Next Article in Journal
Unsupervised Clustering of Forest Response to Drought Stress in Zululand Region, South Africa
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Economic Feasibility of Ash and Maple Lamella Production for Glued Laminated Timber
Previous Article in Special Issue
Land Restoration in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Overview of Recent, Ongoing and Planned Restoration Initiatives and Their Potential for Climate Change Mitigation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 10
Issue 7
10.3390/f10070530
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Narratives Across Scales on Barriers and Strategies for Upscaling Forest Restoration: A Brazilian Case Study

by
Daniella Schweizer
1,2,*,
Marijke van Kuijk
2,
Paula Meli
3,
Luis Bernardini
3 and
Jaboury Ghazoul
1,2,4
1
Ecosystem Management, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, ETH Zürich, Universitaetstrasse 16, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
2
Department of Biology, Institute of Environmental Biology, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands
3
Laboratório de Silvicultura Tropical, ESALQ, University of Sao Paulo, Avenida Padua Dias 11, Piracicaba 13418-900, Brazil
4
Centre for Sustainable Forests and Landscapes, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FF, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2019, 10(7), 530; https://doi.org/10.3390/f10070530
Submission received: 15 May 2019 / Revised: 11 June 2019 / Accepted: 20 June 2019 / Published: 26 June 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest Landscape Restoration)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Several countries worldwide have committed to forest and landscape restoration (FLR) through ambitious pledges in numbers of hectares to be restored. As the implementation of these commitments happens within countries, different actors from global to local scales must negotiate the “what, where and how” of specific forest restoration projects. We interviewed actors at national, state and local scales to gather their narratives regarding barriers and strategies for upscaling forest restoration and compared the narratives among them and with those that prevail in the global literature on FLR. We based the local scale in four Atlantic Forest landscapes. We classified the narratives gathered according to three discourses commonly used in environmental policy arenas: (1) ecological modernization, advocating market solutions; (2) green governmentality, with its emphasis on technocratic solutions; and (3) civic environmentalism promoting governance. Brazilian legislation with its mandate of forest restoration in private lands appeared as the main restoration driver in the interviews. However, when political will for enforcement weakens, other strategies are needed. An ecological modernization narrative, around increasing funding, incentives, market and investments, prevailed in the narratives on barriers and strategies for all actors from the global to the local scales. Similarities nevertheless diminished from the global to the local scale. The narratives of national actors resembled those found in the global literature, which emphasize strategies based on increased capacity building, within a green governmentality narrative, and governance arrangements, a civic environmentalist narrative. These narratives appeared less at state scales, and were almost absent at local scales where forest restoration was perceived mostly as a costly legal mandate. Similar narratives across all actors and scales indicate that a focus on improving the economics of restoration can aid in upscaling forest restoration in Brazilian Atlantic Forest landscapes. However, discrepant narratives also show that inclusive governance spaces where the negotiation of FLR interventions can take place is key to increase trust and aid implementation.

1. Introduction

Recent global commitments on land restoration, including the Bonn Challenge and the New York Declaration on Forests, have placed forest restoration high on national agendas as a means to attain several sustainable development goals. The ambitious goal to restore 350 million hectares of degraded lands by 2030 requires, in previous forested areas, the implementation of forest restoration at landscape scales. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) coined the term Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) as ‘‘a planned process that aims to regain ecological integrity and enhance human well-being in deforested or degraded landscapes’’ [1]. This definition implies that FLR programs should incorporate ecological, social, and economic dimensions among their implementation strategies [2,3,4]. Global commitments on FLR began with the launch of the Bonn Challenge in 2011. However, upscaling from current activities remains challenging and implementation rates still leave 2030 goals unattainable [5]. A recent review conducted by Brower [6] shows that countries in Latin America have implemented around 20% of what they committed to for the Bonn Challenge.
Well-intentioned global agreements are traditionally driven by negotiators with little on-the-ground expertise [7], which leads to the emergence of two contrasting narratives in inter-governmental conservation initiatives. One is a global and poorly detailed aspirational narrative on goals, and the other is a local, pragmatic narrative building on contextualized experience [8]. The global narrative tends to dictate top-down solutions that can be challenging to implement in local realities. For example, the mechanism for “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation” (REDD+) aims to achieve climate change mitigation via global, transnational funding mechanisms [9], yet it has been criticized for excluding local people from decision-making processes [10,11,12,13]. FLR widens the vision of REDD+ by promoting a series of environmental and productive restorative activities, such as agroforestry and silvopasture systems [14], aimed at meeting environmental and social wellbeing goals [15,16]. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge different perceptions on FLR may exist at different scales, from the global to the local scale where project implementation happens. Such recognition and the negotiation of restoration objectives prior to implementation may minimize social and environmental trade-offs [17].
In this context, we view actors involved in forest restoration as nested across scales (Figure 1) and we aimed to assess similarities and differences in the narratives across scales regarding barriers and strategies for upscaling forest restoration. Here, we provide a summary of barriers and strategies highlighted in recent global FLR literature. We then present our findings from semistructured interviews conducted at national, state and local scales in Brazil. We based our local scale interviews in four, rural, Brazilian Atlantic Forest landscapes. Since 1934, the Brazilian government legally mandates rural landowners to restore riparian forests in their properties and, subject to farm size, an additional area called the “Legal Reserve”. This legal mandate is key to protect the estimated 53% of Brazilian biodiversity that remains in private lands countrywide. This value increases to 90% in the most populated Atlantic Forest Biome [18]. A revision of the law in 2012 improved the mechanisms for compliance and enforcement but also granted controversial amnesties to landowners who did not comply with their restoration requirements and reduced the areas that require restoration [19]. In the revised legislation, the Brazilian government requires landowners to declare areas on the property in need of restoration or else they would not be eligible for rural bank financing. After declaring, the landowners can enroll in a program to restore on or off their lands. In the latter option, the landowner can lease or purchase land with native vegetation from another owner in the same Biome, which gives flexibility to landowners in highly productive areas, but also risks that key watersheds remain unprotected [19]. In addition to the restoration mandate, the presence of a large constituency of actors that endorse forest restoration [20] makes Brazil an interesting case study with respect to its ability to meet Bonn Challenge commitments.
We expected narratives on barriers and strategies for increasing the scale of forest restoration activities to increasingly differ from the national to the local scales, with national actors mirroring global narratives in FLR found in the literature (Figure 1). However, we also expected similarities that might inform a multi-scalar, multi-stakeholder FLR strategy.
We classified the narratives as belonging to one of three common narratives found in global, environmental policy arenas, namely, ecological modernization, green governmentality, and civic environmentalism [21]. Ecological modernization is rooted in liberal economy and claims that economic growth and environmental protection can be harmonized. Carbon trading for climate mitigation is an example of this narrative. Green governmentality uses scientific data and technology to legitimize specific top-down administrative measures via, for example, the modelling of carbon sinks and sources to legitimize administrative measures around carbon offset measures. Finally, civic environmentalism relates to governance claims that all relevant actors who have a stake in an environmental issue should be heard and be involved in finding a solution. Previous research has documented narratives among FLR proponents at the global scale [22], yet a need exists to document national, state and local narratives since FLR projects are being implemented locally within countries.

