Deforestation for livestock farming: nature pays a huge price
New research shows that deforestation for livestock farming causes 60% more damage to biodiversity than previously thought.
Published on July 28, 2025
Team IO+ selects and features the most important news stories on innovation and technology, carefully curated by our editors.
New research by the University of Cambridge shows that the impact of deforestation for livestock farming on biodiversity is much greater than previously thought. The damage to nature is, on average 60% higher than previous local studies showed. Biodiversity offsets are often used worldwide, but the datasets used to calculate them paint too rosy a picture. This shows that the consequences of massive deforestation for beef, coffee, palm oil, and sugar are much more serious for unique plant and animal species than previously thought.
A closer look at the impact on biodiversity
The destruction of habitats in Colombia, a country rich in biodiversity, has led to significant losses of flora and fauna. A third of Colombia is covered by rainforest, home to thousands of unique plant and animal species, many of which are found nowhere else in the world. The transformation of these natural habitats into agricultural land, particularly for livestock farming, threatens the delicate balance of ecosystems. Researchers at the University of Cambridge emphasize that the actual damage to biodiversity is often underestimated, as studies tend to focus on local effects without taking into account the larger regional context.
Scale makes a difference
Traditionally, studies on biodiversity loss have focused on small, local areas, which gives an incomplete picture of the real impact. A recent study conducted in Colombia covered 971 bird species in 13 biogeographical regions and showed that biodiversity losses on a pan-Colombian scale are approximately 60% greater than local studies suggest. This is because local studies overlook the complexity of ecosystems and the interconnections between species. The findings demonstrate that it is crucial to consider the spatial structure and scale of ecosystems when assessing the impact of land use. The study reveals that six to seven biogeographical regions need to be sampled before estimates approach the pan-Colombian value for species with low, medium, and high sensitivity to habitat conversion.
Biological homogenization and reduced diversity
Land conversion erodes habitat complexity, reduces microclimate variability, and limits niche availability and dispersal potential in the remaining natural habitats. Habitat conversion results in biotic homogenization, with increasing compositional similarity between spatially distinct communities. This process of biotic homogenization, in which ecosystems become increasingly similar, reduces overall biodiversity and makes ecosystems more vulnerable to disturbances. The loss of biodiversity is not evenly distributed; regions with high beta diversity, i.e., a large variation in species between different locations, experience more than twice as severe local effects. This emphasizes the need to implement protection strategies that take into account the unique characteristics of different biogeographical regions.
The role of biodiversity offsetting
Biodiversity offsetting is used worldwide, whereby damage to nature in one area is compensated for by protecting or restoring nature elsewhere. However, the datasets currently used for this offsetting paint too rosy a picture of the actual situation. Current methods for biodiversity offsetting are often based on local studies and do not sufficiently take into account the spatial scale and complexity of ecosystems. This leads to an underestimation of the actual impact of land use changes and makes offsetting less effective. There is a need for better monitoring programs with embedded spatial structures and measurement methods tailored to the regional scale of policy relevance. Implementing effective protection across landscape-wide biogeographical variation, combining important area-based targets and measures aimed at maintaining system integrity, is crucial.
Implications for policy and consumers
The findings of the study have important implications for policymakers and consumers. Governments need to develop policies that take into account the spatial scale of biodiversity loss and prioritize the protection of intact ecosystems. Consumers can play a role by making more conscious choices about products that are produced in a sustainable manner and by supporting companies that are committed to biodiversity conservation. Consumers must be aware of the ecological costs of their consumption patterns and be willing to make changes to reduce their impact on nature. The researchers hope that their findings will lead to better policies and more conscious choices, both by governments and consumers, so that biodiversity protection can be addressed more effectively.
A look to the future
The challenges of biodiversity conservation require a multidisciplinary approach, bringing together science, policy, and public awareness. Future studies on biodiversity loss must consider the spatial scale and recognize the complexity of ecosystems and the interconnections between species. By better understanding the ecological costs of land-use changes, we can develop more effective strategies to protect biodiversity and create a more sustainable future. The study is dedicated to the many Colombian environmental leaders who have been murdered since fieldwork began in 2012, highlighting the urgency of the situation.
