Environmental Governance in the Paraiba do Sul River Basin (SP, Brazil): the restoration master plan

Gobernanza ambiental en la cuenca del río Paraíba do Sul (SP, Brasil): el Plan Maestro de Restauración

Abstract

In recent decades, public policies have been crucial in addressing global challenges. In Brazil, environmental regulation has advanced, notably through the National Water Resources Policy, the Native Vegetation Protection Policy and the Atlantic Forest Law. Solid institutional and governance arrangements are essential to ensure effective actions. This study analyzed the development of the Restoration Master Plan for the Paraíba do Sul River Basin, by the São Paulo River Basin Committee, using Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis framework (IAD). The objective was to understand it’s governance process, especially with respect to the participatory approach, initially proposed. However, the challenge of integrating, above all, rural producers persisted. Among the competing points of view, the prevailing one favored the prioritization of strategic areas for ecological restoration.

Keywords:
Institutional Analysis; Paraíba do Sul River Basin; Public Policies; Environmental Governance; Ecological Restoration

Resumo

Nas últimas décadas, as políticas públicas têm sido cruciais para enfrentar problemas globais. No Brasil, a regulação ambiental avançou com destaque para a Política Nacional de Recursos Hídricos, a Lei de Proteção da Vegetação Nativa e a Lei da Mata Atlântica. Para garantir ações eficazes, são necessários arranjos institucionais e de governança sólidos. Foi analisada a construção do Plano Diretor de Restauração para a UGRHI 02 - Vale do Paraíba do Sul (SP), pela Análise Institucional de Ostrom. O objetivo foi entender a governança de seu processo de construção, principalmente em relação à abordagem participativa, como proposto inicialmente. Os resultados indicaram a capacidade de aprendizagem e adaptação do sistema, bem como o envolvimento de entidades públicas e da sociedade civil. Contudo, o gargalo da integração não foi superado, sobretudo junto ao produtor rural. Entre as visões em disputa, prevaleceu a perspectiva sobre estabelecer áreas prioritárias de restauração.

Palavras-chave:
Análise Institucional; Bacia do Paraíba do Sul; Políticas Públicas; Governança Ambiental; Restauração Ecológica

Resumen

En las últimas décadas, las políticas públicas han sido cruciales para enfrentar problemas globales. En Brasil, la regulación ambiental avanzó destacando la Política Nacional de Recursos Hídricos, la Ley de Protección de la Vegetación Nativa y la Ley de la Mata Atlántica. Para garantizar acciones eficaces, son necesarios sólidos arreglos institucionales y de gobernanza. Se analizó el desarrollo del Plan Maestro de Restauración de la Cuenca del Río Paraíba do Sul (SP), mediante el Análisis Institucional de Ostrom. El objetivo fue comprender la gobernanza de su proceso de construcción, principalmente sobre el enfoque participativo, como se propuso inicialmente. Los resultados indicaron la capacidad de aprendizaje y adaptación del sistema, con participación de entidades públicas y la sociedad civil. Sin embargo, el cuello de botella de la integración no fue superado, sobre todo junto al productor rural. Entre las visiones en disputa, prevaleció la perspectiva sobre establecer áreas prioritarias de restauración.

Palabras-clave:
Análisis Institucional; Cuenca del Río Paraíba do Sul; Políticas Públicas; Gobernanza ambiental; Restauración Ecológica

Introduction

Public policies can be defined as institutionalized proposals that aim to solve relevant problems (Lassance, 2020). In the last 30 years in Brazil, there have been clear advances in environmental regulation, notably through the National Water Resources Policy (Law nº 9433, 1997), the Native Vegetation Protection Policy (Law nº 12.651, 2012), and the Atlantic Forest Law (Law nº 11.428, 2006). In this context, ecological restoration, the process of reestablishing a damaged, degraded, or destroyed ecosystem (Gann et al, 2019), has achieved global relevance through targets such as the Bonn Challenge and the 20x20 Initiative, incorporated into the National Policy for Native Vegetation Recovery (Decree nº 8.972, 2017). The issue accomplished even greater prominence with the establishment of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030), which aims to prevent, halt, and reverse ecosystem degradation across all continents and oceans (Organização das Nações Unidas, 2021).

In Brazil, one way of implementing these goals is through the River Basin Committees and their River Basin Plans, which are management tools designed to guide the recovery, protection, and conservation of water resources within a given watershed (Law nº 9433, 1997). This instrument directs the allocation of public funds, such as those from the State Water Resources Fund (FEHIDRO), toward actions for the protection of water bodies and river basins, including restoration. In this context, Ecological Restoration Master Plans (public policy planning tools) can enhance biodiversity conservation and water resource management. These plans should prioritize areas for restoration, propose methodologies, and indicate actions to strengthen the local restoration chain, among other aspects (Coordenadoria de Fiscalização e Biodiversidade [CFB], 2021). Despite a favorable institutional scenario, the effective implementation of such plans and policies faces significant challenges, particularly in governance (Moura, 2016).

Governance can be understood as an umbrella term due to its broad use in political, economic, and scientific contexts (Tortajada, 2010; Jacobi & Sinisgalli, 2012). For some authors, it refers to the process of building an arrangement among the public and private sectors with specific rules for decision-making on common issues (Arts & Visseren-Hamakers, 2012; Mansourian, 2017; Buzati et al., 2023). This model is considered an improvement over the traditional centralized and hierarchical governance, in which the State holds exclusive power in the formulation of public policies (Adams et al., 2020). According to Kooiman (1993), in this way, government limitations can be overcome, since ‘no stakeholder, public or private, possesses either the knowledge or the information to solve complex, dynamic, and diverse problems’.

Environmental governance processes, therefore, imply the active involvement of stakeholders, shared responsibilities, consensus building, transparency, and accountability (Davoudi et al., 2008; van Oosten, 2013; Ribeiro & Johnsson, 2018). The multiplicity of stakeholders, such as the State, private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), funding institutions, and consumers, implies different interests at stake (Buzati et al., 2023). Thus, conflict resolution mechanisms are necessary to uphold the commitments established between stakeholders (Oliveira et al., 2022).

Using the development of a Restoration Master Plan for the Paraiba do Sul River Basin (RMP-UGRHI 02), in Sao Paulo state, Brazil, as a case study, this research aimed to understand whether its building process occurred in a participatory manner, as initially proposed. Secondly, it sought to analyze which interests were in dispute, and whether the Plan was able to reconcile them, or not. Ultimately, the study seeks to assess the effectiveness of the governance process by balancing losses and gains among different competing interests.

