Nature-based solutions

New paragraph

Location
Extrema, southern Minas Gerais. Posses Watershed (1,200 ha), Jaguari River sub-basin.

Delivery period
2005 to present (PES contracts from 2007)

Funding
Municipality of Extrema, ANA, The Nature Conservancy.
Over R$7 million paid to landholders by 2019.

Stakeholders
Municipal government, 53 small landholders, water agencies, NGOs.

Area
Riparian zones and springs across a 1,200 ha agricultural catchment.

Activities

Planting native Atlantic Forest species along riverbanks and around springs

Establishment of riparian buffers (5–60 m depending on stream width)

Livestock exclusion fencing in riparian and spring areas

Installation of alternative livestock watering systems

Soil conservation works including terracing and micro-dams

Delivery mechanisms

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) contracts with landholders

Municipal programme coordination and technical assistance

Co-funding from national water agencies and NGOs

Outcomes

ACTUAL

53 landholders enrolled

Riparian buffers established across the watershed

Multiple springs protected and fenced

On-farm measurements reported spring flow increases from ~3,000 to up to 60,000 L/hour

No municipal water shortages during the 2014 São Paulo drought

MODELLED / PROJECTED

Sediment export reductions of 78–81% under 25–30 m riparian buffers (InVEST and SWAT)

Forest cover target increase from ~5% to 45%

Available Quantification Methodologies:

Water quality modeling: Measuring how cloudy the water is and analysing how much dirt and particles are in it
Erosion control: Using standard formulas to estimate how much soil is washing away from the land into rivers
Sediment retention: Using computer models to calculate how much dirt is being trapped by vegetation before it reaches waterways
Hydrological services: Measuring river flow levels, how much water keeps flowing during dry periods, and how well water soaks into the ground
Vegetation assessment: Using the percentage of forest cover as an indicator of overall watershed health

Research Gaps:

Standardised protocols: Consistent methods are needed to measure how well riverside vegetation works across different river sizes and terrain slopes
Long-term monitoring: Most studies are short-term; data tracking restored riverside areas for more than 20 years is lacking
Valuation methods: Good ways to assess multiple benefits at the same time (like water quality AND erosion control together) are missing
Buffer width relationships: The relationship between the width and structure of riverside forests and the benefits they provide is not fully understood
Regional variation: More research is needed on how these services differ across Brazil's different ecosystems and climates
Species composition effects: Insufficient knowledge exists about whether using different (and different combinations of) native tree species changes how well these services work

Location
Extrema municipality, headwaters of the Piracicaba River (PCJ Basin).

Delivery period
2005 to present

Funding
Municipal government, ANA, basin committees, private partners.

Stakeholders
Municipality, rural landholders, NGOs, water agencies.

Area
More than 1,000 ha restored across multiple private properties.

Activities

Native forest planting and assisted natural regeneration

Protection of existing forest remnants on private land

Delivery mechanisms

PES payments linked to forest restoration and protection

Long-term municipal budget allocation

Technical guidance for landholders

Outcomes

ACTUAL

~2 million native trees planted

300+ PES contracts signed

Programme expanded to neighbouring municipalities

UN-Habitat Dubai Award (2012)

PROJECTED

Plano Conservador da Mantiqueira target of 1.5 million ha restored by 2030

Available Quantification Methodologies:

Restoration method comparison: Comparing different ways to restore forests—planting trees in clusters, planting in rows, or letting nature recover on its own—then measuring tree growth, variety of species, and which plants come back
Cost accounting: Tracking all the money spent on restoration projects, including both the initial planting work and ongoing care
Success indicators: Measuring whether restoration is working using multiple criteria: how well the ecosystem recovers, whether local communities benefit, and if the project makes economic sense
Carbon estimation: Calculating how much carbon is stored in trees using mathematical formulas based on tree size and weight
Biodiversity monitoring: Keeping track of which plant and animal species are present and counting new seedlings and saplings to see if the forest is regenerating naturally

Research Gaps:

