National governments, multilateral institutions and international organisations around the world face a particularly difficult challenge: how to reconcile long-term environmental goals, such as protecting declining biodiversity and addressing urgent climate change, with equally important economic development goals. The prevailing view in society is that these two worlds are in direct conflict and that protecting nature automatically means economic losses. In the first ever analysis However, in a study of its kind, which included 146 countries around the world, an interdisciplinary research team led by experts from the University of Minnesota found something completely different. Their extensive study, published in the prestigious scientific journal Science, clearly demonstrates that Improved land use and management can bring huge, yet untapped benefits for both biodiversity and climate, as well as for economic development itself..

To reach these conclusions, the researchers integrated a vast amount of spatial biophysical and economic data with advanced optimization methods in a new model. The result of their work was the development of so-called „land sustainability efficiency frontiers“ for each of the 146 countries analyzed. This groundbreaking concept visualizes the maximum possible and feasible combinations of biodiversity protection, terrestrial climate change mitigation (focused on net carbon sequestration and methane emission reduction), and net economic value that comes from growing crops, raising livestock, and forestry production.

The country's efficiency frontier shows in practice how the highest possible economic value from agriculture and forestry can be achieved with a specifically set score for biodiversity protection and climate mitigation. The key finding of the study is that In most countries of the world, current land use generates results that are well below their efficiency limit.. This means that states are currently operating inefficiently and there is a gigantic scope for achieving both environmental and economic gains simultaneously.

If we applied this knowledge globally, the numbers would be fascinating. The sum of the results from all 146 countries shows the potential increase climate change mitigation by more than 200 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent, which would represent an increase of more than 20 %. At the same time, we could increase net economic value by more than $350 billion, or more than 80% of GDP. These massive benefits could be achieved without harming biodiversity and without the need to expand agricultural land.

These gains would result from two main approaches. The first is targeted land reallocation, which involves the selective restoration of forest areas in areas that are highly productive for this. The second step is intensification of crop cultivation, which has huge potential, especially in lower-income countries suffering from low agricultural yields.

Stephen Polasky, the study's lead author, highlights a key psychological dimension to the research. "We know we're facing both a climate crisis and a biodiversity crisis, but the argument against doing something about it is usually that it's going to cost too much," Polasky said. He says the analysis shows people what's realistically possible, and when they see the huge gains firsthand, making changes doesn't seem so daunting.

This view is also supported by Becky Chaplin-Kramer of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), who stated: „"This research proves that the alleged trade-off between nature conservation and growing economies is false."“. By creating detailed maps, international institutions and investors were given a precise plan to achieve common goals.

The practical impact of the findings is already beginning to be felt. The researchers are currently working with partners, including the World Bank, to develop country-specific analyses. The aim is to help international financial institutions better target resources so that countries can meet national economic goals while also meeting international climate and conservation commitments. The authors add that the model does not yet include many other ecosystem services and economic activities, which opens up room for further exploration of these fantastic synergies in the future. JRi&CO2AI