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: Turbidity measurements (NTU), sediment concentration analysis
Erosion control: Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), watershed-scale sediment modeling
Sediment retention: InVEST Sediment Delivery Ratio model, buffer width analysis
Hydrological services: Streamflow monitoring, base flow separation, infiltration measurements
Vegetation assessment: Forest cover percentage as watershed health proxy indicator

Research Gaps:

Standardized protocols for riparian buffer effectiveness across different river widths and slopes
Long-term (>20 year) monitoring of restored riparian zones
Valuation methods for multiple services simultaneously
Relationship between buffer width, forest structure, and service delivery
Regional variation in service provision across different Brazilian biomes
Native species composition effects on service delivery rates

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: Field trials comparing nucleation vs. row planting vs. passive restoration, monitoring basal area, diversity, species composition
Cost accounting: Detailed project budgets including implementation and maintenance
Success indicators: Multi-criteria frameworks with ecological, social, and economic metrics
Carbon estimation: Allometric equations for biomass and carbon stock calculations
Biodiversity monitoring: Species inventories, regeneration surveys

Research Gaps:

Long-term ecosystem service delivery quantification (most studies <10 years; forest restoration requires 20-50+ years)
Standardized success criteria across different forest types and regions
Trade-off analysis between restoration methods and service delivery
Cost-effectiveness comparisons across restoration approaches
Maintenance requirements and costs beyond initial 3-5 year period
Cerrado, Caatinga, Pampa, and Pantanal restoration quantification (heavy Atlantic Forest bias)
Relationship between restoration investment and service delivery magnitude

Connecting habitat fragments

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: Probability of Connectivity (PC), Integral Index of Connectivity (IIC)
Graph theory applications: Landscape connectivity for species-specific dispersal distances
Landscape metrics: Fragment size, edge density, core area, isolation indices
Remote sensing analysis: Land cover classification, fragment mapping, corridor identification
Cost estimation: Restoration costs for ecological corridors
Species movement tracking: Genetic diversity analysis, camera trap networks, telemetry data

Research Gaps:

Functional connectivity validation (modeled vs. actual species movement)
Service delivery quantification beyond biodiversity (carbon, water, etc.)
Minimum corridor width and quality standards for different species groups
Long-term effectiveness of restored corridors (most studies <5 years post-restoration)
Cerrado, Amazon, Caatinga, Pampa, Pantanal connectivity data (heavy Atlantic Forest bias)
Small landscape element effectiveness (isolated trees, hedgerows, small patches)
Cost-effectiveness of corridor restoration vs. other conservation strategies
Socioeconomic factors affecting corridor maintenance on private lands
Climate change implications for corridor placement and design

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: USLE/RUSLE adapted for Brazilian conditions
Sediment yield assessment: Watershed monitoring, reservoir sedimentation tracking
Conservation practice evaluation: Terracing, contour farming, cover crops, no-till systems
Comparative analysis: Whole-watershed approaches vs. riparian-only restoration
Economic analysis: Cost-effectiveness of different erosion control measures
Remote sensing: Satellite imagery for land use change and erosion risk mapping

Research Gaps:

Standardized measurement protocols across different soil types and topographies
Long-term effectiveness data for specific conservation practices
Integration of multiple conservation practices (combined effects)
Regional variation in practice effectiveness across Brazilian biomes
Small-holder farm implementation feasibility and cost data
Relationship between erosion control and downstream water quality improvements
Verification methods for PES programs claiming erosion control 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: Allometric equations, biomass inventories, GHG emission calculations for trees, crops, and livestock components
Soil quality assessment: Soil organic carbon, nutrient cycling, physical property measurements
Biodiversity surveys: Species richness, habitat provision metrics
Production monitoring: Crop and livestock yields, economic returns
Cost-benefit analysis: Implementation costs, revenue streams, opportunity costs
System comparison: Multi-site trials across different agroforestry configurations

Research Gaps:

Water provision and regulation effects (critical gap despite legal allowances for agroforestry in riparian zones)
Erosion control quantification specific to agroforestry (not just forestry)
Flood protection and water retention services
Pest and disease regulation measurement methods
Cultural ecosystem services (nearly absent from literature)
Long-term economic viability data (>10 years)
Cerrado, Pampa, and Pantanal agroforestry systems (85% of research focused on Atlantic Forest)
Standardized methods for quantifying service trade-offs and synergies
Scaling effects: plot-level vs. landscape-level service provision

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.

Cost evidence: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11681200/

Cost estimates here eg X $R per hectare

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.

Farming for a Nature Positive Future - Data Platform

Integrating nature on farms

Nature Project Types

Nature Project Delivery

Landscape-scale restoration

Nature project types

Sources

Sources

Sources

Sources

Sources

Sources

Nature project delivery

Landscape-scale restoration