Long-term ecosystem service delivery quantification: Most studies only track results for less than 10 years, but forests need 20 to 50+ years to fully mature and deliver benefits
Standardized success criteria: Different forest types and regions lack consistent measures for determining whether restoration has succeeded
Trade-off analysis: The advantages and disadvantages of different restoration methods in delivering specific benefits have not been thoroughly compared
Cost-effectiveness comparisons: Limited information exists on which restoration approaches provide the best results for the money spent
Maintenance requirements and costs: Little is known about the ongoing care and expenses needed after the initial 3 to 5 year establishment period
Cerrado, Caatinga, Pampa, and Pantanal restoration quantification: Research has focused heavily on Atlantic Forest restoration, with much less data available for Brazil's other major ecosystems
Relationship between restoration investment and service delivery magnitude: The connection between how much money is invested in restoration and how much benefit is actually delivered remains poorly understood

Connecting habitat fragments

Location
Suzano operates in three regions within the Atlantic Forest biome (Bahia and Espírito Santo), the Cerrado (Mato Grosso do Sul), and the Amazon (Maranhão).

Delivery period

2022 to present

Funding

Stakeholders
Suzano, IPÊ, UFSCar (NEEDS), local actors and institutions, rural landowners, and local communities.

Area
The total area designated for native vegetation restoration and the improvement of production systems is 2,396 hectares, including 1,180 hectares in the Cerrado, 810 hectares in the Atlantic Forest, and 406 hectares in the Amazon.

Activities

Establishment of the baseline and monitoring of corridor impacts
Biodiversity monitoring (birds, mammals, frogs)
Estimation of ecosystem services (carbon stocks, soil conservation, and sedimentation control)
Landscape analysis (including matrix management, area connected by the corridor, and conversion of land to native vegetation)
Social and socioeconomic monitoring
Engagement of rural landowners and development of partnerships with local actors and institutions
Ecological restoration and implementation of sustainable production systems

Outcomes

ACTUAL

Baseline biodiversity results in the Cerrado of Mato Grosso do Sul revealed high species diversity: 207 species recorded through passive acoustic monitoring (194 birds, 10 amphibians, and 3 mammals) and 75 taxa detected via environmental DNA, including 34 native mammal species. Among them are threatened or near-threatened species such as the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), the lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris), and the primates Sapajus cay and Alouatta caraya, reinforcing the strategic importance of the region for conservation.

Based on spatial patterns of species richness and probability of occurrence, areas concentrating higher biological diversity were mapped. These areas, often associated with native vegetation and riparian zones, are strategic for conservation and will be directly benefited by the implementation of biodiversity corridors, which will promote their connectivity with other biodiversity hubs.

MODELLED / PROJECTED

Simulations using ecological models indicate a significant increase in the area suitable for the occurrence of several species following the implementation of biodiversity corridors, with an expansion of species richness in areas that were previously more isolated.

Location
Pontal do Paranapanema region, western São Paulo State.

Delivery period

2002 to present

Funding
Public and private donors including Petrobras, BNDES, energy companies, carbon finance.

Stakeholders
IPÊ, private landholders, state agencies, local communities.

Area
~1,800 ha restored; main corridor 7 km long and ~400 m wide.

Activities

Native forest planting to create ecological corridors

Agroforestry stepping stones between forest fragments

Delivery mechanisms (how it was enabled)

Multi-donor project finance

Long-term NGO coordination

Partnerships with landholders and protected area managers

Outcomes

ACTUAL

2.9 million trees planted by by 2020 in Pontal corridors; 7+ million across all IPÊ Atlantic Forest work

Brazil’s largest planted forest corridor created

Wildlife movement recorded via camera traps

600+ jobs created annually (with goal to employ 1,000 people through full program expansion

INFERRED

Improved genetic connectivity and long-term species viability

Available Quantification Methodologies:

