Trade‐Offs and Synergies Between Climate Change Mitigation, Biodiversity Preservation, and Agro‐Economic Development Across Future Land‐Use Scenarios in Brazil

Abstract

Land-use change is a major driver of biodiversity loss and a key contributor to GHG emissions, making sustainable land use essential for biodiversity preservation and climate change mitigation. The impacts of land use change are location-specific, shaped by the biophysical context. Consequently, the extent and nature of these impacts are deeply influenced by the spatial configuration of land-use change. This is particularly relevant for Brazil, a global agricultural powerhouse, where agricultural expansion impacts biodiversity-rich and carbon-rich biomes. Understanding the future land-use trade-offs and synergies between agro-economic development, biodiversity preservation, and climate change mitigation is crucial to support sustainable land use in Brazil. In this study, we quantified these trade-offs and synergies for three SSP-based land-use change scenarios projected for 2050. For each scenario, we assessed the spatial variation in impacts on carbon stocks, mammal distributions, and agricultural revenues. Our results show that the agricultural economy is projected to grow at the expense of biodiversity preservation and climate change mitigation objectives, and vice versa. These trade-offs and synergies result from changes in natural vegetation and agricultural land, driven by shifting demand for agricultural products. In particular, under the SSP3-7.0 scenario, rising agricultural demand between 2015 and 2050 is projected to drive agricultural expansion into natural areas, increasing annual agricultural revenue by 36.5 billion USD2015 but reducing carbon stock by 4.5 Gt and mammal distribution areas by 3.4%. In contrast, the SSP1-1.9 scenario projects a decline in agricultural demand over the same period, driving the conversion of agricultural land to natural vegetation. This shift increases carbon stocks by 5.6 Gt and expands mammal distribution areas by 6.8%, although it would lower annual agricultural revenue by 33.4 billion USD2015. Our findings further highlight opportunities to reduce trade-offs by containing agriculture outside biodiversity-rich and carbon-rich biomes, in combination with strategic restoration of these regions.