2. Global Narratives on Barriers and Strategies for FLR Implementation

Various barriers and strategies to implement FLR have been cited in the international peer-reviewed and gray literature. In Table 1 we classified them according to the three environmental policy discourses: ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism as explained in the introduction [21]. Several articles and reports mention a variety of financial barriers and, therefore, strategies for FLR implementation in ways that resonate with an ecological modernization narrative. Authors mention few or short-term funding initiatives, high cost, perverse incentives, limited returns, lack of a value chain, lack of access to credit and high investment risks [6,15,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. To overcome these barriers, authors propose a better design of funding and incentive strategies, restoration on marginal lands, and win-win restorative interventions that can achieve environmental and productive goals, such as agroforests, and public private partnerships, among others (Table 1).
Other aspects cited as barriers in the literature are poor communication and capacity weaknesses, the latter fitting clearly within a green governmentality narrative. Authors state that the creation of pilot restoration models and clarity in defining FLR can improve communication barriers [8,15,24,26,27,32,37,39,40,42]. To overcome capacity barriers, authors cite better planning, improved capacity building programs and rural extension support to small holders [6,15,22,23,24,31,32,35,36,37,40,41,43,44,45,46,47]. Governance claims within a civic environmentalist discourse are also commonly found in the literature. Top-down approaches that lack coordination at local levels and irregular land tenure hamper FLR interventions. On the other hand, multistakeholder arrangements and participatory planning are mentioned as strategies for success [8,15,16,22,23,24,25,26,31,32,35,36,40,41,44,48,49,50,51]. Finally, conflicting and uncertain legislation added to weak political will are barriers mentioned that may fit either an ecological modernization or a green governmentality discourse. Authors claim an enabling political environment and long-term political support to investments in forest restoration can aid in FLR implementation.
Table
Table 1. Summary on barriers and strategies to Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) implementation mentioned in the global literature.
Table 1. Summary on barriers and strategies to Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) implementation mentioned in the global literature.
NarrativeThemeBarrierStrategySources
Ecological modernizationFinancialLack of long-term funding for projectsDesign adequate funding[6,15,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,49]
High restoration and opportunity costsRestore on marginal lands
Unattractive
/perverse incentives		Government supported incentive programs, dialogue with privates, and project bundling
Limited and long returns from investmentWin-win interventions
Lack of value chainRestoration linked with local economies
High investment riskPublic-private partnerships
Lack of access to creditInstitutional change
Volatile marketsInnovative economic considerations
Green governmentalityCommunicationPoor communication of restoration benefitsIncrease pilot models and knowledge sharing[8,15,24,26,27,32,37,39,40,42,49]
Improve communication of restoration benefits, clarify FLR definition
CapacityPoor technical
and planning capacities, limited extension services, scale of FLR implementation		Knowledge brokers, capacity building, and rural extension support, improved multi-disciplinary planning, based on solid ecological and social understanding, improved methodologies[6,15,22,23,24,31,32,35,36,37,40,41,43,44,45,46,47]
Civic EnvironmentalismGovernanceTop-down approachesImprove governance arrangements, participatory planning[8,15,16,22,23,24,25,26,31,32,35,36,40,41,44,48,49,50,51]
Lack of coordination and engagement across scales and actors
Irregular land tenureResolve irregular land tenure
Ecol. Modern. & Green governmentalityLegislation and politicsConflictive and uncertain legislationsEnabling political environment[6,8,15,22,24,25,32,37,46,49]
Weak political will and ethicsLong term political support

3. Methods

3.1. Semi-Structured Interviews

We interviewed actors at the national scale between the months of January and July 2018. We interviewed people from government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academia. We employed Skype, EVAER® to interview actors remotely. We employed semi-structured interviews to allow two-way communication between the interviewers and the interviewee and the possibility for interviewees to elaborate on their responses [52]. We obtained informed consent from the interviewees before conducting the interviews and our project has been approved by the ETH’s Ethics Commission under project code “2019-N-47”.
We selected actors at the national scale using snowball sampling from an initial list of contacts two of the authors compiled for a previous study [53]. We gathered data for the state and local scales in four Atlantic Forest landscapes, two in Sao Paulo State (Paraibuna and Batatais) and two in Espirito Santo State (Domingo Martins and Sooretama) (Figure 2). We selected these areas as they represent Atlantic Forest landscapes where forest fragments appear in a matrix mostly of monoculture plantations and extensive cattle. Two of the landscapes are composed mainly of small-scale agriculture, with properties between 18 and 80 hectares (Paraibuna and Domingo Martins), and the other two of small- and medium-sized farms, with properties up to 300 hectares, on flatter terrains that allow mechanized sugar cane (Batatais) or coffee (Sooretama) agriculture (Table 2). During June, August and October 2018, we visited these landscapes to conduct interviews with state government staff, local NGO staff, rural extension agents, private actors (sugarcane mill, pulp companies and restoration practitioners) and rural landowners. To ease access to the rural landowners, we received support from the rural extension agencies of Paraibuna and Domingo Martins, from the Secretary of the Environment in Sooretama and from Sugar Mill staff in Batatais. We tried to randomly select the rural landowners, yet the final interviewee list consists of those landowners that were available during fieldwork dates and were willing to participate in the research. The interview (Table 3) contained a series of questions that provided us with some contextual information about forest restoration and leading questions on barriers and strategies to increase the scale of forest restoration. Additional context information provided by the local landowners is presented in Table S1.

