Payment for ecosystem services: the economy that will save natural environments?

ABSTRACT

Since the dawn of civilization, it has been understood what natural resources were and their importance for the survival and development of humanity. The environmental history, until payment for ecosystem services, was marked by conservationist and preservationist thoughts that took different directions regarding the "value of nature" and "payment for nature's services" but that consented to maintaining biodiversity. In the 20th century, after the publication of the first works on the categorization and valuation of ecosystem services, a certain consensus began to emerge regarding the commercialization of these services. Subsequently, several payment markets for ecosystem services emerged, such as the carbon market, which in 2021 reached the level of 2 billion dollars in transactions. Studies assessing the growth of the carbon market may provide relevant information for implementing payment projects for carbon credits, encouraging the maintenance of biodiversity and mitigation of climate change.

Keywords:
biodiversity maintenance; carbon credits; carbon market; climate change mitigation; ecosystem services

Introduction

Ecosystem services: emergence and first definitions

Since the dawn of civilization, even if they did not know what ecosystem services were, they already understood the importance of nature and the resources it provides, as well as the consequences of losing these resources (Chew, 2001; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010). Initially, the availability of nature's resources was so vast that it was believed to be inexhaustible, which allowed Egyptian, Greek, and Persian civilizations to take on grand proportions, becoming actual empires (Chew, 2001). However, faced with the scarcity of resources over the millennia due to their massive exploitation, the search for fertile land and raw materials began, leading to the formation of the first civilizations around the world (Chew, 2001; Ferro, 2017), which would later cause military and political conflicts, causing crises, such as the increase in hunger, due to the poor distribution of nature's resources and the search for absolute power over them (Arnson & Zartman, 2005).

One of the best examples is the colonization of South America by Europeans, as in Brazil from the year 1500 (Lang, 2013) with the arrival of the Portuguese, motivated by the natural riches of Brazilian lands, bringing with them several social, economic and environmental problems (Ferro, 2017). After many discussions about natural resources, their functions, benefits and consequences (Marques & Comune, 1997), at the end of 1970, the debate reached an agreement, with the definition, conceptualization and categorization of "ecosystem functions" or "ecosystem services" drawn up by MEA (2005).

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005), ecosystem services can be divided into four categories: support, provision, regulation, and cultural (Fig.1).

Figure 1.
Categories of ecosystem services according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).

In this sense, each of these categories can be defined as:

• Support: responsible for maintaining soil fertility, nutrient cycling, and biogeochemical cycles.

• Provision: supplying food, raw materials, and drinking water.

• Regulation: regulation of temperature, precipitation, air quality, biological control, pollination, and seed dispersal.

• Cultural: providing human beings with leisure, scenic beauty, tourism, and recreation.

Ecosystem services are provided directly or indirectly by nature for human well-being, such as the provision of drinking water and food, food supply, climate regulation and carbon storage by plants (Costanza et al., 1997; MEA, 2005). Carbon sequestration by plants is a natural process in which plants absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere and, through a photochemical process, convert it into energy for their growth (Taiz et al., 2017; Eichhorn & Evert, 2019).

This ecosystem service has gained substantial importance in recent years, especially after the frequent climate changes resulting from rising levels of greenhouse gases (Wolff et al., 2015; Gatti et al., 2021). Through plant photosynthesis (Gurevitch et al., 2009), billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) are removed from the atmosphere every year (Pan et al., 2011). This plays a crucial role in slowing down global warming and therefore balancing climate change and the Cerrado biome plays a key role in providing these ecosystem services (Fernandes et al., 2008; Lopes & Miola, 2010).

With a territorial extension of two million km² (IBGE, 2018), the Cerrado biome is characterised by diverse vegetation, subdivided into distinct phytophysiognomies that form a mosaic (Ribeiro & Walter, 2008). Due to its high vegetation diversity and climate resilience (Franco et al., 2014), the Cerrado is one of the world’s main ecosystems, with a high potential for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (Silva et al., 2013; Sawyer et al., 2017). As well as harbouring a vast diversity of native fauna and flora, the Cerrado also provides sustenance and refuge for Indigenous communities and families who depend on collecting native seeds for subsistence (Marimon & Lima, 2019).

International payment for ecosystem services initiatives have been implemented as an alternative to reduce environmental impacts (Milder et al., 2010) resulting from intensive land use in the Cerrado biome (Ronquim et al., 2008). Due to the high financial value attributed to carbon storage potential, the carbon market has attracted a lot of scientific and political attention, becoming one of the leading names in the field (Mattei & Rosso, 2014).

Opening up a market to commercialise ecosystem services, as in the carbon credit markets, means admitting that it is better to pay to maintain natural resources than to pay the price for not having them. It also shows that more effort is needed than the consistent use of natural resources: suppliers must be paid to preserve ecosystem services. Based on the historical context and the current perspective of the payment for ecosystem services market, the questions that guided this research were: i) What are the prospects for the payment for carbon credits market in Brazil? ii) What are the main challenges of the payment for carbon credits market in Brazil? iii) Does the Cerrado biome have the potential to implement payment for ecosystem services projects?

Material and methods

We carried out a narrative literature review (Rother, 2007) which aims to provide information objectively. This approach punctuates a critical and personal analysis by the author on the payment of ecosystem services in the Cerrado biome. We also assessed the potential for implementing voluntary carbon credit payment projects (REDD+) in the Cerrado biome. In most reviews, we find a methodological approach that often makes it difficult for the reader to understand. The objective is to simplify access to information and the reader's understanding of the subject.

We used Connected Papers, Wiley, Researchgate, and Google Scholar as a base. We searched papers in English and Portuguese from a 40-year time frame, using the main keywords: history of ecosystem services, ecosystem services, environmental services, payment for ecosystem services, and ecosystem services in the Cerrado biome. We analysed the guidelines for capturing payments for REDD+ results in Brazil's ENREDD+. This document formalizes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signatory countries before the Brazilian Society (MMA, 2016).

In addition, we reviewed the principal payment for ecosystem services projects under development in the Cerrado biome and the criteria for implementation and methodologies present in the REDD+ BRAZIL and VERRA - Standards for Sustainable Future platforms, the main institution that regularizes and validates methodologies for quantifying ecosystem services in their different categories.