Methods

Study Area

The Paraiba do Sul River Basin (UGRHI 02) is located between Serra da Mantiqueira and Serra do Mar Mountain ranges in Sao Paulo state. It encompasses 14,510 km² and covers 39 municipalities, five of which belong to the Alto Tiete River Basin (UGRHI 06). The region has a population of 2.2 million inhabitants, mostly located in urban centers such as São José dos Campos, Taubate, and Jacarei (Sistema Estadual de Análise de Dados [SEADE], 2022). The middle portion of the basin, from Cruzeiro to Bananal, houses only 5% of the population (SEADE, 2022). Most of the basin municipalities (22) have a High Municipal Development Index (HDI-M), between 0.700-0.799, while 10 have a Medium HDI-M (0.550-0.699) and two have a Very High HDI-M (above 0.800) (Atlas do Desenvolvimento Humano no Brasil [AtlasBR], 2010)

The Paraiba do Sul River Basin occupation began in the colonial period, when it served as a passage route for the gold produced in the hinterland to reach the seaports for exportation. During the XIX century coffee cycle, it lost most of its lowland forest cover (Devide et al., 2014). From the XX century, the region underwent major changes in its economy, with the expansion of dairy and rice farming, and eucalyptus and pine commercial plantations (International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] & World Resources Institute [WRI], 2014). Its location between the main cities of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, combined with the pre-existence of railways from the coffee cycle and the construction of the Presidente Dutra highway (1951), led to a growth in urbanization, industrialization, and population (Pinto & Siqueira, 2019). From the 2000s onwards, there was an increase in the services sector (Cardoso & Almeida, 2013).

The predominant native biome in the river basin is Atlantic Forest (tropical rainforest), with Cerrado remnants (tropical savanna) and ecotones (Governo de São Paulo, 2017). Presently, only 33% of its natural vegetation remains (Padovezi et al., 2018), most of which in the municipalities of São José do Barreiro (60.7%) and Bananal (51.2%); on the other hand, Potim has the lowest rate of native vegetation cover (6.1%: Nalon et al., 2022). Its morphoclimatic domain is the tropical-Atlantic, subject to flooding of floodplains and mass flow on sloping topography caused by high-intensity summer rains (Ab’Sáber, 2000).

The RMP-UGRHI 02

The Paraiba do Sul River Basin Committee (RBC-PS) developed its Restoration Master Plan (RMP) between 2022 and 2024. The project originated from an evaluation by its Technical Chamber of Forest Restoration (TC-REF) regarding the need to direct resources and restoration actions to this basin in 2021. The RMP, valid for 12 years, aims to ‘strengthen and expand local and regional expertise for scaling up of forest restoration initiatives in UGRHI 02 in an integrated manner with the Paraiba do Sul River Basin Plan (RBP-PS)’ (p. 14). The RMP-UGRHI 02 was divided into two parts: the Diagnosis and the Action Plan.

The RMP-UGRHI 02 project was carried out by the NGO Iniciativa Verde by induced demand of TC-REF, and financed by FEHIDRO. Five local NGOs (Akarui, H&H Fauser, SerrAcima, Sindicato Rural de Cruzeiro e Lavrinhas, and Suina) were contracted to collect regional data, such as restoration actions, and map the nurseries for seedlings and seeds (the articulating organizations). The writing of both the Diagnosis and the Action Plan was carried out in collaboration with three other NGOs (the consulting organizations - Ekos Brasil, Corredor Ecológico do Vale do Paraíba, and SerrAcima). Finally, public entities (such as municipal departments, universities, and environmental agencies), private entities (companies and civil society organizations - CSOs), and small rural producers indirectly participated in the construction of the Plan.

The project was designed in a participatory manner, with the main local restoration stakeholders at UGRHI 02. To this end, in addition to participation in 11 meetings, two conferences on the Restoration of Paraiba Valley were held in 2022 and in 2023 (named Restaura Vale do Paraiba). Both had the intention of bringing restoration stakeholders together to exchange experiences and to contribute to both the RMP Diagnosis and Action Plan.

In order to elaborate the Diagnosis, primary and secondary data were systematized. Primary data were collected in meetings and consultations with experts and stakeholders such as researchers, government agents, rural producers, and members of forest restoration institutions. This document was subdivided into three diagnosis sections. The first, Environmental Diagnosis, addresses land-use history, the biophysical environment, and aspects of the regional forest restoration chain. The Environmental Regulations section consist of a database of environmental regulations related to restoration enacted between 1981 and 2023 at the national, state, and municipal levels. Finally, the Funding Sources section compiles available financial resources and economic instruments for forest restoration.

The RMP-UGRHI 02’s Action Plan was prepared through triangulation of primary data (from 11 interviews carried out with different stakeholders of UGRHI 02 and the state and federal government) and secondary data (the RPM diagnosis and the RBP-PS). Five complementary strategic programs were structured: Governance and Territorial Articulation; Spatial Planning and Data Management; UGRHI 02 Forest Micro Basins Restoration; Research, Development, and Innovation; and TC-REF Institutional Strengthening. Actions were associated with each program, including Deadlines; Organization in Charge; FEHIDRO Budget Estimate; Ongoing Program; RBP-PS Similar Actions (2020-2031); Possible Partnerships and Financing Alternative or Complementary Sources; Goals; and Indicators.

For two years, TC-REF monitored the project development through monthly meetings of the Chamber and, mainly, through the established TC-REF Monitoring Working Group (WG). These forums served to update those present on the Plan activities, as well as to present and discuss information, in view of a participatory approach. The RBC-PS approved the final version of the Plan in December 2024.

Institutional Analysis

To evaluate the governance of the RMP-UGRHI 02’s construction, Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) was applied, although with no intention of analyzing all of its components. The IAD is a theoretical-methodological framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (1990), used as a tool for diagnosing public policies and the management of common pool resources (Capelari et al., 2017). This framework is based on the analysis of stakeholder interactions in an action arena, in which institutional rules at play are observed (Silva Filho et al., 2009). Ostrom, therefore, was able to develop an analytical structure to identify successful cases of natural resource governance that were sustained over time based on the understanding of institutional patterns (Sanches, 2015).

This institutional theory (adapted and schematized in Figure 1) is based on the action arena. Within the action arena, one can identify action situations where individuals and organizations interact, make management decisions, resolve conflicts, or exercise their dominance over others. This analytical concept allows a researcher to separate key elements that influence the process under investigation, as well as discover patterns in human behavior and results, and influence decisions. Likewise, it is important to identify groups of stakeholders and the position that each one occupies in the arena. From this, assess whether agents have access to reliable information and control over the situation; and identify potential outcomes, costs and benefits of a given action (Sanches, 2015).