3.2. Data Analysis

We employed the software Maxqda analytics, version 12, (VERBI, 2018) [57] to transcribe the interviews. After the transcription, we applied a qualitative data analysis methodology [58,59] based on coding segments of the transcribed interviews using key words mentioned by the interviewees to later organize interview segments by common themes. We found the key words using word clouds and Maxqda MaxDictio word frequency function. We later used the key words and ran lexical searches to code the interview text the coded segments were grouped into themes and subthemes related either to the restoration context of the interviewee or to global narratives (Table 4).
Grouping allowed a quantitative comparison across actor types and scales based on comparing the percent in which each subtheme was mentioned at different scales or by different actor types. We classified the themes as contextual if they refer to general descriptions of the restoration context such as: (1) actor type in charge of implementation, (2) methods for restoration and (3) drivers of restoration. Key themes were those themes we intersected with parts of the interview where the interviewee was talking about either barriers or strategies for restoration. The legislation theme was coded as a driver for restoration and as a key theme as it is relevant for both the context but also to analyse if legislation is perceived as a barrier or as a strategy for upscaling forest restoration. We ran chi-square tests, with a 0.05 significance level, across actors and scales to assess differences in the percent of coded segments that denoted different emphasis of specific themes.

4. Results

4.1. Contextual Themes: Actor Type, Restoration Method and Restoration Drivers

We conducted 105 interviews across the different actors and scales (Table 5).
Interviewees mentioned rural landowners and the government as the main actors in charge of forest restoration implementation (Figure 3A). The following quote illustrates this:
“We cannot generalize as every region is different, but generally speaking the main axis of the restoration chain is the rural landowner” (National NGO).
However, interviewees at different scales differed in the percent of times (defined as the number of times interviewees mentioned a specific actor divided by the total number of interviewees) they mentioned specific actors (X2 = 98.4, df = 10, p < 0.0001). Rural landowners across all four landscapes mentioned academic and NGO actors less compared to interviewees at other scales. Rural landowners from Paraibuna and Domingo Martins, municipalities with significant presence of rural extension, often mentioned the role of rural extension agents in helping them manage their properties and restore legally mandated areas. Rural landowners from Batatais mentioned private actors significantly more than other landowners given the support they receive from the Sugar Mill to restore riparian forests in their properties. The motivation of the Sugar Mill to support the landowners not only came as a means to comply with the legislation but also due to market pressure:
“…restoring forests is also a competitive advantage to the sugar mill: the landowner can rent to us or rent to another, and the landowner rents to us because we are going to environmentally adequate the property. We also feel pressure from the market…. companies like Nestle, Pepsi, Coca Cola do not want their image linked to environmental destruction” (Private).
The restoration method most commonly mentioned, regardless of actor type or scale (X2 = 8.88, df = 4, p = 0.06), was tree planting (Figure 3B) driven by the legislation mandate (Figure 3C).
Water conservation as a driver for forest restoration was mentioned more often at the state, and particularly at the local scale than at other scales (X2 = 202.03, df = 8, p < 0.00001). Other drivers such as biodiversity conservation or climate ranked very low at the state and local scales, being more salient only at the national scale (Figure 3C).

4.2. Narratives on Barriers and Strategies to Increase the Scale of Forest Restoration

We found similarities and differences across actor types and scales regarding barriers and strategies for increasing the scale of forest restoration in Brazil. We grouped these according to the key themes that appear in Table 4.

4.2.1. Barriers for Upscaling Forest Restoration

An ecological modernization narrative centered on financial aspects prevailed in the barriers mentioned by all actors across all scales. High cost of restoration actions, few incentives or funding and no or slow economic return were commonly mentioned by all interviewees (Figure 4). Landowners, mainly from the mountainous areas of Paraibuna and Domingo Martins, found agroforestry interesting as some already plant fruit trees and grow shade-grown coffee, but they did not consider this activity as forest restoration. Landowners interviewed in all landscapes did not consider forest restoration as a potentially productive use of their land, as this quote from a rural landowner from Paraibuna exemplifies:
“I do not think there are opportunities in my land to do more forest restoration. I already have that forest remnant. If I were to do more, I would not have enough productive land” (Rural landowner, Paraibuna).
Most actors, including local actors, mentioned weak engagement of the rural landowner in forest restoration in ways that fit within a civic environmentalist narrative. Interviewers mentioned several cultural barriers that limit engagement of the landowner, among them a lack of awareness about the benefits of forest restoration and a remaining tradition to deforest.
Despite above-mentioned similarities in the narratives of all actors, across all scales, we also found significant differences in their perceptions (X2 = 82.39, df = 26, p < 0.0001). Actors at the state and local scales cited cultural barriers more often than actors at national scale. Interviewees from the state government and even rural landowners themselves mentioned how landowners sometimes take the seedlings donated by public or private programs, but subsequently afford them little care, and might even put cattle back into restoration areas, for example:
“Landowners receive the seedlings but do not plant them; they think the government has to come and plant for them, irrigate for them. Not only the government fails but we fail” (Rural landowner, Sooretama).
At national scales, a green governmentality narrative that emphasized capacity barriers was used more often than at other scales. The following quote illustrates this point:
“We lack, within the research institutions, professionals that think about ecological restoration from a research and technical stand-point that would take information to restoration practitioners and landowners on how to do forest restoration in their properties and fulfil the legislation mandate” (Academia).
Small property size as a barrier that limits upscaling forest restoration was mentioned only by the rural extension agents and by the rural landowners. The quote below captures this aspect:
“But the main barrier in our region is small property size. A person who has 5 hectares is not going to reforest because he will not be able to survive from the remaining portion of the land” (Rural Landowner, Sooretama).

