A study that linked the status of 21,207 species with trade data from 185 countries found a gap between where products are consumed and where habitats are damaged. Researchers warn that nature reserves alone will not be enough without addressing supply chains
A product purchased in a rich country may leave the bulk of its environmental footprint thousands of kilometers from where it was purchased. The raw materials are grown, the forests are cleared, the fields are expanded, the mining is done, or the infrastructure is built in one country, while the final product is consumed in another. This division makes it difficult to determine who is responsible for the damage to species and their habitats.
New research in(PNAS) attempted to map the link between global trade chains and the increase in the number of threatened species. The researchers tracked the conservation status of 21,207 species listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN, and cross-referenced the data with trade data from 185 countries from 1990 to 2025.
The main result is that responsibility for biodiversity loss does not stop at the borders of the country where the habitat is located. A significant part of the pressure on species stems from demand for products in other parts of the world.
The sharp increase after 2010
According to the researchers, the number of threatened species has increased since 2010. In the demand-based and trade-based responsibility index they used, developed countries recorded a 234% increase.
The analysis attributes domestic demand in developed countries to about a third of all threatened species in the world since 2010. This does not mean that every purchase in a rich country directly causes extinction. It means that the chain of demand, production and trade links theconsumption and actions such as expanding agricultural areas, changing land use, and damaging habitats.
Agricultural factors were the largest group of threats in the study. They were followed by factors related to urbanization and climate. The result is not surprising: the production of food, feed and agricultural raw materials requires a lot of land, and often expands at the expense of forests, grasslands and other habitats.
The connection between trade and environmental damage has already been described in "Hidaan" in an article about Environmental policies that allow rich countries to preserve nature on their territory at the cost of harming poor countriesThe new study expands the perspective through multi-year follow-up. Threatened species and currents fromGlobal tradesea.
Latin America bears a heavy burden
In a per capita calculation, it was found that the number of threatened species in the period after 2010 was highest in Latin America – three times the global average.
This area combines biologic diversity Particularly rich with extensive exports of agricultural produce and raw materials. Therefore, changes in land use may harm a large number of species, including species with small distribution ranges that do not exist anywhere else.
The study also presents an example of a bilateral trade relationship: Trade between the United States and Madagascar was linked to approximately 191 threatened species—the highest number attributed to a trade flow between two countries in the study. Madagascar is a global hotspot for endemic species, so habitat loss on the island could endanger species that have no alternative populations outside of it.
Who is responsible – the manufacturer or the consumer?
Standard environmental metrics often attribute the full extent of the damage to the country where it occurred. But this approach can obscure the role of importing countries. When a forest is cut down to grow a product for export, the producing country bears the brunt of the habitat loss, but the demand that drove the action may come from a distant market.
Years ago, ecological footprint indicators showed that Resource consumption in rich countries is much higher than in poor countries.The current study attempts to attribute responsibility to that same consumption for threats to species along the supply chain.
However, this is a systemic analysis, not a record of every transaction or every extinction. It points to statistical and accounting relationships between demand, trade, and environmental threats. It cannot be concluded that a particular trade route was the sole cause of the change in the status of any species.
Nature reserves are not enough
The researchers argue that conservation efforts that focus only on where species live are not enough. Establishing reserves and protecting habitats remain essential, but they may fail if the economic demand driving the damage continues to operate outside the boundaries of the reserve or state.
They propose incorporating market-based mechanisms: transparency inSupply chains, verification of the source of raw materials, rules against habitat conversion, and pricing that takes into account damage to ecosystems. Such measures are not a substitute for enforcement andNature conservation on the ground, but an additional layer of responsibility.
The need to link the health of ecosystems to economic decisions also emerges from reports warning that Biodiversity loss threatens the economy and human healthAnother UN environmental report called for addressing impacts along the Food systems and supply chains.
The conclusion is not that global trade should be stopped, but that a country’s environmental success should not be judged solely by the state of nature within its borders. A country can protect its forests while at the same time importing products whose production involves the loss of forests elsewhere. To halt biodiversity loss, responsibility must extend throughout the entire chain – from the production area to the final consumer.
For the scientific article: Ling Zhang et al., "A three-decade-long analysis shows rising threatened species and responsibility gaps in global supply chains," PNAS. [Research notice on EurekAlert] (
