiverse nations in the tropics, resulting in the loss of more species.”

Tropical regions, home to some of the world’s most biodiverse ecosystems, bear the brunt of this destruction. Countries such as Indonesia, Brazil, and Madagascar experience particularly high deforestation rates.

Researchers emphasise that understanding these patterns could inform targeted conservation efforts and promote sustainable food production.

In a separate study, scientists led by the University of Cambridge warned that repurposing UK cropland for nature restoration could backfire by exacerbating global biodiversity decline.

Published in Science, the research highlights a phenomenon known as “biodiversity leak,” where efforts to restore nature in one region may drive increased habitat destruction elsewhere. This unintended consequence often occurs in less-regulated areas, particularly in Africa and South America, where agricultural expansion to meet global food demand results in severe biodiversity loss.

“As nations in temperate regions such as Europe conserve more land, the resulting shortfalls in food and wood production will have to be made up somewhere,” said lead author Prof Andrew Balmford from the University of Cambridge.

The study suggests that reducing reliance on high-footprint commodities, such as beef, could mitigate this leakage.

“Areas of much greater importance for nature are likely to pay the price for conservation efforts in wealthy nations unless we work to fix this leak,” Balmford said.

Conservation initiatives should prioritise the most biodiverse regions and areas with low potential for intensive agriculture.

Collaboration between conservationists and farmers is another crucial strategy, exemplified by sustainable cocoa farming or herding techniques that protect endangered species like snow leopards.

The Nature study analysed the effects of 24 high-income nations—including the world’s largest economies—on over 7,500 forest-dependent species of birds, mammals, and reptiles. Examining data from 2001 to 2015, researchers identified where deforestation had occurred and which species were affected. While the study did not assess specific crops, previous research indicates that roughly 80% of agricultural land is dedicated to meat and dairy production.

Nations tend to exert the greatest impact on forest ecosystems closest to them. The United States, the most significant contributor to deforestation outside its borders, primarily affects Central American habitats. Meanwhile, China and Japan have a pronounced impact on Southeast Asian rainforests.

These findings underscore the urgent need for stronger international conservation policies, sustainable agricultural practices, and consumer awareness to address the biodiversity crisis caused by global supply chains.

“By increasingly outsourcing their land use, countries have the ability to affect species around the world, even more than within their own borders,” said Wiebe. “This represents a major shift in how new threats to wildlife emerge.”