4.2.2. Strategies for Upscaling Forest Restoration

Strategies mentioned were similar for all actors across all scales. An ecological modernization narrative around increasing funding, incentives, market and investments appeared throughout.
In addition, interviewees commonly mentioned education campaigns and dissemination of information on productive restoration as strategies for upscaling (Figure 5). Along a civic environmentalist narrative, most actors mentioned governance arrangements. For example, actors at the national scale often mentioned the ‘Commission for the Recovery of Native Vegetation (CONAVEG)’ as a key platform for upscaling forest restoration:
“Today exists the Conaveg, linked to the legislation for the recovery of native vegetation. This is a council where we have representatives from the Ministry of Finance, of Agriculture, of Environment, of Science and Culture, of Technology and Communication, representatives of the Brazilian States, and from NGOs” (National NGO).
Despite several similarities, narratives across actors were marginally different (X2 = 113.04, df = 90, p = 0.05) and the difference increased when comparing actors across scales (X2 = 45.05, df = 18, p = 0.0004). The difference was mainly due to a green governmentality narrative based on capacity building, extension support and planning that was prevalent at national and state scales but mostly absent at local scales.

5. Discussion

As expected, the narratives of national actors mirrored those found in the global literature regarding barriers and strategies to increase the scale of forest restoration. State actors hold narratives that resemble the national scale but also that reflect the needs and expectations of the local, rural landowners. Despite this decreasing similarity from the global to the local scales, we found a prevailing ecological modernization narrative at all scales, which signals that improving the economics of forest restoration, via, for example, productive forest restorative interventions [14], or improved payment for ecosystem services, can find local support. A target area for productive restoration often mentioned by national and state actors were the Legal Reserves areas where legislation allows productive interventions that increase forest cover. However, interviewees mentioned the need to improve communication of this possibility since the rural landowner does not consider productive restorative actions as forest restoration and to draw attention to biodiversity versus productivity trade-offs [60].

5.1. Contextual Themes

Actors across all scales consider the rural landowners as fundamental for upscaling forest restoration. These results reflect the Brazilian legislation and, more specifically, the Atlantic Forest context where private property prevails. We observed, however, slight differences across the four landscapes. Domingo Martins has a strong rural extension presence, and thus landowners in this area mentioned rural extension support more often. On the other hand, landowners from Batatais talked about the key role of the private for viabilizing forest restoration given that the Sugar Cane Mill helps them fulfill the mandate of restoring their riparian areas.
The restoration method more commonly mentioned across all actors and scales was seedling planting. This result once again likely reflects the legal mandate for forest restoration. This mandate has led to the development of a market for nurseries and restoration practitioners who implement active restoration. Planting is perceived as a method that allows meeting legislation requirements in shorter time than with passive restoration [61], although research has shown that this perception may not be true in all cases [62]. The prevalence of active restoration as the preferred method, however, maintains the perception that restoration is a costly activity, when research suggests that most areas in need of recovery could be restored through natural regeneration, which is a cheaper option [19].
Interestingly, aside from legislation, we found water as a driver mentioned by the rural landowners in all four landscapes. This signals a degree of environmental awareness probably driven by years of legislation on riparian forest restoration but also by recent drought events. On the other hand, climate, one of the main drivers for forest restoration globally [22], was almost absent from the narratives of local actors. This signals a rupture in the narratives on FLR as it moves from the global to the local. Traditionally, local actors care more about their everyday actions than about global environmental issues like climate change or biodiversity loss [51].

5.2. Barriers and Strategies to Increase the Scale of Forest Restoration

An ecological modernization narrative dominated the barriers and strategies for increasing the scale of forest restoration mentioned by actors at all scales. The main themes mentioned were the high cost and slow results of forest restoration and the need to increase long-term funding and investment opportunities. Rural landowners highlighted that government incentive programs exist, yet they are still not enough to conduct forest restoration. They see forest restoration mostly as a legally mandated environmental action important for water conservation. As such, rural landowners differed from global, national, and state actors by not perceiving productive restoration as a forest restorative action. This may be a legacy from the recent past where environmental restoration of riparian areas was the only restorative action promoted and enforced by the government [63].
Legislation now allows productive forest restoration interventions, with up to 50% exotic species, in the portion of the property designed for sustainable forest use, called the “Legal Reserve” [19]. Rural landowners interviewed were, however, not fully aware or distrustful of this possibility. Landowners were the only actors, aside from rural extension agents, that thought an increase in forest restoration was unfeasible due to the small size of their properties and the inability to set aside more land for environmental restoration. Only one landowner from Batatais considered the possibility of leasing or purchasing land, a new mechanism established in the Native Vegetation Law, as an option to pay his environmental debt. This option can lower the opportunity cost of restoration in certain areas. It is, however, controversial [19], and may only work for medium or large landowners in highly productive areas. We acknowledge this farm size limitation may not be the case for all of Brazil, but it is nonetheless important to consider for many NGO and government programs that tend to target small landholders.
National scale interviewees mentioned the mobilization of private investment through native species or mixed species silviculture as a key strategy for upscaling forest restoration [see also 30,33]. However, interviewees highlighted that high financial risks still limit investments. To reduce perceived high investment risks, interviewees from transnational NGOs, like the World Resources Institute (WRI), are providing business cases of native silviculture and agroforestry to investors in Brazil [64]. Aside from agroforestry and silviculture, other strategies were mentioned by interviewees, including the partnership between the Sugar Mill and the rural landowners, as well as technical innovations and economies of scale to lower the costs of forest restoration. These options need to be considered by proponents of FLR.
Green governmentality appeared as another narrative shared by national, state and global actors. Actors highlighted weak institutional capacities, and the need for further research on restoration techniques as barriers and increased rural extension support as a strategy for upscaling forest restoration. Interviewees mentioned that rural extension agents are close to the rural landowners, have long-term presence in the local communities and already advise landowners on how to manage their lands sustainably. Most local actors had a positive perception of rural extension agents (and of private companies in the case of the Sugar Mill) in supporting them with the restoration and management of their properties. Therefore, rural extension can play a critical role in providing farmers with important technical support to increase forest cover. However, further training of extension agents on the multiple ecological, social and economic dimensions within the current FLR vision for upscaling may be needed [65]. Despite the presence of extension support in the landscapes assessed, national actors mentioned weak extension support in many other regions of Brazil. Interviewees mostly at national and state scales voiced concerns about prevailing legislation uncertainties, weak political will and the ensuing lack of legislation enforcement as barriers to the implementation of what they considered good legislation mechanisms. Interviewees at national and state scales considered the Native Vegetation legal framework as a good opportunity for implementing FLR. However, drafting legislation is only a first step that will not advance without enforcement and the presence of an enabling environment for investments. These themes are likely to become important barriers in the current government administration for whom the environmental agenda ranks very low in its priorities [66].
Under a scenario of weak political will, governance arrangements become a key strategy for implementation that also prevails in the global literature. National actors often mentioned the creation of multistakeholder platforms, such as the National Commission for Native Vegetation Recovery (CONAVEG), as relevant spaces for the negotiation of strategies for upscaling forest restoration. Actors perceived the CONAVEG as a space where dialogue across traditionally separate sectors, such as agriculture and environment, can take place but highlight that state level or local actors are not yet involved. Local actors seldom mentioned multistakeholder arrangements as a strategy. Previous research found that, even in participatory forest restoration projects, landowner participation is traditionally limited to workshops designed to present them with “options” they did not help design [48]. Our results indicate that proponents of upscaling forest restoration in Brazil need to place strong emphasis on the development of inclusive governance arrangements at local scales where interventions to scale up forest restoration can be negotiated even under current weak political will.