Connectivity modeling: Using mathematical formulas to calculate how well different habitat patches are connected across a landscape
Graph theory applications: Computer models that map how far different species can travel between habitat patches based on their movement abilities
Landscape metrics: Measuring characteristics like how big forest fragments are, how much edge they have, how much undisturbed core area exists, and how far isolated patches are from each other
Remote sensing analysis: Using satellite images to classify land cover types, map individual forest fragments, and identify potential wildlife corridors
Cost estimation: Calculating how much it would cost to restore ecological corridors between habitat patches
Species movement tracking: Using eDNA analysis, motion-triggered cameras, audio recording and analysis, and radio/GPS collars to track how animals actually move through the landscape

Research Gaps:

Functional connectivity validation: Limited verification of whether computer models correctly predict how species actually move through landscapes
Service delivery quantification beyond biodiversity: Insufficient data on how corridors provide other benefits like carbon storage or water regulation, not just wildlife habitat
Minimum corridor width and quality standards: Unclear how wide corridors need to be or what quality standards are required for different animal and plant groups
Long-term effectiveness of restored corridors: Most studies track corridors for less than 5 years after restoration, missing longer-term monitoring of success or failure
Cerrado, Amazon, Caatinga, Pampa, Pantanal connectivity data: Research heavily focused on Atlantic Forest, with much less information available for Brazil's other ecosystems
Small landscape element effectiveness: Limited understanding of how isolated trees, hedgerows, and small habitat patches contribute to connectivity
Cost-effectiveness comparisons: Insufficient analysis of whether corridor restoration provides better conservation value per amount spent compared to other strategies
Socioeconomic factors affecting corridor maintenance: research on what influences private landowners to maintain corridors over time (noting the work that UFSCar is doing with farmers to understand this)
Climate change implications: How changing climate patterns should affect where corridors are placed and how they're designed

Location

Júlio de Castilhos municipality, Rio Grande do Sul State, southern Brazil (29°13'39"S, 53°40'38"W)

Delivery period

2014-2018

Funding

Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Fundação Estadual de Pesquisa Agropecuária (FEPAGRO)

Stakeholders

UFSM researchers, local farmers, agricultural research station

Area

Two paired catchments of ~2.4 ha each (total ~4.8 ha)

Activities

Construction of broad-based retention terraces in one catchment

No-till (zero tillage) crop management in both catchments

Soybean/corn rotation in summer, wheat/oats in winter

Continuous hydrological and sediment monitoring (2014-2018)

Delivery mechanisms

Scientific research experiment at FEPAGRO experimental station

Paired catchment design (with/without terraces) to isolate terrace effects

Installation of monitoring equipment: rainfall gauges, runoff measurement systems, sediment samplers

63 rainfall-runoff events monitored over 16 months (intensive phase)

Outcomes:

ACTUAL

79% reduction in peak flow rates (terraced vs. non-terraced catchment)

64% reduction in sediment yield: from 0.44 to 0.16 t/ha (0.28 t/ha prevented)

78% reduction in total surface runoff: from 3,943 m³ (126 mm) to 855 m³ (36 mm) over 31 events in 16 months

Increased soil water availability: Terraced catchment retained more water for crops during dry periods

Key finding: No-till alone insufficient to control erosion on sloping land; terraces essential complement

INFERRED

Reduced downstream flood risk through peak flow attenuation

Improved baseflow regulation in streams

Long-term soil productivity maintenance through erosion prevention

Validation that combined no-till + terracing provides superior conservation vs. no-till alone

Available Quantification Methodologies:

Soil loss modeling: Using mathematical formulas (originally developed in the US) that have been adjusted to predict how much soil erodes under Brazilian conditions
Sediment yield assessment: Monitoring how much dirt and sediment flows through watersheds and accumulates in reservoirs over time
Conservation practice evaluation: Measuring how well different farming techniques work, like building terraces on slopes, plowing along contour lines, planting cover crops, and avoiding plowing altogether
Comparative analysis: Comparing results when entire watersheds are restored versus only restoring vegetation along riverbanks
Economic analysis: Calculating which erosion control methods provide the best results for the money spent
Remote sensing: Using satellite images to track changes in how land is used and identify areas at high risk of erosion

