Lessons Learned from the Water Producer Project in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil

被引:17
作者
Viani, Ricardo A. G. [1 ]
Bracale, Henrique [2 ]
Taffarello, Denise [3 ]
机构
[1] Fed Univ Sao Carlos UFSCar, Dept Biotechnol & Plant & Anim Prod, BR-13600970 Araras, SP, Brazil
[2] Nature Conservancy, BR-01311936 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
[3] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Hydraul & Sanitat, EESC, SHS, BR-13566590 Sao Carlos, SP, Brazil
来源
FORESTS | 2019年 / 10卷 / 11期
基金
巴西圣保罗研究基金会;
关键词
ecological restoration; landowner engagement; forest and landscape restoration; forest restoration; payment for ecosystem services; tropical forest; water; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION; CANTAREIRA SYSTEM; RESTORATION; PAYMENTS; OPPORTUNITIES; CHALLENGES; HEADWATERS; PROGRAMS; SCHEMES;
D O I
10.3390/f10111031
中图分类号
S7 [林业];
学科分类号
0829 ; 0907 ;
摘要
Forest and landscape restoration (FLR) is a powerful strategy for large-scale tropical forest recovery, and payment for ecosystem services (PES) is used to support FLR programs and projects on privately-owned land. In this article, we discuss the lessons learned from the Water Producer Project, a pioneer, multiple-stakeholder, and PES-supported FLR project in the Atlantic Forest, south-eastern Brazil. The project was implemented in four landscapes located in two municipalities. Altogether, 41 PES contracts with landowners were signed, resulting in various FLR practices being implemented in a total of 342.4 ha (64.2 ha for riparian forest restoration, 90.8 ha for soil conservation, and 187.4 for forest conservation) of land, which represents 39% of the project goal. As of the end of the project, only 50% (USD 49,250) of the available PES funds had been spent. However, funds spent on project planning, implementation, communication, and monitoring were 12 times greater than those spent on PES. Several challenges restricted the progress and monitoring of the project. The main issue was landowner participation and/or engagement. In terms of lessons learned, we highlight that PES schemes are more complex than initially thought, and that sufficient funding does not guarantee the success of FLR projects. It is essential to promote landowner participation and engagement by considering them key players in FLR projects. Finally, acceptance from landowners was higher and implementation was easier for forest conservation practices that required no land-use changes. Thus, we suggest that similar future projects should focus on targeting private properties in marginal agricultural lands with a high probability of natural regeneration. Alternatively, future projects could focus on lands with remnant forest cover of high conservation value.
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 52 条
  • [21] Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia
    Leimona, Beria
    van Noordwijk, Meine
    de Groot, Rudolf
    Leemans, Rik
    [J]. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2015, 12 : 16 - 28
  • [22] Recovery of Soil Hydraulic Properties for Assisted Passive and Active Restoration: Assessing Historical Land Use and Forest Structure
    Lozano-Baez, Sergio Esteban
    Cooper, Miguel
    de Barros Ferraz, Silvio Frosini
    Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro
    Castellini, Mirko
    Di Prima, Simone
    [J]. WATER, 2019, 11 (01)
  • [23] McDonald T., 2016, INT STANDARDS PRACTI, V1st
  • [24] McLain R., 2018, LAND USE POLICY, P103748, DOI 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11
  • [25] Mendiondo E.M., 1997, REV BRAS RECUR HIDR, V2, P21
  • [26] Payments for Environmental Services in Latin America as a Tool for Restoration and Rural Development
    Montagnini, Florencia
    Finney, Christopher
    [J]. AMBIO, 2011, 40 (03) : 285 - 297
  • [27] Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions
    Muradian, R.
    Arsel, M.
    Pellegrini, L.
    Adaman, F.
    Aguilar, B.
    Agarwal, B.
    Corbera, E.
    de Blas, D. Ezzine
    Farley, J.
    Froger, G.
    Garcia-Frapolli, E.
    Gomez-Baggethun, E.
    Gowdy, J.
    Kosoy, N.
    Le Coq, J. F.
    Leroy, P.
    May, P.
    Meral, P.
    Mibielli, P.
    Norgaard, R.
    Ozkaynak, B.
    Pascual, U.
    Pengue, W.
    Perez, M.
    Pesche, D.
    Pirard, R.
    Ramos-Martin, J.
    Rival, L.
    Saenz, F.
    Van Hecken, G.
    Vatn, A.
    Vira, B.
    Urama, K.
    [J]. CONSERVATION LETTERS, 2013, 6 (04): : 274 - 279
  • [28] Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities
    Myers, N
    Mittermeier, RA
    Mittermeier, CG
    da Fonseca, GAB
    Kent, J
    [J]. NATURE, 2000, 403 (6772) : 853 - 858
  • [29] Get the science right when paying for nature's services
    Naeem, S.
    Ingram, J. C.
    Varga, A.
    Agardy, T.
    Barten, P.
    Bennett, G.
    Bloomgarden, E.
    Bremer, L. L.
    Burkill, P.
    Cattau, M.
    Ching, C.
    Colby, M.
    Cook, D. C.
    Costanza, R.
    DeClerck, F.
    Freund, C.
    Gartner, T.
    Benner, R. Goldman
    Gunderson, J.
    Jarrett, D.
    Kinzig, A. P.
    Kiss, A.
    Koontz, A.
    Kumar, P.
    Lasky, J. R.
    Masozera, M.
    Meyers, D.
    Milano, F.
    Naughton-Treves, L.
    Nichols, E.
    Olander, L.
    Olmsted, P.
    Perge, E.
    Perrings, C.
    Polasky, S.
    Potent, J.
    Prager, C.
    Quetier, F.
    Redford, K.
    Saterson, K.
    Thoumi, G.
    Vargas, M. T.
    Vickerman, S.
    Weisser, W.
    Wilkie, D.
    Wunder, S.
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2015, 347 (6227) : 1206 - 1207
  • [30] Nobre C. A., 2016, Journal of Water Resource and Protection, V8, P252, DOI 10.4236/jwarp.2016.82022