6. Conclusions

Our results signal that a strategy for upscaling forest restoration of Brazilian Atlantic Forests can be based on shared ecological modernization narratives around improving the economics of forest restoration. However, FLR planning must consider both productive and environmental restorative actions, in a way that enhances landscape multifunctionality and restores native biodiversity. The main barrier currently facing proponents of FLR in Brazil is the low rank of the environmental agenda in the priorities of the current government. Weak political will for restoration increases distrust of rural landowners that governments will allow them to conduct productive actions, such as agroforestry, in Legal Reserve areas. In addition, low political will make enforcement of the legal mandate for forest restoration highly uncertain. Under this scenario, strategies based on the creation of local governance spaces, where trust among actors can improve and restorative actions negotiated, become fundamental for upscaling forest restoration to meet Bonn Challenge commitments.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/10/7/530/s1, Table S1: Background on the local scale.

Author Contributions

D.S., M.v.K., P.M. and J.G. conceptualized the research; D.S. and P.M. designed the methodological approach and analyzed the results; D.S. and L.B. conducted the interviews; P.M., M.v.K. and J.G. provided the funds for the research; D.S. wrote the manuscript; D.S., M.v.K., P.M. and J.G. edited the manuscript.

Funding

This research was jointly funded by the Prince Bernard Chair of International Nature Conservation at Utrecht University (PBC) and by the Professorship of Ecosystem Management (EM) at ETH Zurich. Funds from the Sao Paulo Research Agency, FAPESP, funded part of the fieldwork. The APC was covered by the ETH Library in agreement with MDPI.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the people that participated in the interviews. The authors would like to especially thank the Nature Conservancy, Brazil, Rural Extension institutions of Espirito Santo and São Paulo, the Batatais Sugar Mill, as well as the State Environment Secretariats for logistical support. We would like to thank Illus Graphics for developing the figures. D.S., M.K. and J.B. thank the Prince Bernard Chair of International Nature Conservation and the ETH, Zurich, for the financial support that made this research possible. P.M. thanks the São Paulo Research Foundation for a post-doctoral grant (2016/00052-9).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. WWF; IUCN. Minutes from the Workshop on Forests Reborn in Segovia; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hobbs, R. Woodland restoration in Scotland: Ecology, history, culture, economics, politics and change. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2857–2865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Aronson, J.; Blignaut, J.N.; Milton, S.J.; Le Maitre, D.; Esler, K.J.; Limouzin, A.; Fontaine, C.; De Wit, M.P.; Mugido, W.; Prinsloo, P.; et al. Are Socioeconomic Benefits of Restoration Adequately Quantified? A Meta-analysis of Recent Papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 Other Scientific Journals. Restor. Ecol. 2010, 18, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stanturf, J.A. Future landscapes: Opportunities and challenges. New For. 2015, 46, 615–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pistorius, T.; Freiberg, H. From Target to Implementation: Perspectives for the International Governance of Forest Landscape Restoration. Forests 2014, 5, 482–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Brouwer, R. FLR Initiatives: Conditions & Key Factors for Success. Master’s Thesis, Wagenigen University, Wagenigen, The Netherlands.
  7. Boedhihartono, A.K.; Bongers, F.; Boot, R.G.A.; Van Dijk, J.; Jeans, H.; Van Kuijk, M.; Koster, H.; Reed, J.; Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; et al. Conservation science and practice must engage with the realities of complex tropical landscapes. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2018, 11, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bull, G.Q.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Bueno, G.; Cashore, B.; Elliott, C.; Langston, J.D.; Riggs, R.A.; Sayer, J. Global forest discourses must connect with local forest realities. Int. For. Rev. 2018, 20, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Buizer, M.; Humphreys, D.; De Jong, W. Climate change and deforestation: The evolution of an intersecting policy domain. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 35, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Skutsch, M.M.; Mccall, M.K. Reassessing REDD: Governance, markets and the hype cycle. Clim. Chang. 2010, 100, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bayrak, M.M.; Marafa, L.M. Livelihood Implications and Perceptions of Large Scale Investment in Natural Resources for Conservation and Carbon Sequestration: Empirical Evidence from REDD plus in Vietnam. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Luttrell, C.; Sills, E.; Aryani, R.; Ekaputri, A.D.; Evinke, M.F. Beyond opportunity costs: Who bears the implementation costs of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation? Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2018, 23, 291–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nantongo, M.; Vatn, A.; Vedeld, P. All that glitters is not gold; Power and participation in processes and structures of implementing REDD plus in Kondoa, Tanzania. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 100, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aronson, J.; Blignaut, J.N.; Aronson, T.B. Conceptual frameworks and references for landscape-scale restoration: Reflecting back and looking forward. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 2017, 102, 188–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sabogal, C.; Besacier, C.; Mcguire, D. Forest and landscape restoration: Concepts, approaches and challenges for implementation. Unasylva 2015, 245, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wilson, S.J.; Calaganan, D. Governing restoration: Strategies, adaptations and innovations for tomorrow’s forest landscapes. World Dev. Perspect. 2016, 4, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Van Oosten, C. Restoring Landscapes—Governing Place: A Learning Approach to Forest Landscape Restoration. J. Sustain. For. 2013, 32, 659–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Soares-Filho, B.; Rajão, R.; Macedo, M.; Carneiro, A.; Costa, W.; Coe, M.; Rodrigues, H.; Alencar, A. Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science 2014, 344, 363–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Brancalion, P.H.S.; Garcia, L.C.; Loyola, R.; Rodrigues, R.R.; Pillar, V.D.; Lewinsohn, T.M. A critical analysis of the Native Vegetation Protection Law of Brazil (2012): Updates and ongoing initiatives. Braz. J. Nat. Conserv. 2016, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pacto. Pacto Pela Restauraçao da Mata Atlântica: Referencial dos Conceitos e Açoes de Restauraçao Florestal; Instituto BioAtlântica: São Paulo, Brazil, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bäckstrand, K.; Lövbrand, E. Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Glob. Environ. Politics 2006, 6, 50–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Reinecke, S.; Blum, M. Discourses across scales on forest landscape restoration. Sustainability 2018, 10, 613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Akinnifesi, F.K. Africa’s forest landscape restoration gathers momentum. FAO Publication. Nat. Faune 2018, 32, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  24. Alexander, S.; Nelson, C.R.; Aronson, J.; Lamb, D.; Cliquet, A.; Erwin, K.L.; Finlayson, C.M.; De Groot, R.S.; Harris, J.A.; Higgs, E.S.; et al. Opportunities and Challenges for Ecological Restoration within REDD+. Restor. Ecol. 2011, 19, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Barr, C.M.; Sayer, J.A. The political economy of reforestation and forest restoration in Asia-Pacific: Critical issues for REDD+. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 154, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Besseau, P.; Graham, S.; Christophersen, T.E. Restoring Forests and Landscapes: The Key to a Sustainable Future; Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration: Vienna, Austria, 2018; 25p. [Google Scholar]
  27. Brancalion, P.H.S.; Viani, R.G.; Strassburg, B.B.N.; Rodrigues, R.R. Finding the money for tropical forest restoration. Unasylva 2012, 239, 25–34. [Google Scholar]
  28. Brancalion, P.H.S.; Lamb, D.; Ceccon, E.; Bouchere, D.; Herbohn, J.; Strassburg, B.B.N.; Edwards, D.P. Using markets to leverage investment in forest and landscape restoration in the tropics. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 85, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brancalion, P.H.S.; Chazdon, R.L. Beyond hectares: Four principles to guide reforestation in the context of tropical forest and landscape restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, 491–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Brancalion, P.H.S.; Campo, O.; Teixeira Mendes, J.C.; Noel, C.; Moreira, G.G.; Van Melis, J.; Stape, J.L.; Guillemot, J. Intensive silviculture enhances biomass accumulation and tree diversity recovery in tropical forest restoration. Ecol. Appl. 2019, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Cordingley, J.E.; Snyder, K.A.; Rosendahl, J.; Kizito, F.; Bossio, F. Thinking outside the plot: Addressing low adoption of sustainable land management in sub-Saharan Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 15, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hanson, C.; Buckingham, K.; Dewitt, S.; Laestadius, L. Restoration Diagnostic Tool; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; 96p. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lamb, D. Undertaking large-scale forest restoration to generate ecosystem services. Restor. Ecol. 2018, 26, 657–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mansourian, S.; Vallauri, D.; Dudley, J.L. Forest Restoration in Landscapes: Beyond Planting Trees; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2005; p. 441. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mansourian, S.; Vallauri, D. Restoring Forest Landscapes: Important Lessons Learnt. Environ. Manag. 2014, 53, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mansourian, S.; Dudley, N.; Vallauri, D. Forest Landscape Restoration: Progress in the Last Decade and Remaining Challenges. Ecol. Restor. 2017, 35, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Menz, M.H.M.; Dixon, K.W.; Hobbs, R.J. Hurdles and opportunities for landscape-scale restoration. Science 2013, 339, 526–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Murcia, C.; Guariguata, M.R.; Andrade, A.; Andrade, G.I.; Aronson, J.; Escobar, E.M.; Etter, A.; Moreno, F.H.; Ramirez, W.; Montes, E. Challenges and prospects for scaling-up ecological restoration to meet international commitments: Colombia as a case study. Conserv. Lett. 2016, 9, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sewell, A.; Bouma, J.; Van Der Esch, S. Investigating the Challenges and Opportunities for Scaling Up Ecosystem Restoration; PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2016; 78p. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tomeo, T.; Mahamoudou, S.; Averna, E.H. From pledges to action: Africa’s 100 million hectare restoration goal comes into focus. FAO publication. Nat. Faune 2018, 32, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  41. Xi, W.M.; Wang, F.G.; Shi, P.L.; Dai, E.F.; Anoruo, A.O.; Bi, H.X.; Rahmlow, A.; He, B.H.; Li, W.H. Challenges to Sustainable Development in China: A Review of Six Large-Scale Forest Restoration and Land Conservation Programs. J. Sustain. For. 2014, 33, 435–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Stanturf, J.A.; Kleine, M.; Mansourian, S.; Parrotta, J.; Madsen, P.; Kant, P.; Burns, J.; Bolte, A. Implementing forest landscape restoration under the Bonn Challenge: A systematic approach. Ann. For. Sci. 2019, 76, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Newton, A.C.; Del Castillo, R.F.; Echeverria, C.; Geneletti, D.; Gonzalez-Espinosa, M.; Malizia, L.R.; Premoli, A.C.; Benayas, J.M.R.; Smith-Ramirez, C.; Williams-Linera, G. Forest landscape restoration in the drylands of latin america. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Djenontin, I.N.; Samson, F.; Zulu, L.C. Revisiting the factors shaping outcomes for forest and landscape restoration in sub-saharan africa: A way forward for policy, practice and research. Sustainability 2018, 10, 906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mansourian, S.; Stanturf, J.A.; Derkyi, M.A.; Engel, V.L. Forest Landscape Restoration: Increasing the positive impacts of forest restoration or simply the area under tree cover? Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, 178–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mansourian, S.; Géroux, H.; Do Khac, E.; Vallauri, D. Lessons Learnt from 17 Years of Restoration in New Caledonia’s Dry Tropical Forest; Field Series; WWF: Paris, France, 2018; 44p. [Google Scholar]