Research Gaps:

Standardized measurement protocols: Lack of consistent methods for measuring erosion across different soil types and terrain slopes
Long-term effectiveness data: Insufficient information on how well specific conservation practices work over many years
Integration of multiple conservation practices: Limited understanding of what happens when farmers combine several erosion control techniques together
Regional variation in practice effectiveness: Inadequate data on whether the same practices work equally well across Brazil's different ecosystems and climates
Small-holder farm implementation feasibility: Little information on whether small farmers can realistically afford and implement these practices
Relationship between erosion control and water quality: Unclear how reducing erosion upstream actually improves water quality downstream
Verification methods for payment programs: Lack of reliable ways to confirm that farmers receiving payment for erosion control are actually delivering the claimed environmental benefits

Location
São Paulo (Vale do Ribeira), Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, Paraná.

Delivery period
2021 to 2022

Funding
UK PACT, led by Agroicone with NGO partners.

Stakeholders
Family farmers, NGOs, technical advisors.

Area
~8 ha across 22 demonstration units.

Activities

Establishment of agroforestry systems combining native trees and crops

On-farm demonstration plots

Delivery mechanisms (how it was enabled)

Grant funding for pilots

Training and capacity building

Network development among farmers

Outcomes

ACTUAL

22 demonstration units established

580+ farmers trained

Three agroforestry networks formed

Technical guides published

MODELED / LITERATURE-BASED

Higher carbon storage and biodiversity than conventional systems

Improved soil structure and water regulation

Available Quantification Methodologies:

Carbon accounting: Using mathematical formulas and field measurements to calculate how much carbon is stored in trees, crops, and even livestock systems, including greenhouse gas emissions
Soil quality assessment: Measuring carbon stored in soil, how well nutrients cycle through the system, and physical soil properties like structure and water-holding capacity
Biodiversity surveys: Counting how many different species are present and evaluating how well the system provides habitat for wildlife
Production monitoring: Tracking how much food and income farmers actually get from crops and livestock in agroforestry systems
Cost-benefit analysis: Comparing money spent to establish and maintain agroforestry systems against income earned and opportunities lost by not using land differently
System comparison: Testing different agroforestry designs at multiple locations to see which configurations work best

Research Gaps:

Water provision and regulation effects: Lack of data on how agroforestry affects water supply and flow, despite laws allowing these systems in sensitive riverside areas
Erosion control quantification specific to agroforestry: Most erosion control data comes from pure forests, not from systems mixing trees with crops or livestock
Flood protection and water retention services: Limited understanding of whether agroforestry systems help reduce flooding or store water during dry periods
Pest and disease regulation measurement methods: No standardized ways to measure how agroforestry controls agricultural pests and diseases
Cultural ecosystem services: Little research on non-material benefits like recreation, education, or cultural value
Long-term economic viability data: Most studies track economics for less than 10 years, missing information on whether systems remain profitable over farmers' lifetimes
Cerrado, Pampa, and Pantanal agroforestry systems: 85% of research focuses on Atlantic Forest, leaving other Brazilian ecosystems poorly understood
Standardised methods for quantifying service trade-offs and synergies: Lack of consistent approaches to measure when different benefits compete with each other or work together
Scaling effects: Unclear whether benefits measured in small research plots actually translate to benefits across entire landscapes

This is paragraph text. Click it or hit the Manage Text button to change the font, colour, size, format and more. To set up site-wide paragraph and title styles, go to Site Theme.

Location
Capão Bonito municipality, UGRHI-14 Alto Paranapanema Basin.

Delivery period
Established 2012

Funding
São Paulo State Government.

Stakeholders
State agencies, local municipalities.

Area
22,269 ha legally protected.