The action arena, in turn, is influenced or modified by three basic interdependent categories external to it: biophysical conditions, community attributes and rules-in-use. Biophysical conditions are delimited by the geographic area to be analyzed. Community attributes encompass shared cultural traits and values between social agents involved, local community, NGOs, technicians, academic researchers, among others (Oliveira et al., 2021). Rules-in-use are formal (norms and laws) or informal rules that govern behavior of social agents and define who should (by obligation) or not (by prohibition), who can or cannot (by permission) exercise certain actions (Sanches et al., 2021).

Regarding the other elements, interactions are produced by deliberations, conflicts or investment activities between different stakeholders. Action situations shape interactions and vice versa - the interaction patterns produced are capable of feeding back into action situations, affecting the stakeholders themselves. From interactions, specific results are produced, which feed back into both the action arena and external factors, creating a learning process for stakeholders, that reevaluate actions and results (Capelari et al., 2017). Finally, the evaluation criteria must qualify interactions and results, to identify errors and successes, and improve planned actions. These criteria can be established by agents themselves or by external observers (Sanches, 2015).

Figure 1
The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework of the Restoration Master Plan for the Paraiba do Sul River Basin, Sao Paulo portion, Brazil

The action arena analyzed was the Master Plan construction process, which was developed in different action-situations within the scope of the RBC-PS: the TC-REF meetings, the WG meetings, and the two Restaura Vale do Paraiba events. In this sense, the data collected - from January 2022 to May 2024 - mainly includes the themes and actions discussed in the action-situations and their developments, and a survey and characterization of the main social stakeholders involved. The biophysical conditions and the rules-in-use (formal institutional arrangements) were collected from the Master Plan Diagnosis.

As for the participation of stakeholders in the development of the RMP-UGRHI 02, systematized in Table 3, their attendance frequency was analyzed. For the meetings, frequency was calculated as the number of times the group of stakeholders from each sector was present relative to the total number of meetings, whereas for the events, it was measured as the number of participants from each sector in relation to the total number of participants.

The primary data were collected through participant observation (Bernard, 2006) by the first two authors in several of these action situations, respectively, an intern at the NGO Initiative Verde (responsible for monitoring the RMP-UGRHI 02) and a researcher at São Paulo State University (UNESP). Both also have previous experience in the region. Secondary data were obtained through document analysis of the materials made available by Iniciativa Verde, which included the minutes and reports of actions situation with different stakeholders, as well as the documents used to prepare the Diagnosis and Action Plan of the Restoration Master Plan. The data obtained from the document analysis were triangulated with the information gathered through participant observation.

Results and Discussion

External Variables

The content of the RMP was subdivided into: Environmental Diagnosis, Environmental Regulations, and Financing Sources. The Environmental Diagnosis mainly addressed the biophysical characterization of the region (Table 1), but also socioeconomic aspects.

Table 1
Topics related to the Biophysical Environment addressed in the Environmental Diagnosis of the Master Plan for Restoration of the Paraíba do Sul River Basin, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Topic	Subtopic	References
Diagnosis of the Biophysical Environment	Land use and cover	MapBiomas/collection 07 (2022); Padovezi et al. (2018); Gastauer et al. (2021); Ribeiro (2021); Brancalion et al. (2015); Floristic inventory of Sao Paulo State (Governo de São Paulo. 2020)
	Native vegetation cover	Map of Sao Paulo State Biomes (Resolução SMA nº 146, 2017); SOS Mata Atlântica Foundation & INPE (2021); IBGE (2012); Mittermeier & Rylands (2018); Myers et al. (2000); Floristic inventory of Sao Paulo State (Governo de São Paulo. 2020)
	Relief Characterization	Padovezi et al. (2018); Brazil’s Forest Code (Lei nº 12651, 2012); NASADEM, CBH-PS (accessed in 2022)
	Water Aspects - General Characterization	FDBS (2015); Regea (2016); Regea (2021); IBGE, CBH-PS, AGEVAP (accessed in 2023)
	Water Aspects - Water Recharge Area	Regea (2016); MC geologia e meio ambiente et al. (2008); CBH-PS, Projeto Recarga (accessed in 2023)
	Soil Export Estimate	Padovezi et al. (2018); Geomorphology technical manual (IBGE,2009); Ribeiro (2015)
	Protected Areas in UGRHI 02	SNUC (Lei nº 9985, 2000); Sampaio et al. (2021); Regea (2016); DATAGEO/SP (s.d.); IBGE, CBH-PS (accessed in 2023)
	SMA Resolution 07/17	Environmental Compensation (Resolução SMA nº 07, 2017); CBH-PS (accessed in 2023)
	Rural land and environmental liabilities	SICAR (registered until December 2021); Land reform (Lei nº 8629, 1993); Padovezi et al. (2018); Vegetation Protection (Lei nº12651, 2012); Murakami et al. (2023); Moreira et al. (2016); Brancalion et al. (2019b)
	UGRHI 02 restoration potential	Regea (2021); Silva et al. (2016); Sapucci et al. (2021); Lemos et al (2021); Padovezi et al. (2018); Ribeiro (2021)
Integration between physical-environmental aspects	Sub-watersheds	Bustamante et al. (2019); CBH-PS (accessed in 2023), MapBiomas (2022), Floristic inventory of Sao Paulo State (Governo de São Paulo. 2020); Padovezi et al. (2018)
	Water Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs)	FBDS (2015); CBH-PS (accessed in 2023), MapBiomas (2022), Floristic inventory of Sao Paulo (Governo de São Paulo, 2020); Padovezi et al. (2018)
	Recharge areas	Da Silva (2015); CBH-PS (accessed in 2023), MapBiomas (2022), Floristic inventory of Sao Paulo State (Governo de São Paulo. 2020)
	Land Use and Cover of Protected Areas	CBH-PS (accessed in 2023), MapBiomas (2022), Floristic inventory of Sao Paulo State (Governo de São Paulo. 2020)
	Synthesis of integration of physical elements	SOS Mata Atlantica Foundation & INPE (2021) Silva et al. (2016); Padovezi et al. (2018); Floristic inventory of Sao Paulo State (Governo de São Paulo. 2020), MapBiomas (2022)
	Integration with River Basin Plan (RBP-PS)	Regea (2021); Brancalion et al. (2019a); Melo et al. (2020); PEDRR (2010)

• Source: Authors, 2026.