  47. Strassburg, B.B.N.; Beyer, H.L.; Crouzeilles, R.; Iribarrem, A.; Barros, F.; Ferreira De Siqueira, M.; Sánchez-Tapia, A.; Balmford, A.; Sansevero, J.B.B.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; et al. Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ball, A.A.; Gouzerh, A.; Brancalion, P.H.S. Multi-Scalar Governance for Restoring the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: A Case Study on Small Landholdings in Protected Areas of Sustainable Development. Forests 2014, 5, 599–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Reij, C.; Winterbottom, R. Scaling Up Regreening: Six Steps to Success; Report World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; 72p. [Google Scholar]
  50. Newton, A.C.; Cantarello, E. Restoration of forest resilience: An achievable goal? New For. 2015, 46, 645–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Van Oosten, C. Forest Landscape Restoration: Who Decides? A Governance Approach to Forest Landscape Restoration. Nat. Conserv. 2013, 11, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Padgett, D. Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research, 3rd ed.; New York University, SAGE Publications Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2017; 305p. [Google Scholar]
  53. Schweizer, D.; Meli, P.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; Guariguata, M.R. Oportunidades y Desafíos Para la Gobernanza de la Restauración del Paisaje Forestal en América Latina; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2018; 72p. [Google Scholar]
  54. Incaper. Programa de Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural Proater 2011–2013: Domingo Martins; Governo do Espiritu Santo: Espiritu Santo, Brazil, 2014.
  55. Incaper. Programa de Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural Proater 2011–2013: Sooretama; Governo do Espiritu Santo: Espiritu Santo, Brazil, 2014.
  56. Carvalho, J.L.; Junior, H.G. Potentialities of land usage in the river basin of Ribeirão Fartura—Paraibuna, Sao Paulo: Using geoprocessing as a support to the rural territorial arrangement. Raega-O Espaço Geográfico Análise 2012, 24, 149–175. [Google Scholar]
  57. VERBI Software. MAXQDA Analytics Pro [Computer Programme]; VERBI: Berlin, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  58. Saldaña, J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2013; 368p. [Google Scholar]
  59. Saavedra-Díaz, L.; Rosenberg, A.A.; Martín-López, B. Social perceptions of Colombian small-scale marine fisheries conflicts: Insights for management. Mar. Policy 2015, 56, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chazdon, R.L.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; Laestadius, L.; Bennett-Curry, A.; Buckingham, K.; Kumar, C.; Moll-Rocekima, J.; Guimarães Vieira, C.; Wilson, S.J. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio 2016, 45, 538–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Da Silva, A.P.M.; Schweizer, D.; Marques, H.R.; Teixeira, A.M.C.; Dos Santos, T.; Sambuichi, R.H.R.; Badari, C.G.; Gaudare, U.; Brancalion, P.H.S. Can current native tree seedling production and infrastructure meet an increasing forest restoration demand in Brazil? Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Crouzeilles, R.; Ferreira, M.S.; Chazdon, R.L.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Sansevero, J.B.B.; Monteiro, L.; Iribarrem, A.; Latawiec, A.E.; Strassburg, B.B.N. Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rother, D.C.; Vidal, C.; Fagundes, I.C.; Metran Da Silva, M.; Gandolfi, S.; Rodrigues, R.R.; Nave, A.G.; Viani, R.G.; Brancalion, P.H.S. How legal-oriented restoration programs enhance landscape connectivity? Insights from the brazilian atlantic forest. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2018, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  64. Batista, A.; Prado, A.; Pontes, C.; Matsumoto, M. Verena Investment Tool: Valuing Reforestation with Native Tree Species and Agroforestry Systems; Technical Note; World Resources Institute: Washignton, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  65. Meli, P.; Schweizer, D.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; Murcia, C.; Guariguata, M.R. Multidimensional training among Latin America’s restoration professionals. Restor. Ecol. 2019, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Abessa, D.; Famá, A.; Buruaem, L. The systematic dismantling of Brazilian environmental laws risks losses on all fronts. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 510–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Forests 10 00530 g001 550
Figure 1. Nested scales where actors are involved in FLR planning and implementation work. The size of the equal sign denotes our hypothesis regarding diminishing similarity in the narratives when one moves from the global to the local scale. We gathered global narratives from peer reviewed and gray literature, whereas national, state and local narratives were gathered using semi-structured interviews. Private actors include sugar, pulp and restoration practitioners. This figure depicts the case of Brazil as scales and actor types may change in other parts of the world, where, for example, private property may not be the main form of land tenure.
Figure 1. Nested scales where actors are involved in FLR planning and implementation work. The size of the equal sign denotes our hypothesis regarding diminishing similarity in the narratives when one moves from the global to the local scale. We gathered global narratives from peer reviewed and gray literature, whereas national, state and local narratives were gathered using semi-structured interviews. Private actors include sugar, pulp and restoration practitioners. This figure depicts the case of Brazil as scales and actor types may change in other parts of the world, where, for example, private property may not be the main form of land tenure.
Forests 10 00530 g001
Forests 10 00530 g002 550
Figure 2. Map of Brazilian Atlantic Forest showing the four case study municipalities: Batatais and Paraibuna in the state of Sao Paulo, and Domingo Martins and Sooretama in the state of Espírito Santo.
Figure 2. Map of Brazilian Atlantic Forest showing the four case study municipalities: Batatais and Paraibuna in the state of Sao Paulo, and Domingo Martins and Sooretama in the state of Espírito Santo.
Forests 10 00530 g002
Forests 10 00530 g003 550
Figure 3. Percent coded segments for the different contextual themes. (A) actor type; (B) restoration method; (C) restoration drivers.
Figure 3. Percent coded segments for the different contextual themes. (A) actor type; (B) restoration method; (C) restoration drivers.
Forests 10 00530 g003
Forests 10 00530 g004 550