Results

Prospects of the payment for the carbon credits market in Brazil

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement adopts the mechanism of incentivizing Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) through payments for ecosystem services (Fearnside et al. 2009; Börner et al., 2010).

Brazil, for its part, has committed to reducing its emission rates from deforestation and ecosystem degradation by 37 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025, through sustainable energy production projects, afforestation and reforestation of degraded areas (MMA, 2022). The country's active contribution to the influential Paris Agreement has had a positive impact on the emerging international carbon market, indicating a strong commitment to the environment. This has significantly increased the country's potential for carbon credit transactions, as well as strengthening its competitiveness in the search for funding for decarbonization initiatives.

REDD+ has been working through the commercialization of carbon credits, an essential initiative for conserving ecosystem services (ES) in areas threatened by agricultural expansion (Nepstad et al., 2013). However, during the 2016 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 16), it became clear that implementing such a mechanism would take a long time (Salles et al., 2017). Even in the face of so many impasses and delays in the implementation of the REDD+ mechanism, Brazil took its own "reins" with the creation of the Voluntary Carbon Market (MVC), which regulates and commercializes carbon credits in the country simply and objectively, in addition to the Amazon Fund (FA), which finances REDD+ projects (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2022; Salles et al., 2017).

The realization of the REDD+ mechanism in Brazil voluntarily reduced greenhouse gas emissions by about 41% in 2012 (Euler, 2016). The same author argues that Brazil has taken on the responsibility to zero its deforestation quota by 2030, primarily by achieving good results. Under an optimistic scenario of applying monetary incentives as an instrument for E.S. conservation, the country could achieve its objectives, but this requires studies that seek to calculate the value of ecosystem services to strengthen public and private policies to encourage and finance ecosystem conservation (Tosto et al., 2015).

The main challenges of the payment for carbon credits market in Brazil

Implementing payment for ecosystem services projects is a complex and time-consuming process with a high cost until its realization (Silveira & Oliveira, 2021; Vargas et al., 2022). According to Article 8 of Law Nº. 14,119 of 13 January 2021 in Section III of the Application Criteria of the Federal programs for Payment for Environmental Services (PFPSA), the following may enter the Payment for Environmental Services market:

1. Areas covered in native vegetation;

2. Areas subject to ecosystem restoration, recovery of native vegetation cover, or agroforestry planting;

3. Complete protection of conservation units, extractive reserves, and sustainable development reserves, under the terms of Law Nº. 9.985, of 18 July 2000;

4. Indigenous lands, quilombola territories, and other areas legitimately occupied by traditional populations, through prior consultation, under the terms of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples;

5. Landscapes of great scenic beauty, primarily in particular areas of tourist interest;

6. Fishing exclusion areas, considered to be those that are banned or in reserves, where the exercise of fishing activity is prohibited temporarily, periodically, or permanently by an act of the public authorities;

7. Priority areas for biodiversity conservation, as defined by an act of the public authorities.

The implementation of payment for ecosystem services projects comprises three main phases, forest data collection, quantification of stored carbon, and analysis for validation and certification (Vargas et al., 2022).

Initially, in the case of carbon credit trading, stakeholders need to hire specialized companies for forest data collection, CO₂ quantification, and certification of carbon credits for trading on the global market (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2022).

Each company employs a specific methodology according to the vegetation structure and ecosystem resources to be quantified. Currently, there are two of the most widely used ways of quantifying the carbon stored in natural forests: direct destructive or indirect non-destructive methods (Arevalo et al., 2002; Barbosa & Fearnside, 2005; Silveira et al., 2008).

The destructive method consists of cutting the trees, where each compartment (stem, bark, branches, foliage, and roots) is separated and taken to a forced air circulation oven, then weighed and calculated to obtain the carbon stock (dry biomass) (Cotta et al., 2008). The non-destructive method is based on remote sensing from high-resolution satellite images (Watzlawick et al., 2009) or on allometric equations (Fig. 2), which generally use the parameters of diameter (cm), height (m), and wood density of living trees (D.M.) (Silveira et al., 2008).

Figure 2.
Process for quantifying vegetation carbon and CO₂ stocks from allometric equations.

In addition, other biomass estimation methods, widely used in national emissions inventories, are based on biomass conversion factors (fcb), biomass expansion (Feb) and root ratio (r) (IPCC, 2006; Sanquetta et al., 2019). Some of the most used equations for biomass quantification are the equations suggested by Rezende et al. (2006), Scolforo et al. (2008), Chave et al. (2014), and the compilation of equations and estimates suggested by Miranda et al. (2014).

Several equations for biomass estimation exist because they have been developed for specific vegetation (e.g., savannah or forest). Therefore, the non-destructive method must consider the "vegetation structure" factor for higher reliability in quantifying the CO₂ stored in the vegetation.

Carbon certification is the last step before trading and must be carried out by a recognized company or institution. VERRA - Standards for a Sustainable Future is a non-profit organization working since 2007 to verify greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and mitigate climate change. Its primary function is to manage the certifications for obtaining carbon credits for commercialization in the global market through the Verified Carbon Standard program. The platform is widely known for its strong performance with rigorous methodologies (VM0006, VM0005 and VM0015) and records of large payments for ecosystem services projects.

Validation and certification to obtain carbon credits for commercialization is the most rigorous phase in implementing payment for ecosystem services projects (Vargas et al., 2022). In this phase, contracted companies audit and monitor the vegetation to be certified according to their certification standards, considering the rigour and reliability of the methodologies employed in quantifying the CO₂ stored in the vegetation (Paiva et al., 2015).

After obtaining the carbon credits, the third and final phase is pricing. Each tonne of carbon has a value that varies according to the market to which it is destined. For example, a carbon credit traded on the Voluntary Market (VM) is around US$3.82/tCO₂E, which is much lower than the carbon credit traded on the Regulated Market (RM), which ranges from US$50 to 100/tCO₂e (Fearnside, 2008; World Bank, 2022). These markets operate independently by stipulating rules (Reset, 2023). The Voluntary Market operates mainly in underdeveloped or developing countries such as Brazil, aiming at reducing emissions (GHG), co-benefits, and sustainability (Nepstad et al., 2013; Paiva et al., 2015).