Of the 16 variables included in the biophysical characterization, three were related to vegetation cover, four to land use, and six to water resources, indicating a high importance attributed to these three variables, especially water resources. As the RMP-UGRHI 02 was a demand induced by the Basin Committee, the emphasis given to water resources by the organizations executing the plan is understandable. In the RBC-PS, it is possible to identify the allocation of specific financial resources (20% of the committee’s resources) for forest restoration from water resources policies implemented by the RBP-PS (FEHIDRO, 2024).

Despite this, ecological restoration should go beyond the water needs in the basin. According to Andrade et al. (2019), greater and better coordination between the segments of the forest restoration chain in the region is urgent to boost the local/regional economy, and to make feasible the fulfillment of technical standards and the adaptation of rural properties to current environmental regulations and legislation. In this work, the socioeconomic diagnosis was not evaluated, but it was observed the greater importance attributed to the biophysical dimensions in the meeting’s discussions. Conversely, socioeconomic factors have been identified as the main constraints to the implementation of forest restoration in the global south (28%: Tedesco et al., 2023) and in the Paraíba do Sul River basin (Ribeiro et al., 2023), while biophysical aspects are less frequently mentioned in the literature (13%: Tedesco et al., 2023).

Regarding the Diagnosis of Environmental Regulations, 272 legal regulations and norms created between 1981 and 2023 were mapped, with a significant increase from the 2000s onwards, especially at the municipal level. The decade from 2011 to 2020 stood out as the period with the highest production of regulations, concentrating 96 environmental policies (70 of which were municipal), which shows an intensification during that span. Between 2021 and 2023 alone, 73 new policies have already been identified, indicating that the total for the current decade (2021-2030) may exceed that recorded in the previous decade.

When analyzing the themes of environmental regulations (Appendices 1 and 2), Environmental Financing Instruments (71), Environmental Policies (68) and Environmental Agencies (39) were the categories with the highest number of standards, due to municipal policies in all three cases. The high number of regulations in these three categories demonstrates a scenario of institutional organization and resources for environmental issues in the territory. On the other hand, the scarcity of legislation dealing with agroecology, governance, and restoration indicates that the restoration chain is not fully understood in the region (Andrade et al., 2019). Only one regulation was identified on Environmental Education (National Environmental Education Policy), Fire (State Policy on Integrated Fire Management), and Association (Adhesion of the municipality of Potim to the Association of Municipalities of the Paraíba Valley and North Coast).

According to Cordeiro-Beduschi et al. (2022), formal institutional arrangements constitute an important component of forest restoration governance, since they organize the actions of social stakeholders. Thus, the regulatory tools for a given landscape, or basin, represent an important instrument to guide the actions of stakeholders and regulate land use. The aggregation of regulations is extremely important for the construction of a master plan. However, a more in-depth multilevel analysis (federal, state, and municipal) would be necessary to identify complementarities, overlaps, or conflicts in institutional arrangements, and to define who should or should not and who can or cannot carry out the actions (Sanches, 2015).

The Funding Sources Diagnosis systematized sources of resources of financial and economic instruments available in the Paraíba Valley. Twenty-three funding sources were described, both national and international; seven financial instruments, including Green Bonds; and 11 economic instruments, based on the principles of Precaution, Polluter-Pays, and Receiver-Pays. The Funding Sources Diagnosis, by itself indicates that the document is aligned with one of the bottlenecks of restoration (Tedesco et al., 2023) and points to a need of funding resources in the Paraiba Valley (Andrade et al., 2019).

Stakeholders and Action Situations

The social stakeholders who participated in the construction of the RMP-UGRHI 02 were organized and characterized in Table 2 (more details about the agents can be found in Oliveira et al. 2022 and Buzati et al. 2023). According to the methodology used, the presence of eight types of social stakeholders was observed.

Table 2
Stakeholders participating in Restoration Master Plan for the Paraíba do Sul River Basin, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Abbreviation	Social Stakeholders	Characterization
DM	Decision Maker (Iniciativa Verde)	Hiring entity and lead organization; Project executor for activity management and the delivery of the RMP-UGRHI 02.
CO	Consulting Organizations (Ekos Brasil, Corredor Ecologico do Vale do Paraíba, and SerrAcima)	Organizations contracted by the DM; Responsible for organizing and producing the technical material;
AO	Articulating Organizations (Akarui, H&H Fauser, SerrAcima, Sindicato Rural de Cruzeiro, Suinã)	Organizations contracted by the DM; Responsible for collecting local information and field data;
PSO	Public Supporting Organization (RBC-PS / TC-REF *) *and Working Group (WG)	Responsible for monitoring product delivery; The recipient institution that will apply the RMP-UGRHI 02 in the river basin.
PUBPO	Public Participating Organizations (public entities)	Restoration chain stakeholder; Indirectly involved in the RMP-UGRHI 02 project activities.
PRIVPO	Private Participating Organizations (CSOs and private for-profit entities)	Restoration chain stakeholder; Indirectly involved in the RMP-UGRHI 02 project activities.
PFO	Public Financing Organization (FEHIDRO)	Funding body; Provides financial resources but does not participate in project decision-making.
RP	Rural Producers (family work)	Seed and seedling producers/collectors; Landowners or tenants (agriculture, forestry, or livestock); Indirectly involved in the RMP-UGRHI 02 project activities.

• Source: Authors, 2026.

The Working Group met 23 times to discuss the Plan. In 2022, meetings were sporadic due to a lack of quorum, internal conflicts, and failure to schedule by the recipient. From 2023 onwards, however, meetings took place in almost every month of the year. The supporting entity and the recipient were present at all meetings (18), while consultants, the funding agency/technical agent, and coordinators participated in smaller proportions (55.6, 39.0, and 22.2%, respectively). On two occasions (11.1%), stakeholders not directly involved with the project were invited, of which only public participating entities attended, in both cases, with private participants and rural producers absent (Table 2).

The TC-REF meetings had the same pattern as the Working Group, with greater frequency from 2023 onwards. There were 12 meetings relevant to the RMP in the period analyzed. The recipient, the supporting entity, and the coordinators were always present, with an average of 18 participants per meeting; Public participants, consultants, private entities, and the funding agency participated in varying proportions, always above 40% - only the rural producer group participated below this percentage (8.3%, or one meeting: Table 3). In these action situations, the speeches, suggestions, and questions about the project were made mainly by members of the WG, the recipient, and the funding agency. Although more intense forms of engagement can strengthen and diversify the results of the meetings, the participation of some groups, especially farmers, faces significant limitations. According to Kis et al. (2022), these limitations are associated with rigid institutional structures, the predominance of neoliberal logics in nature management, and a lack of trust among the stakeholders involved.

