Structural inequities shape biodiversity and climate mitigation outcomes in livestock systems

Agricultural mitigation strategies are increasingly promoted to address climate and biodiversity goals, yet their effectiveness, equity, and durability remain poorly resolved. Here, we co-designed 50 greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation interventions through transdisciplinary participatory action research with livestock producers across Australia. Mitigation feasibility was structurally inequitable: extensive rangelands faced logistical and financial constraints that rendered anti-methanogenic additives impractical and limited pasture renovation, with legislation further constraining viable options. A pronounced asymmetry in economic valuation—ecosystem services valued 13 to 1,600 times higher per unit mass than food commodities—systematically favours production over mitigation. Multidimensional co-benefits emerged when extant deficiencies were remedied; for example, alleviating extreme wildlife browsing increased soil organic carbon, livestock production and profit. Apparent mitigation outcomes depended on metric choice, absolute versus relative framing, and climate accounting applied, with methane-focused interventions performing more favorably under warming-rate metric for short-lived climate pollutants (GWP*). Tree-based sequestration delivered early carbon gains but delayed biodiversity responses, whereas animal management produced immediate and persistent mitigation. Permanent abatement of methane and nitrous oxide contrasted with the reversibility of soil and vegetation carbon, underscoring the necessity of durability-based pricing. Together, these findings argue for differentiated incentives, multiple complementary metrics, targeted rangeland support, and higher ecosystem-service payments to scale equitable, diagnosis-led gains across climate, biodiversity, and food-security outcomes.