The comprehensiveness of the MV and the addition of its own rules justifies the variations in prices. It is available in the World Bank's carbon pricing report (2022), which indicates the increase in the value per global average voluntary carbon credit in 2021 to US$ 3.82/tCO₂. In addition to the variation between MV and MR, the price of a tonne of carbon can vary according to the type of vegetation and the sector in which the carbon credit was generated, as we can see in the Dashboard of the Observatory of Knowledge and Innovation in Bioeconomy (2023), where the tonne of carbon for Forests and Land Use is equivalent to R$27.98 (US$ 5.4), at the dollar rate of 01/02/2023.

In addition to the price of carbon credit by vegetation and sector, social and human aspects can influence carbon pricing (Nepstad et al., 2013). An example is the GOLD STANDAR platform (www.marketplace.gold standard.org), with 2,900 projects, where carbon credit values range from 17 to 45 US$/tCO₂, according to the community to be benefited and the sustainable co-benefits to be achieved.

Potential for implementation of voluntary carbon credit payment projects in the Cerrado biome

According to the Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2022), the Cerrado is the second-largest Brazilian biome with about 2 million km², an area equivalent to Peru, an integral country of the South American continent (IBGE, 2018). With 11 phytophysiognomies described (Ribeiro & Walter, 2008), the Cerrado is the third-richest biome in vegetational biodiversity in Brazil, with 12829 species described by 2020 (Flora e Funga do Brasil, 2024).

Vegetation in the Cerrado is composed of forest ecosystems: riparian forest, gallery forest, dry forest, and cerradão; savanna ecosystems: dense Cerrado, typical Cerrado, sparse Cerrado, Cerrado park, palm grove, vereda, and rupestrian Cerrado; and grassland ecosystems: campo rupestre, campo sujo and campo limpo, in addition field of murundu and flooded areas that form a mosaic of vegetational ecosystems essential to harbour the high biodiversity of the biome (Ribeiro & Walter, 2008; Santos et al., 2020). In addition to all this complexity of phytophysiognomies and the high biodiversity, the Cerrado is a significant provider of ecosystem services, especially in maintaining the cycle of the carbon, since the high tree diversity is directly related to the potential to store and capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (Worm & Duff, 2003).

Another relevant piece of information that deserves to be highlighted is that Cerrado trees, mainly from savana formations, can grow in a hostile environment where the forest cannot survive, which is essential for carbon sequestration. In addition, the Cerrado biome is considered the "cradle of waters" for feeding the Amazon, Paraná-Paraguay, São Francisco, and Tocantins-Araguaia River basins with its springs and for harbouring the Guaraní, Bambuí and Urucuia aquifers. Despite its importance, the Cerrado is among the most threatened biomes in the world (National Geographic Brasil, 2023), with the lowest percentage of protected areas in the country (8%) and alarming annual rates of deforestation and fires (MMA, 2022).

In recent decades its vegetation has been converted into pastures and crops (FAO, 2020; Marques et al., 2020), and after long periods of use, many areas become unusable or are abandoned (Silva & Bassêto, 2012) (Fig. 3). However, vegetation recovery is gradually resumed in abandoned areas, called ecological succession (Miranda, 2009).

Figure 3-
Changes in Land Use and Land Cover over the last decades in the Cerrado biome, where it is possible to observe the loss of approximately 50% of the vegetation. Data source: MapBiomas Project -Collection 6.0 of Brazil's Annual Series of Land Use and Land Cover Maps. Accessed on 13 April 2023 through the link: https://mapbiomas.org/".

According to Lopes & Miola (2010), an area under regeneration has a high potential for carbon sequestration and storage due to its rapid growth. Thus, implementing payment for ecosystem services projects can be a fundamental instrument for reducing CO₂ in the atmosphere and maintaining biodiversity in the Cerrado biome.

The Cerrado is Brazil's second largest biome (MMA, 2004), characterised by highly diverse vegetation (Marimon et al., 2014), potentially contributing to carbon sequestration and storage. In addition, it is characterized by being a source of food, shelter, and water supply for various species of trees, birds, amphibians, insects, and mammals (Klink & Machado, 2005), as well as for us humans. It is also a source of income for indigenous communities, quilombolas, women and mothers who make a living from collecting native seeds, such as the collectors of the Xingu Seed Network (RSX) (Marimon & Lima, 2019). Therefore, ecosystem services in the Cerrado function as a web that connects ecological and social relationships.

We know that the amount of carbon stored in the aerial part of Cerrado trees is much less than that of trees in the Amazon. The amount of biomass stored in the vegetation (50 per cent of which is carbon stock) in the Cerrado varies greatly in each vegetation type, as shown in the tables below, forest ecosystems (Tab. 1), savannah ecosystems (Tab. 2) and grassland ecosystems (Tab. 3).

Table 1.
Amount of biomass stored in the vegetation of the Cerrado in savannah ecosystems.

Savannah ecosystems	Biomass aboveground (Mg ha 1 )	Carbon aboveground (Mg ha 1)	Biomass belowground (Mg ha 1)	Carbon belowground (Mg ha 1)	Carbon total (Mg ha 1)	Reference
Cerrado Typical	32.40	16.20	18.79*	9.40	25.60	Miranda et al. (2014) Morandi et al., (2020);
Cerrado Dense	29.40	14.70	17.05*	8.53	23.23	Castro e Kauffman (1998); Miranda et al., (2014)
Cerrado Dense	58.69	29.35	34.04*	17.02	46.37	Fernandes et al., (2008); Miranda et al., (2014)
Cerrado Typical	25.10	12.55	46.63	23.32	35.87	Rezende et al., (2006) Paiva et al., (2011)
Cerrado Dense	58.10	29.05	33.69*	16.85	45.90	Miranda et al., (2014)
Cerrado Typical	62.96	31.48	37.50	18.75	50.23	Ribeiro et al., 2011
Cerrado Typical	31.60	15.80	41.10	20.55	36.35	Abdala et al., (1998)
Median Value	44.32	22.16	32.68	16.34	38.50

• * Below-ground data obtained according to the percentage estimates of Miranda et al., (2014).

Table 2.
Amount of biomass stored in the vegetation of the Cerrado in ecosystems forest.

Ecosystems forest	Biomass aboveground (Mg ha 1)	Carbon aboveground (Mg ha 1)	Biomass belowground (Mg ha 1)	Carbon belowground (Mg ha 1)	Carbon total (Mg ha 1)	Reference
Cerradão	97.5	48.75	17.84	8.92	57.67	Miranda et al., (2014)
Cerradão	36.63	18.32	7.22	3.61	21.93	Morais et al., (2013)
Gallery Forest	30.20	15.10	5.53*	2.77	17.87	Miranda et al., (2014); Scolforo et al., (2015);
Cerradão	61.21	30.61	11.20*	5.60	36.21	Miguel (2015); Miranda et al., (2014)
Cerradão	56.30	28.15	32.65*	16.33	44.48	Scolforo et al., (2015); Miranda et al., (2014)
Cerradão	97.88	48.94	17.91*	8.96	57.90	Fernandes et al., (2008) Miranda et al., (2014)
Median Value	56.44	31.65	12.53	7.70	39.34

• * Below-ground data obtained according to the percentage estimates of Miranda et al., (2014).

Table 3.
Amount of biomass stored in the vegetation of the Cerrado in grassland formations.

Ecosystems grassland	Biomass aboveground (Mg ha 1 )	Carbon aboveground (Mg ha 1)	Biomass belowground (Mg ha 1)	Carbon belowground (Mg ha 1)	Carbon total (Mg ha 1)	Reference
Clean Camp	5.50	2.75	16.30	8.15	10.90	Castro e Kauffman (1998)
Clean Camp	7.97	3.99	5.13	2.57	6.55	Fearnside et al., (2009)
Clean Camp	24.00	12.00	16.8*	8.40	20.40	Miranda et al., (2014)
Clean Camp	11.40	5.70	7.98*	3.99	9.69	Scolforo et al., (2015); Miranda et al., (2014)
Dirty Camp	5.90	2.95	4.13*	2.07	5.02	Goodland (1971); Miranda et al., (2014)
Camp Cerrrado	14.80	7.40	10.36*	5.18	12.58	Coutinho (1990); Miranda et al. (2014)
Camp Cerrrado	22.40	11.20	15.68*	7.84	19.04	Delitti et al., (2006); Miranda et al., (2014)
Median Value	13.14	6.57	10.72	5.46	12.03

• * Below-ground data obtained according to the percentage estimates of Miranda et al., (2014).

Cerrado vegetation accumulates a large amount of underground biomass, around 18.3 per cent of the total biomass in forest ecosystems, 58 per cent of the total biomass in the case of savannah plants and 70 per cent in grassland ecosystems (Miranda et al., 2014), and this more than doubles the CO₂ stock in each tree when we consider the root compartment. For example, we have 32.4 Mg ha^-1 x 0.58%= 18.79 extrapolating and adding the root compartment. It is worth emphasizing that successional vegetation and climax vegetation have different carbon storage characteristics. While successional vegetation grows constantly, capturing larger quantities of CO₂ from the atmosphere for its continued development, climax vegetation acts predominantly as large carbon reservoirs (Lopes & Miola, 2010).

Calculation of estimated percentage below-ground biomass fromMiranda et al. (2014):

32.4 + 18.79= 51.19 (total biomass)

51.19/2= 25.59 (carbon stock)

In this equation, we still need to add the avoided carbon, (i.e. the carbon removed from the atmosphere). Each tonne of carbon stored in plants equals 3,67 tonnes of CO₂ (Fernandes et al., 2008; Ronquim et al., 2008) product is traded in carbon banks.

In this case, we have

25.59 × 3.67= 93.91 Mg ha^-1 of CO₂ removed from the atmosphere.

According to the most currently used pricing of the Dashboard of the Observatory of Knowledge and Innovation in Bioeconomy (2023), the tonne of carbon for Forests and Land Use is worth R$27.98 (US$5.4).

Regarding carbon credit pricing: 93.91 x R$27.98 = R$2,627.60 or US$507.11 per hectare.

Discussion

Over the past decades, the voluntary carbon market has taken on grand proportions, surpassing the milestone of 1 billion dollars traded (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2022). Soon after the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1997), trade adhered to the carbon certificate (Godoy, 2009), and other treaties such as the Paris Agreement improved trade with incentive mechanisms for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+), (Börner et al., 2010).

In addition, with the reinforcement granted by the climate agreements, the two carbon markets (e.g. regulated market and voluntary market) have been boosted in recent years (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2023), reaching an exponential growth of 478 million carbon credits issued in 2021 (World Bank, 2022).

In Brazil, the voluntary carbon market (VCM) has shown promise (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2023), especially after the implementation of Law 14.119/21 by the Federal Government, which regulates the Payment for Environmental Services Policy. In addition, the Federal Government has been working on the National Policy for Payment for Environmental Services (PNPSA) and the National REDD+ System (dealt with by PLs 195/2011 in the Federal Chamber and 212/2011 in the Senate) (Santos et al., 2012), including the National Registry for Payment for Environmental Services (CNPSA) and Federal Payment programs for Environmental Services (PFPSA) through Law 14. 119/21, with the implementation of carbon credit payment projects on private properties, with Environmental Reserve Quotas (CRAs), Private Natural Heritage Reserves (RPPNs) and Conservation Units (CUs) (Agência Senado, 2021).

The implementation of the Floresta+ Carbon Programme, through Ordinance N^o. 518 (MMA, 2020), also signalled Brazil's positive involvement, stimulating the voluntary carbon market through autonomy and more significant investment by the private sector in its negotiations, bringing the MVC in Brazil up to par with other countries (Biofílica, 2022). Another measure that should boost the carbon market in Brazil is the drafting of the new decree (11.075) of 21 March 2022 by the Federal Government, which establishes rules and plans for climate change mitigation and government involvement in public policies to encourage CCM, as well as active private companies and institutions, with strong growth in trading on the Carbon Efficient Index (ICO₂-B3) of B3, the official Brazilian stock exchange, between 2011 and 2025 ( Bolsa de Valores - B3, 2010, Fig. 4)

Figure 4.
Chart of trading metrics for the efficient carbon index (ICO₂), Stock Exchange -B3 with future projections in the range from 2011 to 2025. https://www.b3.com.br. Accessed on 23 jul. 2024 (Bolsa de Valores - B3, 2010).

The high cost and bureaucracy of carbon credit verification and certification procedures (Vargas et al., 2022), as well as the lack of public policies committed to reducing implementation costs (Santos et al., 2012), is the main challenge facing the carbon market in Brazil (Silveira & Oliveira, 2021), especially for small companies or rural properties.

Therefore, for vegetation to be certified for the sale of carbon credits on the global market, interested parties must hire companies that specialise in floristic surveys (Silveira et al., 2008), quantifying carbon stocks and managing carbon credits on the global market (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2022).

According to this reference, because it is time-consuming and complex work, the cost of providing these services is significant (Vargas et al., 2022), which hinders the growth of the carbon market in Brazil, especially in the Cerrado, where its potential for carbon storage is often neglected (Sawyer et al., 2017). In addition, the prohibition of public funds in the payment for environmental services described in Article 10 of Law 14.119 of January 2021 also shows a retreat by the government, which should be the main party involved in this issue (Santos et al., 2012).

The Cerrado biome is considered an “inverted forest” because it has deep roots, a characteristic that allows plants to resist and be resilient to lack of water and disturbances caused by fire (Miranda, 2010; Reis et al., 2015; Terra et al., 2023). These functional characteristics make plants in the Cerrado more adapted to tolerate climate change (Sano, 1998; Araújo et al., 2021), contributing to growth and carbon accumulation, a fundamental characteristic of carbon credit projects. The findings of Terra et al. (2023) reinforce the significant potential for carbon storage in the Cerrado biome, revealing an average of 20.4 Mg.ha ^-1 of carbon in the surface, 14.24 Mg.ha ^-1 of carbon in the roots and 123.13 Mg.ha -¹ of carbon in the soil, totaling an average of 145.62 Mg.ha -¹ of the three compartments (tree+root+soil), these figures emphasize the importance of conserving the Cerrado. We therefore strongly recommend that payment for ecosystem services programs be targeted at the Cerrado as a strategy for conserving its essential ecosystems. PES programmes should also be targeted primarily at traditional communities and smallholdings where family farming takes place. Carbon credit payment projects should become increasingly common in the Cerrado biome, such as the recent project published by Votorantim and the Votorantim Reset newspaper, with more than 300,000 carbon credits generated in native Cerrado vegetation between 2017 and 2021 (Reset, 2023; Votorantim, 2022). This reinforces the high potential for implementing carbon credit payment projects in the Cerrado Biome.

Since the formation of the first civilizations, it has been known how critical natural resources were. However, there was no concern about conserving nature. The market for payment for ecosystem services arises as an incentive to maintain biodiversity through the generation of alternative income, with the precept that it is possible to conserve biodiversity and have income from conservation, building a relationship of co-benefits, which makes the market for payment for ecosystem services, a market with high growth potential in the world's financial investment exchanges. Like any financial market, the payment for ecosystem services market also presents challenges to be overcome, such as reducing the bureaucracy of verification and certification of carbon credits for commercialization in the global market and reducing the cost of implementation. However, according to platforms specialized in environmental finance analysis (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2022), all indications are that these challenges will soon be overcome. Therefore, we expect the market for payment for ecosystem services to be even more promising in the future, both for climate change mitigation and for supplementing the income of traditional communities, small landowners, and small businesses.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank the Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Mato Grosso (FAPEMAT) for funding the project FAPEMAT 0203100/2021, and for the promotion of scientific initiation scholarships; the State University of Mato Grosso (UNEMAT), Campus Nova Xavantina, for supporting the development of this research.

References

• Abdala GC, Caldas LS, Haridasan M, Eiten G. 1998. Above and belowground organic matter and root: Shoot ratio in a cerrado in Central Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Ecology 2: 11-23.
• Agência Senado. 2021. Política de Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais é sancionada com vetos. https://www12.senado.leg.br/noticias/materias/2021/01/14/politica-de-pagamento-por-servicos-ambientais-e-sancionada-com-vetos 16 Apr. 2024.
  » https://www12.senado.leg.br/noticias/materias/2021/01/14/politica-de-pagamento-por-servicos-ambientais-e-sancionada-com-vetos
• Araújo I, Marimon BS, Scalon MC et al 2021. Intraspecific variation in leaf traits facilitates the occurrence of trees at the Amazonia-Cerrado transition. Flora 279: 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2021.151829
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2021.151829
• Arevalo LA, Alegre JC, Vilcahuaman LJM. 2002. Metodologia para estimar o estoque de carbono em diferentes sistemas de uso da terra. Colombo, Embrapa Florestas.
• Arnson CJ, Zartman IW. 2005. Rethinking the Economics of War: The Intersection of Need, Creed, and Greed. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University.
• Bolsa de Valores - B3. Índice Carbono Eficiente (ICO₂ B3). 2010. https://www.b3.com.br/pt_br/market-data-eindices/indices/indicesdesustentabilidade/indice-carbono-eficiente-ico2-b3.htm 01 Feb. 2022.
  » https://www.b3.com.br/pt_br/market-data-eindices/indices/indicesdesustentabilidade/indice-carbono-eficiente-ico2-b3.htm
• Barbosa RI, Fearnside PM. 2005. Above-ground biomass and the fate of carbon after burning in the savannas of Roraima, Brazilian Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 216: 295-316. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.042
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.042
• Biofílica. 2022. Forest + Carbon: The Brazilian Federal Government’s program stimulates the voluntary market for carbon forest credits. https://www.biofilica.com.br/en/ 16 Oct. 2022.
  » https://www.biofilica.com.br/en/
• Börner J, Wunder S, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, Tito MR, Pereira L, Nascimento N. 2010. Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications. Ecological Economics 69:1272-1282. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.003
• Castro EA, Kauffman JB. 1998. Ecosystem structure in the Brazilian Cerrado: A vegetation gradient of aboveground biomass, root mass and consumption by fire. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14: 263-283. doi: 10.1017/S0266467498000212
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467498000212
• Chave J, Réjou‐Méchain M, Búrquez A et al 2014. Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Global Change Biology 20: 3177-3190. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12629
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12629
• Chew SC. 2001. World ecological degradation: Accumulation, urbanization, and deforestation, 3000 B.C-A.D 2000. United States of America, Rowman Altamira.
• Costanza R, d'Arge R, De Groot R et al 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
• Cotta MK, Jacovine LAG, Paiva HND, Soares CPB, Virgens Filho ADC, Valverde SR. 2008. Quantificação de biomassa e geração de certificados de emissões reduzidas no consórcio seringueira-cacau. Revista Árvore 32: 969-978. doi: 10.1590/S0100-67622008000600002
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-67622008000600002
• Coutinho LM. 1990. Fire in the tropical biota-ecosystem processes and global challenges. Ecological Studies 84: 82-105. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-75395-4_6
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75395-4_6
• Dashboard of the Observatory of Knowledge and Innovation in Bioeconomy. 2023. https://portal.fgv.br/en/news/bioeconomy-observatory-launches-report-fuel-source-decarbonization 01 Feb. 2023.
  » https://portal.fgv.br/en/news/bioeconomy-observatory-launches-report-fuel-source-decarbonization
• Delitti WBC, Meguro M, Pausas JG. 2006. Biomass and mineralmass estimates in a" cerrado" ecosystem. Brazilian Journal of Botany 29: 531-540. doi: 10.1590/S0100-84042006000400003
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-84042006000400003
• Ecosystem Marketplace. 2023. An initiative of Forest Trends. https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com 28 Feb. 2023.
  » https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com
• Ecosystem Marketplace. 2022. Turning over a new leaf: state of forest carbon markets 2014. Washington. DC. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/sofcm-all-edits-112114-pdf.pdf#page=105.08 10 Apr. 2022.
  » https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/sofcm-all-edits-112114-pdf.pdf#page=105.08
• Eichhorn SE, Evert RF. 2019. Raven: Biologia Vegetal. 8th. edn. Rio de Janeiro, Guanabara Koogan.
• Euler AMC. 2016. O acordo de Paris e o futuro do REDD+ no Brasil. In: VICENTE MCP (ed.). Mudanças climáticas: desafio do século. Rio de Janeiro, Fundação Konrad Adenaeur. p. 85-104.
• FAO. 2020. Faostat: Emissions Database. http://clh-ckan.apps.fao.org/dataset/tools-for-greenhouse-gas-assessments/resource/a6be05c2-ebef-4c03-83e7-4a596819d561 06 June 2022.
  » http://clh-ckan.apps.fao.org/dataset/tools-for-greenhouse-gas-assessments/resource/a6be05c2-ebef-4c03-83e7-4a596819d561
• Fearnside PM, Righ CA, Alencastro Graça PML et al 2009. Biomass and greenhouse-gas emissions from land-use change in Brazil's Amazonian “arc of deforestation”: The states of Mato Grosso and Rondônia. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 1968-1978. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.07.042
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.07.042
• Fearnside PM. 2008. Quantificação do serviço ambiental do carbono nas florestas amazônicas brasileiras. Oecologia Australis 12: 743-756. doi:10.4257/oeco.2008.1204.12
  » https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2008.1204.12
• Fernandes AHBM, Salis SM, Fernandes FA, Crispim SMA. 2008. Estoques de carbono do estrato arbóreo de cerrados no Pantanal da Nhecolândia. Comunicado Técnico 68. Corumbá, Embrapa Pantanal.
• Ferro M. 2017. A colonização explicada a todos. São Paulo, Editora Unesp.
• Flora e Funga do Brasil. 2024. Jardim Botânico do Rio de janeiro. https://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/ 23 Apr. 2024.
  » https://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/
• Franco AC, Rossatto DR, Carvalho Ramos Silva L, Silva Ferreira C. 2014. Cerrado vegetation and global change: the role of functional types, resource availability and disturbance in regulating plant community responses to rising CO2 levels and climate warming. Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology 26: 19-38. doi: 10.1007/s40626-014-0002-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s40626-014-0002-6
• Gatti LV, Basso LS, Miller JB et al 2021. Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change. Nature 595: 388-393. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03629-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03629-6
• Godoy SGM. 2009. Uma análise do mercado mundial de certificados de carbono. Revista Cronos 10: 77-99.
• Gómez-Baggethun E, De Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C. 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69: 1209-1218. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007
• Goodland R. 1971. A Physiognomic analysis of the 'Cerrado' Vegetation of Central Brazil. Journal of Ecology 59: 411-419. doi: 10.2307/2258321
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/2258321
• Gurevitch J, Scheiner SM, Fox GA. 2009. Ecologia Vegetal. 2nd. edn. Porto Alegre, Artmed.
• IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2018. IBGE/Paises. https://paises.ibge.gov.br/#/mapa/brasil 15 Feb. 2022.
  » https://paises.ibge.gov.br/#/mapa/brasil
• IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gases Inventories. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/ 15 Dec. 2023.
  » https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/
• Klink CA, Machado RBA. 2005. Conservação do Cerrado brasileiro. Megadiversidade 1: 147-155.
• Lang J. 2013. Portuguese Brazil: The king's plantation. 2nd. edn. New York, Academic Press Inc.
• Lopes RB, Miola DTB. 2010. Sequestro de carbono em diferentes fitofisionomias do cerrado. SYNTHESIS Revistal Digital FAPAM 2: 127-143.
• Marimon AS, Lima MT. 2019. Caminhos para a sustentabilidade da vida: revisão teórica e diálogo com as práticas de mulheres coletoras da Rede de Sementes do Xingu, Brasil. Otra Economia 12: 220-237.
• Marimon BS, Marimon-Junior BH, Feldpausch TR et al 2014. Disequilibrium and hyperdynamic tree turnover at the forest-cerrado transition zone in southern Amazonia. Plant Ecology & Diversity 7: 281-292. doi: 10.1080/17550874.2013.818072
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/17550874.2013.818072
• Marques EQ, Marimon Junior BH, Marimon BS, Matricardi EA, Mews HA, Colli GR. 2020. Redefining the Cerrado-Amazonia transition: Implications for conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 29: 1501-1517. doi: 10.1007/s10531-019-01720-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01720-z
• Marques JF, Comune AE. 1997. A teoria neoclássica e a valoração ambiental. EMBRAPA Meio Ambiente. https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/12710/a-teoria-neoclassica-e-a-valoracao-ambiental 15 Dec. 2023.
  » https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/12710/a-teoria-neoclassica-e-a-valoracao-ambiental
• Mattei L, Rosso S. 2014. Evolução do mercado de pagamento por serviços ecossistêmicos no Brasil: evidências a partir do setor hídrico. Boletim Regional, Urbano e Ambiental - IPEA 9: 33-48.
• MEA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and water. Washington, World Resources Institute.
• Miguel EP, Rezende AV, Leal FA, Matricardi EAT, Vale ATD, Pereira RS. 2015. Redes neurais artificiais para a modelagem do volume de madeira e biomassa do cerradão com dados de satélite. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 50: 829-839. doi: 10.1590/S0100-204X2015000900012
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2015000900012
• Milder JC, Scherr SJ, Bracer C. 2010. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society 15: 19.
• Miranda HS. 2010. Efeitos do regime de fogo sobre a estrutura de comunidades de Cerrado: Projeto Fogo. Brasília, Ibama.
• Miranda JC. 2009. Sucessão ecológica: conceitos, modelos e perspectivas. SaBios-Revista de Saúde e Biologia 4: 31-37.
• Miranda SDC, Bustamante M, Palace M, Hagen S, Keller M, Ferreira LG. 2014. Regional variations in biomass distribution in Brazilian savanna woodland. Biotropica 46: 125-138. doi: 10.1111/btp.12095
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12095
• MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2004. Mapa de Biomas do Brasil- Primeira Aproximação. Brasília. https://antigo.mma.gov.br/biomas.html 01 Feb. 2022.
  » https://antigo.mma.gov.br/biomas.html
• MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2016. A Estratégia Nacional para REDD+ do Brasil. Brasília. https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br 01 Feb. 2022.
  » https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br
• MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2020. FORESTS+ CARBON. https://antigo.mma.gov.br/informma/item/15875-minist%C3%A9rio-do-meio-ambiente-lan%C3%A7a-floresta-carbono.html 01 Feb. 2022.
  » https://antigo.mma.gov.br/informma/item/15875-minist%C3%A9rio-do-meio-ambiente-lan%C3%A7a-floresta-carbono.html
• MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2022. https://antigo.mma.gov.br/ 01 Feb. 2022.
  » https://antigo.mma.gov.br/
• Morais VA, Scolforo JRS, Silva CA, Mello JMD, Gomide LR, Oliveira ADD. 2013. Estoques de carbono e biomassa de um fragmento de cerradão em Minas Gerais, Brasil. Cerne 19: 237-245. doi: 10.1590/S0104-77602013000200007
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-77602013000200007
• Morandi PS, Marimon BS, Marimon-Junior BH et al 2020. Tree diversity and above-ground biomass in the South America Cerrado biome and their conservation implications. Biodiversity and Conservation 29: 1519-1536. doi: 10.1007/s10531-018-1589-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1589-8
• National Geographic Brasil. 2023. Savana com flora mais biodiversa do mundo, Cerrado perde área para agropecuária. https://www.nationalgeographicbrasil.com/natgeo-ilustra/cerrado 13 Mar. 2023.
  » https://www.nationalgeographicbrasil.com/natgeo-ilustra/cerrado
• Nepstad DC, Boyd W, Stickler CM, Bezerra T, Azevedo AA. 2013. Responding to climate change and the global land crisis: REDD+, market transformation and low-emissions rural development. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368: 1-13. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0167
  » https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0167
• Paiva AO, Rezende AV, Pereira RS. 2011. Estoque de carbono em cerrado sensu stricto do Distrito Federal. Revista Árvore 35: 527-538. doi: 10.1590/S0100-67622011000300015
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-67622011000300015
• Paiva DS, Fernandez LG, Ventura AC, Alvarez G, Andrade JCS. 2015. Mercado voluntário de carbono: análises de cobenefícios de projetos brasileiros. Revista de Administração Contemporânea 19: 45-64. doi: 10.1590/1982-7849rac20151240
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac20151240
• Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J et al 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333(6045): 988-993. doi: 10.1126/science.120160
  » https://doi.org/10.1126/science.120160
• Reis SM, Lenza E, Marimon BS et al 2015. Post-fire dynamics of the woody vegetation of a savanna forest (Cerradão) in the Cerrado-Amazon transition zone. Acta Botanica Brasilica 29: 408-416. doi: 10.1590/0102-33062015abb0009
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-33062015abb0009
• Reset. 2023. Guia de Créditos de Carbono: Tudo que você precisa saber sobre créditos de carbono. https://materiais.capitalreset.com/guia-reset-de-creditos-de-carbono 06 July 2023.
  » https://materiais.capitalreset.com/guia-reset-de-creditos-de-carbono
• Rezende AV, Vale AD, Sanquetta CR, Figueiredo Filho A, Felfili JM. 2006. Comparação de modelos matemáticos para estimativa do volume, biomassa e estoque de carbono da vegetação lenhosa de um cerrado sensu stricto em Brasília, DF. Scientia Forestalis 71: 65-73.
• Ribeiro JF, Walter BMT. 2008. As principais fitofisionomias do bioma Cerrado. In: Sano SM, Almeida SP, Ribeiro JF (eds.). Cerrado: ecologia e flora. Brasília, Embrapa. p.151-212.
• Ribeiro SC, Fehrmann L, Soares CPB, Jacovine LAG, Kleinn C, Oliveira Gaspar R. 2011. Above-and belowground biomass in a Brazilian Cerrado. Forest Ecology and Management 262: 491-499. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.017
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.017
• Ronquim C, Zuccari M, Quartaroli C, Criscuolo C. 2008. Dinâmica espaço temporal do uso das terras e do carbono aprisionado pela fitomassa da cana-de-açúcar e pastagem na região nordeste do estado de São Paulo. In: Simpósio Brasileiro de Agroenergia. Londrina, SIAGRE. p. 1-4.
• Rother ET. 2007. Revisión sistemática X Revisión narrativa. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem 20: 5-6. doi: 10.1590/S0103-21002007000200001
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-21002007000200001
• Salles GP, Salinas DTP, Paulino SR. 2017. Execução de Projetos de REDD+ no Brasil por meio de diferentes modalidades de financiamento. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural 55: 445-464. doi: 10.1590/1234-56781806-94790550302
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1234-56781806-94790550302
• Sano SM. (1998). Cerrado: ambiente e flora. Brasília, Embrapa Informação Tecnológica.
• Sanquetta CR, Bastos A, Ferronato ML, Sanquetta M, Corte AP. 2019. Fatores de expansão e de conversão de biomassa e razão de raízes em povoamentos de restauração florestal em Rondônia. Enciclopédia Biosfera 16: 871-881. doi: 10.18677/EnciBio_2019A70
  » https://doi.org/10.18677/EnciBio_2019A70
• Santos LAC, Miranda SC, Silva Neto CDM. 2020. Fitofisionomias do Cerrado: definições e tendências. Élisée - Revista de Geografia da UEG 9: 1-32.
• Santos P, Brito B, Maschietto F, Osório G, Monzoni M. 2012. Marco regulatório sobre pagamento por serviços ambientais no Brasil. Belém, IMAZON/FGV.
• Sawyer D, Mesquita B, Coutinho B, Almeida FV, Figueiredo I, Eloy L. 2017. Perfil do ecossistema hotspot de biodiversidade do Cerrado. Brasília, Supernova Design.
• Scolforo HF, Scolforo JRS, Mello CR, Mello JM, Ferraz Filho AC. 2015. Spatial distribution of aboveground carbon stock of the arboreal vegetation in Brazilian biomes of Savanna, Atlantic Forest and Semi-Arid Woodland. PLoS One 10: 1-20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128781
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128781
• Scolforo JRS, Rufini AL, Mello JM et al 2008. Equações para o peso de matéria seca das fisionomias, em Minas Gerais. In: Scolforo JR, Oliveira AD, Acerbi Júnior FW (eds.). Inventário Florestal de Minas Gerais - Equações de Volume, Peso de Matéria Seca e Carbono para Diferentes Fisionomias da Flora Nativa. Lavras, UFLA. p. 103-114.
• Silva CL, Bassêto LI. 2012. Mercado de carbono e instituições: oportunidades na busca por um novo modelo de desenvolvimento. Interciência 37: 08-13. doi: 0378-1844/12/01/008-06$300/0
  » https://doi.org/0378-1844/12/01/008-06$300/0
• Silva LC, Hoffmann WA, Rossatto DR, Haridasan M, Franco AC, Horwath WR. 2013. Can savannas become forests? A coupled analysis of nutrient stocks and fire thresholds in central Brazil. Plant and Soil 373: 829-842. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1822-x
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-013-1822-x
• Silveira CS, Oliveira L. 2021. Análise do mercado de carbono no Brasil: histórico e desenvolvimento. Novos Cadernos NAEA 24: 11-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.18542/ncn.v24i3.9354
  » https://doi.org/10.18542/ncn.v24i3.9354
• Silveira P, Koehler HS, Sanquetta CR, Arce JE. 2008. O estado da arte na estimativa de biomassa e carbono em formações florestais. Floresta 38: 1-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.5380/rf.v38i1.11038
  » https://doi.org/10.5380/rf.v38i1.11038
• Taiz L, Zeiger E, Møller IM, Murphy A. 2017. Fisiologia e desenvolvimento vegetal. 6th. edn. Porto Alegre, Artmed .
• Terra MC, Nunes MH, Souza CR et al 2023. The inverted forest: Aboveground and notably large belowground carbon stocks and their drivers in Brazilian savannas. Science of The Total Environment 867: 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161320
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161320
• Tosto SG, Belarmino LC, Romeiro AR, Rodrigues CAG. 2015. Valoração de serviços ecossistêmicos: metodologias e estudos de caso. Brasília, EMBRAPA.
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 1997. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/documents/2409 15 Feb. 2022.
  » https://unfccc.int/documents/2409
• Vargas DB, Delazeri LMM, Ferrera VHP. 2022. O avanço do mercado voluntário de carbono no Brasil: desafios estruturais, técnicos e científicos. Escola de Economia de São Paulo. https://eesp.fgv.br/centros/observatorios/bioeconomia 16 Apr. 2024.
  » https://eesp.fgv.br/centros/observatorios/bioeconomia
• Votorantim. 2002. CBA e Reservas Votorantim vão emitir o primeiro crédito de carbono do Cerrado na América Latina. https://www.votorantim.com.br/pt/cba-e-reservas-votorantim-vao-emitir-o-primeiro-credito-de-carbono-do-cerrado-na-america-latina-2/ 16 Apr. 2024.
  » https://www.votorantim.com.br/pt/cba-e-reservas-votorantim-vao-emitir-o-primeiro-credito-de-carbono-do-cerrado-na-america-latina-2/
• Watzlawick LF, Kirchner FF, Sanquetta CR. 2009. Estimativa de biomassa e carbono em floresta com araucária utilizando imagens do satélite IKONOS II. Ciência Florestal 19: 169-181. doi: 10.5902/19805098408
  » https://doi.org/10.5902/19805098408
• Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH. 2015. Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecological Indicators 55: 159-171. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016
• World Bank. 2022. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2022. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/37455 16 Apr. 2024.
  » http://hdl.handle.net/10986/37455
• Worm B, Duffy JE. 2003. Biodiversity, productivity and stability in real food webs. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18: 628-632. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2003.09.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.09.003

Edited by

• Editor Chef:
  Thais Almeida

• Associate Editor:
  Vanessa Rezende

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 Nov 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  23 Aug 2023
• Accepted
  22 July 2024
• Corrected
  27 Mar 2025