Four approaches to guide ecological restoration in Latin America |
| |
Authors: | Paula Meli Francisco F Herrera Felipe Melo Severino Pinto Nicolay Aguirre Karim Musálem Clara Minaverry Wilson Ramírez Pedro H S Brancalion |
| |
Institution: | 1. Natura y Ecosistemas Mexicanos A.C., Plaza San Jacinto 23‐D, México DF, Mexico;2. Department of Forest Sciences, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, University of S?o Paulo, Brazil;3. Centro de Ecología, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Edo. Miranda, Venezuela;4. Departamento de Botanica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife–PE, Brazil;5. Centro de Pesquisas Ambientais do Nordeste, Rua Dom Pedro Henrique 167, Recife–PE, Brazil;6. Programa de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad, Universidad Nacional de Loja, Av. Pío Jaramillo Alvarado y Reinaldo Espinosa, La Argelia, Ecuador;7. Centro de Investigación del Chaco Americano, Estancia Playada, Presidente Hayes, El Chaco Americano, Paraguay;8. CONICET, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas y Sociales A. Gioja, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina;9. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Colombia |
| |
Abstract: | There is strong upswing in conservation and restoration efforts in Latin America (LA), particularly in the recent decades after several countries have committed to international agreements such as the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Initiative 20×20, and the Bonn Challenge. To fulfill these agreements, the practice of ecological restoration has to be defined based on ecological knowledge, but also on the specific social, economic, and legal aspects of each country in the region. Here, we give some examples about the national understanding of ecological restoration in 10 countries of LA. We identify difficulties and opportunities to define restoration priorities and needs, and discuss some approaches to cope with economic constraints and agreements, including the potential role of restoration networks in this process. On the basis of the socioecological complexity of these countries and the expectations they have in relation to restoration, we proposed four approaches to guide restoration practice and policy in the region: (1) including biodiversity and ecosystem services approach into ecosystem restoration initiatives; (2) promoting restoration in their frequently human‐modified landscapes; (3) accounting for cost–benefit trade‐offs; and (4) assembling “horizontal” communication frameworks. These approaches should be based at national levels, but adapted to local‐regional levels, in a bottom‐up perspective. We consider that national and international restoration networks in the region can help to overcome difficulties, fostering a solid scientific community, helping to develop national approaches that better match the specific conditions of each country and enhancing communication among different groups of stakeholders. |
| |
Keywords: | biodiversity ecosystem services public policy socioecological |
|
|