Figure 4. Code intersection on barriers for upscaling forest restoration as perceived by the different actors at different scales. Colour codes correspond to themes and patterns to subthemes from Table 4: pink = capacity issues, red = communication, dark blue = financial, yellow = governance, light blue = social.
Figure 4. Code intersection on barriers for upscaling forest restoration as perceived by the different actors at different scales. Colour codes correspond to themes and patterns to subthemes from Table 4: pink = capacity issues, red = communication, dark blue = financial, yellow = governance, light blue = social.
Forests 10 00530 g004
Forests 10 00530 g005 550
Figure 5. Code intersection on strategies for upscaling forest restoration as perceived by different actors at different scales. Colour codes correspond to themes and pattern to subthemes from Table 4: pink = capacity issues, red = communication, dark blue = financial, yellow = governance, light blue = social.
Figure 5. Code intersection on strategies for upscaling forest restoration as perceived by different actors at different scales. Colour codes correspond to themes and pattern to subthemes from Table 4: pink = capacity issues, red = communication, dark blue = financial, yellow = governance, light blue = social.
Forests 10 00530 g005
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of the four landscapes where interviews with state and local actors were conducted. Current forest cover includes remnants, secondary and restored forest.
Table 2. Characteristics of the four landscapes where interviews with state and local actors were conducted. Current forest cover includes remnants, secondary and restored forest.
StateMunicipalityRural Population (2010)Area (km2)Average Property Sizes (ha)Current Forest Cover (%)Main Commercial ActivitySource
Espírito SantoDomingo Martins24,106122518–7243Coffee[54]
Sooretama697058720–30038Coffee[55]
Sao PauloParaibuna12,144811.720–8030.3Milk, fruits[56]
Batatais2827850.720–2009.7Sugar caneSugar mill staff (pers. comm.)
Table
Table 3. Semi-structured interview leading questions.
Table 3. Semi-structured interview leading questions.
National and State ScalesLocal Scale
ThemesQuestions to Governments, Rural Extension, NGOs, Academia, and PrivatesQuestions to Rural Landowners
ContextualAt what scales have you conducted previous forest restoration projects?What is the main land use in your property?
What were the main objectives of your previous projects?Have you conducted forest restoration in parts of your property?
Why yes/why not?
Was your organization working alone or in collaboration? If in collaboration, with whom?What were the restoration objectives?
Barriers for upscaling forest restorationWhat barriers do you perceive for upscaling forest restoration to the landscape scale?What barriers exist that hamper an increase in forest cover in your property?
What barriers exist to increase forest cover in areas surrounding your property?
Strategies for upscaling forest restorationWhat do you see as strategies for overcoming barriers to implement forest restoration at landscape scale?In your opinion, what do people need to conduct forest restoration in their properties?
Table
Table 4. Coding structure by themes and subthemes. The table also contains the key words for the lexical search. Key themes were employed for grouping barriers and strategies for increasing the scale of forest restoration mentioned.
Table 4. Coding structure by themes and subthemes. The table also contains the key words for the lexical search. Key themes were employed for grouping barriers and strategies for increasing the scale of forest restoration mentioned.
Restoration contextThemeSubthemesKey Words
Actor typeGovernmentgovernment *, municipality, organization *, institution *,
Rural Landownerlandowner, landholder, farmer, producer
Private companiescompan *, agribusiness, business, Nestlé, Vale, Coca Cola, sugar mill, private
Non Govermental OrganizationNGO 2, TNC 3, WWF 4, WRI 5, other
Academiaresearch *, profess *
Restoration MethodAgroforestryagrofore *, cacao, coffee
Active restorationseed *, plant *
Passive restorationfenc *, regeneration, succession
DriversLegislation 1polic *, public, legal, law, forest code, permanent protected area, APP 1, RL 1, legal reserve
International commitmentcommitment, international, 20 × 20, Bonn Challenge, New York Declaration
Waterwater, spring, river
Climateclimate, carbon
Biodiversity*divers *
Key themesFinancial
financ *, expens *, cost *, fund *, market, invest *, resource *, econom *, money, PES 6
Legislation 1polic *, public, legal, law, forest code, permanent protected area, APP 1, RL 1, legal reserve
Capacitycapa *, extension, courses, classes, empower, educ *
Communicationsensibilization, campaign, communication, inform
Governancemulti *, governance, engage *
1 Legislation was coded both as a driver and as a key theme. APP and RL refer to “permanent protected area” and “legal reserve” which are the two areas private rural landowners should maintain with forest cover according to the Brazilian Native Vegetation Law. 2 Non governmental organization; 3 The Nature Conservancy; 4 World Wildlife Fund; 5 World Resources Institute; 6 Payment for Environmental Services. * denotes a search based on the root of the word was conducted so all declinations and plural forms would be included.
Table
Table 5. Breakdown by actor and scales of the interviews conducted.
Table 5. Breakdown by actor and scales of the interviews conducted.
ActorScales
NationalStateLocalTOTAL
Government23 5
Academia4 4
Rural Extension 4 4
NGO53 8
Private (practitioners, companies) 7 7
Rural landowner Sooretama, ES 2323
Rural landowner Domingo Martins, ES 2020
Rural landowner Paraibuna, SP 1818
Rural landowner Batatais, SP 1616
TOTAL111777105

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schweizer, D.; van Kuijk, M.; Meli, P.; Bernardini, L.; Ghazoul, J. Narratives Across Scales on Barriers and Strategies for Upscaling Forest Restoration: A Brazilian Case Study. Forests 2019, 10, 530. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10070530

AMA Style

Schweizer D, van Kuijk M, Meli P, Bernardini L, Ghazoul J. Narratives Across Scales on Barriers and Strategies for Upscaling Forest Restoration: A Brazilian Case Study. Forests. 2019; 10(7):530. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10070530

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schweizer, Daniella, Marijke van Kuijk, Paula Meli, Luis Bernardini, and Jaboury Ghazoul. 2019. "Narratives Across Scales on Barriers and Strategies for Upscaling Forest Restoration: A Brazilian Case Study" Forests 10, no. 7: 530. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10070530

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop