Agriculture in Brazil is booming. Brazil has the world’s second largest cattle herd and is the second largest producer of soybeans, with the production of beef, soybeans, and bioethanol forecast to increase further. Questions remain, however, about how Brazil can reconcile increases in agricultural production with protection of its remaining natural vegetation. While high hopes have been placed on the potential for intensification of low-productivity cattle ranching to spare land for other agricultural uses, cattle productivity in the Amazon biome (29% of the Brazilian cattle herd) remains stubbornly low, and it is not clear how to realize theoretical productivity gains in practice. We provide results from six initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon, which are successfully improving cattle productivity in beef and dairy production on more than 500,000 hectares of pastureland, while supporting compliance with the Brazilian Forest Code. Spread across diverse geographies, and using a wide range of technologies, participating farms have improved productivity by 30–490%. High-productivity cattle ranching requires some initial investment (R$1300–6900/ha or US$410–2180/ha), with average pay-back times of 2.5–8.5 years. We conclude by reflecting on the challenges that must be overcome to scale up these young initiatives, avoid rebound increases in deforestation, and mainstream sustainable cattle ranching in the Amazon.

Extensive livestock production is a major deforestation driver in the Brazilian Amazon. This study presents an assessment of the economic and environmental feasibility of sustainable livestock intensification in São Félix do Xingu municipality, a deforestation frontier with an area of more than 8.5 million hectares, and home to the largest cattle herd in Brazil. Proposed intensification was limited to approximately three animal units per hectare to avoid negative environmental impacts. Transition costs to sustainable cattle intensification were estimated for thirteen pilot farms taking into account adoption of good agriculture practices, pasture maintenance/restoration, and restoration of environmental liabilities. To move to sustainable intensification practices, a mean total annual investment of US$1335/ha ± US$619/ha would be necessary, varying from US$750 to US$2595/ha. Internal rate of return and net present value estimates indicated that the sustainable livestock intensification approach proposed was profitable in farms with more than 400 hectares of pastureland, but not in those where the pasture areas were smaller than 150 hectares. Livestock sustainable intensification also had the potential to promote social and environmental benefits, including a 54% increase in the number of contract workers, improvement of landowners’ managerial skills, and workers’ training, in addition to avoiding emission of 1.9 Mt CO₂eq and sequestration of 0.36 Mt CO₂eq. We conclude that the sustainable intensification of pasture areas has the potential to prevent further deforestation in the Amazon while generating social and other environmental benefits.

The effects of global climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are unevenly distributed in the geographic space. Identifying sites more suitable to sustain biodiversity in a changing climate is essential to both species conservation and restoration strategies at different scales. Here, we map terrestrial climate‐resilient sites for biodiversity across Brazil to identify sites with greater chances of providing suitable conditions for species to persist under regional climate change. Our mapping combines spatial metrics based on landscape heterogeneity, a proxy for microclimatic variability, and local connectedness, a measure of connectivity between habitats, to determine landscape resilience, assuming that resilience to climate change will be greater the more heterogeneous the characteristics of local habitats are and the more connected they are in the landscape. Our results show that within each biome, medium to high resilient sites are mostly found in the Amazon (40% of the biome) and Pantanal (38%). Low resilience, conversely, is concentrated in the Atlantic Forest (41% of the biome), followed by Cerrado (37%), Pampa (36%), and Caatinga (34%). Landscape resilience information has the potential to be used to effectively guide decision‐making and public policy on strategies for conservation, restoration, and sustainable use practices. Priority for conservation should be on high resilience sites as they have the potential to sustain biodiversity in face of undergoing and future climate change. Other approaches could be used in situations of medium to low resilience also, such as: conservation of current corridors in sites with high local connectedness, but low landscape heterogeneity; restoration of natural vegetation on sites that show high landscape heterogeneity, but low local connectedness; and sustainable practices in areas of low resilience. Our study provides an updated method to pinpoint climate‐resilient sites for biodiversity which was applied to a megadiverse country but is applicable to any ecosystem around the globe.