Activities

Legal protection of forested headwaters and springs

Management of protected Atlantic Forest ecosystems

Delivery mechanisms (how it was enabled)

State protected area designation

Public funding and ICMS-Ecológico transfers

Outcomes

ACTUAL

900+ springs protected

Part of ~250,000 ha Paranapiacaba conservation mosaic

Habitat protected for jaguar, puma, tapir, muriqui

~R$2 million ICMS-Ecológico payment to municipality (2015)

INFERRED

Long-term baseflow protection and downstream water quality benefits

Available Quantification Methodologies:

Hydrological monitoring: Streamflow measurements, base flow analysis, spring discharge
Water quality assessment: Turbidity, nutrient concentrations, sediment loads
Land cover analysis: Remote sensing of vegetation around springs
Project-specific metrics: Number of springs protected, hectares restored around headwaters
Forest cover correlation: Vegetation percentage used as proxy for watershed health

Research Gaps:

Standardized quantification methods for spring protection benefits
Baseline assessment protocols for spring health before restoration
Relationship between protection area size and service delivery
Water quantity vs. water quality trade-offs in spring protection
Seasonal variation in spring service provision
Long-term monitoring of restored spring areas (most data <5 years)
Economic valuation of spring protection services
Regional differences in spring ecology and restoration requirements
Verification standards for spring protection claims in PES schemes

Nature projects need to be designed for specific local conditions to deliver real and lasting benefits. This includes understanding site characteristics such as soils, hydrology, climate, land use history, and, in Brazil, the origin and genetic suitability of seeds and planting material. Using species and genetic material that are appropriate to the local ecological context is essential for long-term survival, ecosystem function, and biodiversity outcomes.

To demonstrate genuine environmental improvement, projects also need to be built on clear standards, credible baselines, and robust measurement systems. Defining environmental additionality and baselines makes it possible to show that projects improve conditions compared with what would have happened without intervention. Without this, it is difficult to demonstrate real gains in biodiversity, water quality, or ecosystem resilience rather than simply restating existing conditions. Consistent definitions of restoration, regeneration, and conservation help ensure outcomes are comparable across projects and credible to landholders, investors, and regulators.

Effective impact further depends on practical and proportionate monitoring over time. Establishing a baseline allows change to be demonstrated, such as increases in native vegetation cover, improved stream flow conditions, or enhanced habitat connectivity. Monitoring systems should focus on outcomes rather than activities alone, combining field data, remote sensing, and local knowledge. When monitoring is too complex or costly, participation declines. When it is too limited, confidence in project results is reduced. Successful projects balance scientific rigour with approaches that are workable on the ground.

The cost of nature recovery is a major barrier to action, particularly for smaller landholders. Restoration costs vary widely depending on the approach used, site conditions, and land-use history. Active restoration methods such as full planting are often expensive, while approaches such as assisted natural regeneration or agroforestry can reduce costs but require careful design and technical support. Understanding these cost differences is critical for scaling nature projects across agricultural landscapes.

Research led by the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar) uses land-use history, forest cover mapping, and spatial variables such as slope and farm size to analyse landscape change in the Upper Paranapanema Basin and across São Paulo State. This data supports the definition of baselines and helps to distinguish changes associated with active intervention from broader background trends.

UFSCar studies also track changes in forest cover, fragmentation, and connectivity using a combination of remote sensing and targeted field data. This approach supports outcome-based assessment and comparison of different restoration pathways, including natural regeneration and active planting. Most findings are based on observational data, so further project-level monitoring would be needed to quantify impacts and cost effectiveness with greater certainty.

Research led by Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar) is also analysing the cost effectiveness of different nature-based approaches. This work compares restoration pathways across farm types and landscape contexts, assessing not only upfront costs but also long-term outcomes and co-benefits such as water regulation and farm resilience. By linking ecological results with financial data, UFSCar research is building an evidence base to guide investment, target incentives, and support landholders in choosing restoration options that deliver the greatest impact for the lowest cost.

Integrating nature on farms

Project Types

Project Delivery

Nature project types

Sources

Sources

Sources

Sources

Sources

Sources

Nature project delivery