Regarding the annual events, Restaura Vale do Paraíba 2022 had the first day dedicated to visiting areas with the application of different restoration techniques and the second day to discussing the bottlenecks and challenges of forest restoration. Fifty-nine people participated on the first day, 70 on the second, and 87 considering both days. The largest presence was of public participants, coordinators, and private participants (producers were 12.6% and 4.6% did not report institutional affiliation: Table 3). In Restaura Vale do Paraíba 2023, the first day aimed to validate the preliminary version of the Action Plan with the different stakeholders of the Vale do Paraíba and had 111 people in attendance, while the second day aimed to strengthen the Network of Restoration Stakeholders in the territory with 77 people present. The 124 people who made up the event were mostly public and private participants and coordinators (rural producers were only 8.7%: Table 3).

In general, recipients, supporters, coordinators, and public participants prevailed in the action situations, while the participation of rural producers and the technical agent was not very significant (Table 3). When comparing WG and TC-REF meetings with the two Restaura Vale do Paraíba events, participation in the latter was proportionally lower for the recipient, consultant, supporter, and funder, but the opposite occurred for the coordinating organizations, public and private participants, and rural producers (Table 3). These results agree with Kiss et al. (2022), who observed that the participation of public and private organizations is structural and usually higher in environmental councils, as reflected in the creation and execution of public policies.

Additionally, coordinating organizations and rural producers were proportionally less present at the second event than at the first (Table 3). Furthermore, the group of farmers generally were underrepresented, even though their participation in environmental public policies increases the effectiveness of conservation results (Rolfe et al., 2021). The RMP UGRHI 02 itself points out the difficulty of mobilizing rural producers, the main stakeholder in restoration actions, as a bottleneck and a challenge (p. 261). Overcoming the small interest of rural producers in restoration due to low financial incentives, difficulty in accessing resources and information, or the perception of the unfeasibility of agricultural production linked to forest restoration, is an important step towards advancing environmental governance and forest restoration (Adams et al., 2021; Gardon & Santos, 2024).

Regarding the technical agent, representing the funding entity, its role was performed by a member of the State Secretariat for the Environment, Infrastructure and Logistics (SEMIL) until September 2023, with attendance at 58.3% of the WG meetings and all TC-REF meetings. After this period, the funding entity was absent from the RMP construction process, which may have affected its governance, especially regarding the balance of participation of the stakeholders. Regarding private landowners, their presence was driven by CSOs in all four action scenarios, with no record of for-profit entities in meetings, such as local forestry companies. The low participation of this group, as well as farmers, aligns with the study by Buzati et al. (2018), also in the Paraíba Valley. The involvement of different stakeholders, despite increasing the system complexity, promotes the legitimacy of the process and increases chances of success of the RPF (Crouzeilles et al., 2019), as it allows the incorporation of different perspectives, knowledge, and resources. Consequently, more comprehensive solutions adapted to local needs are produced. The social stakeholders who participated in the construction of the RMP-UGRHI 02 were organized and characterized in Table 2 (more details about the agents can be found in Oliveira et al., 2022, and Buzati et al., 2023). According to the methodology used, the presence of eight types of social stakeholders was observed.

Table 3
Participation of stakeholders in the four action arenas in the construction of the Restoration Master Plan for the Paraiba do Sul River Basin, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Stakeholder	WG Meetings (%)	TC-REF Meetings (%)	Restaura 2022 (%)	Restaura 2023 (%)
DM	100.0	100.0	8.0	9.7
CO	55.6	66.7	5.8	12.1
AO	222	91.7	23.0	17.7
PSO	100.0	100.0	3.5	8.1
PUBPO	11.1	75.0	23.0	25.0
PRIVPO	0.0	50.0	19.5	19.4
PFO	39.0	41.7	0.0	0.0
RP	0.0	8.3	12.6	8.1

• Caption: DM - Decision Maker; CO - Consulting Organizations; AO - Articulating Organizations; PSO - Public Supporting Organization; PUBPO - Public Participating Organizations; PRIVPO - Private Participating Organizations; PFO - Public Financing Organization; RP - Rural Producers. For more information, see Table 2. Source: elaborated by the authors.

The Contribution of Stakeholders to the RMP-UGRHI 02

The two Restaura Vale do Paraíba events brought important contributions from stakeholders to the construction and revision of the RMP-UGRHI 02. At Restaura 2022, the needs most frequently identified by participants for strengthening the restoration chain were: rural mobilization (support for Rural Unions and FAESP/SENAR); engagement and support for rural landowners; training of technicians, nurserymen, and collectors; structuring of municipal environmental policies; greater quantity, quality, and diversity of seeds and seedlings; valuing the importance of monitoring; co-responsibility for monitoring among stakeholders in the chain; greater fundraising (by municipalities and international NGOs); and reduction of the cost of restoration and monitoring.

Given the large presence of CSOs at the event (through consultants, facilitators, and private non-profit entities), the needs identified may be associated with the perspective of such entities (Andrade et al., 2019; Cordeiro-Beduschi et al., 2022; Buzati et al., 2023). The contributions raised points already present in the Diagnosis, but addressed with little depth, mainly in relation to the monitoring of restored areas. Monitoring the restoration, for example, which aims to assess the state of the area, is a demand from the organizations that carry out restoration in the region. CSOs play an important role in social control in the governance of the RMP, as they can involve local communities through restoration and, ultimately, verify the effectiveness of actions in the field.

At Restaura Vale do Paraíba 2023, there were no major criticisms of the Action Plan, and many of the suggestions made were presented in the final version. However, it should be noted that the consultants expected the participants to read the document before the event so that the discussion would be more substantiated, which did not happen in practice. Even so, an improvement in the content of the Goals and Indicators was noted in almost all Actions after the event. In several Actions, the Action Managers (usually the RBC-PS); the FEHIDRO Budget Estimates, and Possible Partnerships and Alternative or Complementary Funding Sources were also added. These additions were frequently mentioned in the participants’ suggestions, indicating that, despite the unbalanced participation of the stakeholder groups in the action situations, there were positive implications for the governance of the RMP in the second meeting. This is probably due to the advanced stage of the document at the time of the event, the maturity of the audience present, and the mediation carried out by the executor.

The most notable change was the exclusion of the Strategic Program for Environmental Education and Social Communication from the preliminary version. The decision was made based on the stakeholders’ understanding that environmental education must be transversal to all other actions in order for these to bring about transformations. The mobilization of stakeholders around this theme, through a practical, in-depth, and integrated vision, is aligned with recent studies such as those by Pérez and Freire (2023). They indicate that environmental education should occur in parallel with restoration actions, being a strong ally to restorative culture and the challenges of the UN Decade of Restoration. The following actions were also removed: 1) conducting a public round of funding opportunities for actions and projects of interest to forest restoration in UGRHI-02, and 2) encouraging the production of bio-inputs for restoration. This change occurred because the stakeholders do not consider these themes relevant, as they do not fall within the scope of actions eligible for FEHIDRO funding.

A chapter on RMP Monitoring was added, since it was recognized as a continuous process that runs concurrently with the Actions. Concerning monitoring, the activity is essential for improving the instrument (the Plan) and is implicit within a governance structure (Ostrom, 1990; van Oosten, 2013). Through this insertion, the organizations attempted a social control of the Plan within the RBC-PS. Furthermore, the Objective was added: To widely disseminate the knowledge and technologies generated, and the Action: To strengthen the risk management of disasters and forest fires in UGRHI-02. Although this insertion demonstrates an understanding of the importance of restoration risks by the stakeholders, it is considered that the topic of Associated Risks was poorly addressed in the document (only in one Action), which is worrying and demonstrates a short-term view of the effects of climate change on the restoration chain and vice versa (Bustamante et al., 2019).

The observed changes between the preliminary and final versions are clear examples of system feedback and attempts at participatory governance. The flaws observed by stakeholders in the action situations, especially during the meetings - the most participatory spaces - led to the structural improvement of the Plan. The inclusion of these contributions enriches and qualifies governance while legitimizing the process (Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom, 2011). Although the chances of the instrument’s effectiveness and restoration success in the region are increased, the difficulty of engaging these stakeholders, such as rural producers, remains a significant challenge to be overcome for good governance (Palmer et al., 2022).

The Restoration Master Plans

The involvement of multiple groups in public policy formulation is essential to ensure that outcomes accurately reflect the demands associated with the issue at hand (Kiss et al., 2022). However, expanding the number of stakeholders tends to increase the complexity of institutional dynamics and the plurality of competing interests (Buzati et al., 2023). Throughout the two years of the project’s execution, several interactions were recorded among agents within different deliberative spaces. These encounters highlighted distinct conceptions regarding the meaning of ecological and forest restoration, as well as the role of a restoration master plan and its impact on the territory.

On one hand, a unidirectional view of restoration was observed, aiming to define priority basins and sub-basins to receive future funding for approved projects (projects carried out in priority basins receive higher scores). This prioritization would serve to better direct financial resources, allowing the territory to address extreme cases of degradation more swiftly, with a particular focus on headwater restoration. On the other hand, a perspective focused on the restoration chain emerged, which avoided establishing priority areas. Based on the interactions between external stakeholders and the action arena, the resulting RMP-UGRHI 02 incorporates elements from both designs but appears more closely aligned with the former perspective.

Conclusions

The central objective of this study was to evaluate the governance of the RMP-UGRHI 02 development process in the Paraíba do Sul Valley (RMP-UGRHI 02) through the lens of the action arena (Ostrom, 1990). In terms of stakeholder participation, spaces with varying levels of involvement were established. The most frequent participants were the hiring entity, the public supporter, articulating organizations, and public participants, all of whom imprinted their demands onto the RMP. Consequently, the bottleneck of integrating essential restoration stakeholders, such as rural producers and for-profit sectors, was not overcome. The governance structure of the RBC-PS itself, predominantly composed of public entities and CSOs, points to a space that remains concentrated, with limitations on broad participation and diverse demands.

From participant observation, two competing RMP designs were identified: one arguing that the RMP should merely define priority sub-basins for restoration, and another proposing the inclusion of the entire restoration chain. While both visions are present in the final document, the perspective that prioritization facilitates the allocation of financial resources to the basin appeared to prevail. The way resources are directed by the TC-REF and RBC-PS in the near future will serve as the true indicator of the path the Master Plan has taken; therefore, monitoring the RMP’s execution and its governance becomes fundamental.

The development of the RMP-UGRHI 02, analyzed through Ostrom’s institutional lens (1990), reveals a governance arrangement with the capacity for learning and adaptation. The action situations, particularly the Restaura Vale do Paraíba 2022 and 2023 events, despite their flaws, functioned as spaces for exchanging experiences capable of providing feedback to the processes. The incorporation of diverse stakeholders’ visions and knowledge enriched the final version of the Plan, transforming what would have been a purely technical document into an instrument more representative of regional needs. Furthermore, the Plan’s content exposed important insights: the information presented in the RMP-UGRHI 02 Diagnosis reflects the understanding that biophysical factors hold more established importance in restoration than socioeconomic aspects.

This research contributes to understanding the inherent complexity of participatory processes, especially within the scope of public policies and restoration master plans. It is acknowledged that the lack of similar studies limits a broader analysis of governance in such processes; only three other instruments of this nature have been produced in Brazil, none with a scientific analysis of their development. Future research could deepen the investigation into the interests at stake - for instance, through stakeholder interviews and the analysis of their discourse within action situations, or by analyzing the rules-in-use that governed the process.

Acknowledgments

Klécia Massi thanks to CNPq (grant PQ-2 309541/2022-0) and to Fapesp (grant 12060-0/2023).

References

• Ab’sáber, A. N. (2000). The natural organization of Brazilian inter-and subtropical landscapes. Revista Do Instituto Geológico, 21(1-2), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.5935/0100-929x.20000005
  » https://doi.org/10.5935/0100-929x.20000005
• Adams, C., Araujo, L. G. de, Sanches, R. A., Futemma, C. R. T., Buzati, J. R., Sanches, V. H., & Macedo, G. S. S. R. (2021). Governança da restauração florestal da paisagem no Brasil: desafios e oportunidades. Desenvolvimento E Meio Ambiente, 58, 450-473. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v58i0.78415
  » https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v58i0.78415
• Adams, C., Borges, Z., Moretto, E. M., & Futemma, C. (2020). Governança ambiental no Brasil: acelerando em direção aos objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável ou olhando pelo retrovisor?. Cadernos Gestão Pública E Cidadania, 25(81), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.12660/cgpc.v25n81.81403
  » https://doi.org/10.12660/cgpc.v25n81.81403
• Andrade, A., Bargos, D. C., Fialho, T., & Cristofaro, S. (2019). Desafios da cadeia da restauração florestal no Vale do Paraíba Paulista. Sociedade & Natureza, 30(3), 257-277. https://doi.org/10.14393/sn-v30n3-2018-13
  » https://doi.org/10.14393/sn-v30n3-2018-13
• Arts, B. J. M., & Visseren-Hamdkers, I. (2012). Forest governance: a state of the art review. Forest-People Interfaces, 241-257. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-749-3_15
  » https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-749-3_15
• AtlasBR. (2010). Atlas do Desenvolvimento Humano no Brasil. Ranking. PNUD, IPEA & FJP. http://www.atlasbrasil.org.br/
  » http://www.atlasbrasil.org.br/
• Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Choice Reviews Online, 39(07), 39-404739-4047. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.39-4047
  » https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.39-4047
• Brancalion, P. H. S., Gandolfi, S. & Ribeiro, R. (2015). Restauração Florestal. Oficina de textos ISBN 978-85-7975-019-9
• Brancalion, P; H. S., Meli, P., Tymus, J. R. C., Lenti, F. E. B., Benini, R. M., Silva, A. P. M., Isernhagen, I. & Holl, K. D. (2019a). What makes ecosystem restoration expensive?: a systematic cost assessment of projects in Brazil. Biological Conservation, 240 (108274). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108274
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108274
• Brancalion, P. H. S., Niamir, A., Broadbent, E., Crouzeilles, R., Barros, F. S. M., Zambrano, A. M. A., Baccini, A., Aronson, J., Goetz, S., Reid, J. L., Strassburg, B. B. N., Wilson, S. & Chazdon, R. L. (2019b). Global restoration opportunities in tropical rainforest landscapes. Science Advances , v. 5, n. 7, p. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3223
  » https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3223
• Bustamante, M. M. C., Silva, J. S., Scariot, A., Sampaio, A. B., Mascia, D. L., Garcia, E., Sano, E., Fernandes, G. W., Durigan, G., Roitman, I., Figueiredo, I., Rodrigues, R. R., Pillar, V. D., de Oliveira, A. O., Malhado, A. C., Alencar, A., Vendramini, A., Padovezi, A., Carrascosa, H., Freitas, J. … Nobre, C. (2019). Ecological restoration as a strategy for mitigating and adapting to climate change: lessons and challenges from Brazil. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 24(7), 1249-1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-018-9837-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-018-9837-5
• Buzati, J. R., Adams, C., Araujo, L. G. de, Sanches, R. A., Futemma, C. R. T., Sanches, V. H., Von Glehn, H. D. Q. C., Guimarães, T. M. G., & Oliveira, M. (2023). Governança da restauração de paisagens e florestas: iniciativas e a rede de atores sociais do Vale do Paraíba paulista. Desenvolvimento E Meio Ambiente, 62, 639-665. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v62i0.83891
  » https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v62i0.83891
• Capelari, M. G. M., Araújo, S. M. V. G. de, & Calmon, P. C. D. P. (2017). Institutional Analysis and Development Framework: a proposta da governança de Commons para a análise de políticas públicas. EnANPAD, São Paulo.
• Cardoso, V. L., & Almeida, E. (2013). Evolução e dinâmica espacial do setor de serviços e sua relação com o setor industrial. Revista de História Econômica & Economia Regional Aplicada, 9(15). https://periodicos.ufjf.br/index.php/heera/article/view/26289.
  » https://periodicos.ufjf.br/index.php/heera/article/view/26289.
• Coordenadoria de Fiscalização e Biodiversidade. (2021). Roteiro técnico: plano diretor de restauração ecológica Coordenadoria de Fiscalização e Biodiversidade https://smastr20.blob.core.windows.net/fiscalizabiodiversidade/sites/252/2021/02/roteiro-tecnico-plano-diretor-de-restauracao-ecologica-2.pdf
  » https://smastr20.blob.core.windows.net/fiscalizabiodiversidade/sites/252/2021/02/roteiro-tecnico-plano-diretor-de-restauracao-ecologica-2.pdf
• Comitê das Bacias Hidrográficas do Rio Paraíba do Sul. (Acessado em 2023). GEODATA-PS Projeto Implantação de Sala de Geoprocessamento do DAEE. http://200.98.113.169/geodata/index.php?id=5
  » http://200.98.113.169/geodata/index.php?id=5
• Cordeiro-Beduschi, L. E., Adams, C., Araujo, L. G. de, Padovezi, A., Buzati, J. R., Schmidt, M. V. C., & Santos, R. R. dos. (2022). Ação coletiva multinível e inovação socioecológica na governança florestal. Estudos Avançados, 36(106), 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-4014.2022.36106.015
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-4014.2022.36106.015
• Crouzeilles, R., Santiami, E., Rosa, M., Pugliese, L., Brancalion, P. H. S., Rodrigues, R. R., Metzger, J. P., Calmon, M., Scaramuzza, C. A. de M., Matsumoto, M. H., Padovezi, A., Benini, R. de M., Chaves, R. B., Metzker, T., Fernandes, R. B., Scarano, F. R., Schmitt, J., Lui, G., Christ, P., & Vieira, R. M. (2019). There is hope for achieving ambitious Atlantic Forest restoration commitments. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 17(2), 80-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.04.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.04.003
• Da Silva, L. P. (2015). Hidrologia - Engenharia e Meio Ambiente Elsevier Ltda.
• Davoudi, S., Evans, N., Governa, F., & Santangelo, M. (2008). Territorial Governance in the Making. Approaches, Methodologies, Practices. Boletín de La Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 46(46), 33-52.
• DATAGEO (s.d). Infraestrutura de Dados Espaciais Ambientais do Estado de São Paulo - IDEA-SP Base Territorial Ambiental Unificada. https://datageo.ambiente.sp.gov.br/
  » https://datageo.ambiente.sp.gov.br/
• Decreto n^o 8.972, de 23 de janeiro de 2017. (2017, 23 de janeiro). Institui a Política Nacional de Recuperação da Vegetação Nativa. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2017/decreto/d8972.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2017/decreto/d8972.htm
• Devide, A. C. P., Castro, C. M. de, Ribeiro, R. de L. D., Abboud, A. C. de S., Pereira, M. G., & Rumjanek, N. G. (2014). História ambiental do Vale do Paraíba do Sul, Brasil. Revista Biociências, 20(1), 12-29. https://periodicos.unitau.br/biociencias/article/view/1867
  » https://periodicos.unitau.br/biociencias/article/view/1867
• Fundação Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. (2015). https://geo.fbds.org.br/
  » https://geo.fbds.org.br/
• Fundo Estadual de Recursos Hídricos. (2024). Manual de procedimentos operacionais de investimento (MPO-Investimento) Conselho de Orientação do Fundo Estadual de Recursos Hídricos. https://sigam.ambiente.sp.gov.br/sigam3/repositorio/559/documentos/A_MPO%20Investimento%20FEHIDRO_04.2024_.pdf
  » https://sigam.ambiente.sp.gov.br/sigam3/repositorio/559/documentos/A_MPO%20Investimento%20FEHIDRO_04.2024_.pdf
• Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica & Instituto Nacional de Pesquisa Espaciais. (2021). Atlas dos remanescentes florestais da Mata Atlântica: período 2019/2020, relatório técnico Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica. https://www.sosma.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SOSMA_Atlas-da-Mata-Atlantica_2019-2020.pdf
  » https://www.sosma.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SOSMA_Atlas-da-Mata-Atlantica_2019-2020.pdf
• Gann, G. D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C. R., Jonson, J., Hallett, J. G., Eisenberg, C., Guariguata, M. R., Liu, J., Hua, F., Echeverría, C., Gonzales, E., Shaw, N., Decleer, K., & Dixon, K. W. (2019). International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration (second edition). Restoration Ecology, 27(S1-S46). https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035
• Gardon, F. R., & Santos, R. F. dos. (2024). Brazilian forest restoration: success or better than nothing?. Land Use Policy, 137, 107022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.107022
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.107022
• Gastauer, M., Miazaki, A. S., Crouzeilles, R., Tavares, P. A., Lino, E. D. S. M., & Rodrigues, R. R. (2021). Balancing natural forest regrowth and tree planting to ensure social fairness and compliance with environmental policies. Journal of Applied Ecology, 58, 2371-2383. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14065.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14065.
• Governo de São Paulo. (2020). Inventário Florestal do Estado de São Paulo: Mapeamento da Cobertura Vegetal Nativa Instituto Florestal. https://semil.sp.gov.br/2020/08/novo-inventario-florestal-do-esp-aponta-crescimento-de-214-mil-hectares-de-vegetacao-nativa-no-territorio-paulista/
  » https://semil.sp.gov.br/2020/08/novo-inventario-florestal-do-esp-aponta-crescimento-de-214-mil-hectares-de-vegetacao-nativa-no-territorio-paulista/
• Iniciativa Verde. (2024). Plano Diretor de Restauração para a UGRHI 02, Vale do Paraíba do Sul Comitê das Bacias Hidrográficas do Rio Paraíba do Sul. https://comiteps.sp.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/PDRF_unificado_CBH-PS_entregue-ao-CBH-2.pdf
  » https://comiteps.sp.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/PDRF_unificado_CBH-PS_entregue-ao-CBH-2.pdf
• Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (2009). Manual técnico de geomorfologia Coordenação de Recursos Naturais e Estudos Ambientais, 182 p. ISSN 0103-9598; n. 5.
• Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (2012). Síntese da descrição dos biomas brasileiros Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. https://geoftp.ibge.gov.br/informacoes_ambientais/estudos_ambientais/biomas/documentos/Sintese_Descricao_Biomas.pdf
  » https://geoftp.ibge.gov.br/informacoes_ambientais/estudos_ambientais/biomas/documentos/Sintese_Descricao_Biomas.pdf
• Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (2021). Malhas Territoriais Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística https://www.ibge.gov.br/geociencias/organizacao-do-territorio/malhas-territoriais/15774-malhas.html
  » https://www.ibge.gov.br/geociencias/organizacao-do-territorio/malhas-territoriais/15774-malhas.html
• International Union for Conservation of Nature & World Resources Institute. (2014). Guia sobre a metodologia de avaliação de oportunidades de restauração (ROAM) (Road-test edition). International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2014-030-pt.pdf
  » https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2014-030-pt.pdf
• Jacobi, P. R., & Sinisgalli, P. A. de A. (2012). Governança ambiental e economia verde. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 17(6), 1469-1478. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232012000600011
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232012000600011
• Kiss, B., Sekulova, F., Hörschelmann, K., Salk, C. F., Takahashi, W., & Wamsler, C. (2022). Citizen participation in the governance of nature-based solutions. Environmental Policy and Governance, 32(3), 247-272.
• Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern Governance SAGE.
• Lassance, A. (2020). Revolução nas políticas públicas: a institucionalização das mudanças na economia, de 1930 a 1945. Estudos Históricos (Rio de Janeiro), 33(71), 511-538. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2178-14942020000300005
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S2178-14942020000300005
• Lei nº 8.629, de 25 de fevereiro de 1993. (1993, 25 de fevereiro). Dispõe sobre a regulamentação dos dispositivos constitucionais relativos à reforma agrária, previstos no Capítulo III, Título VII, da Constituição Federal. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8629.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8629.htm
• Lei nº 9.433, de 8 de janeiro de 1997. (1997, 8 de janeiro). Institui a Política Nacional de Recursos Hídricos, cria o Sistema Nacional de Gerenciamento de Recursos Hídricos, regulamenta o inciso XIX do art. 21 da Constituição Federal, e altera o art. 1º da Lei nº 8.001, de 13 de março de 1990, que modificou a Lei nº 7.990, de 28 de dezembro de 1989. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9433.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9433.htm
• Lei nº 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. (2000, 18 de julho). Regulamenta o art. 225, § 1^o, incisos I, II, III e VII da Constituição Federal, institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá outras providências. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9985.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9985.htm
• Lei n^o 11.428, de 22 de dezembro de 2006. (2006, 22 de dezembro). Dispõe sobre a utilização e proteção da vegetação nativa do Bioma Mata Atlântica, e dá outras providências. https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/2006/lei-11428-22-dezembro-2006-548704-norma-pl.html
  » https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/2006/lei-11428-22-dezembro-2006-548704-norma-pl.html
• Lei n° 12.651, de 25 de maio de 2012. (2012, 25 de maio). Dispõe sobre a proteção da vegetação nativa; altera as Leis nºs 6.938, de 31 de agosto de 1981, 9.393, de 19 de dezembro de 1996, e 11.428, de 22 de dezembro de 2006; revoga as Leis nºs 4.771, de 15 de setembro de 1965, e 7.754, de 14 de abril de 1989, e a Medida Provisória nº 2.166-67, de 24 de agosto de 2001; e dá outras providências. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/l12651.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/l12651.htm
• Lemos, C.M., Andrade, P.R., Rodrigues, R.R., Hissa, L. & Aguiar, A. P. D. (2021). Combining regional to local restoration goals in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.Reg Environ Change21, 68 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01792-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01792-0
• Mansourian, S. (2017). Governance and forest landscape restoration: A framework to support decision-making. Journal for Nature Conservation, 37, 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.02.010
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.02.010
• MC Geologia e Meio Ambiente; Fundo Estadual de Recursos Hídricos & Universidade de Taubaté. (2008). Projeto Recarga - Relatório Final: Caracterização De Áreas De Recarga Com Análise Integrada De Dados Orbitais -TM - Landsat- E Dados Hidrogeológicos - Região Do Médio Vale Do Rio Paraíba Do Sul - Estado De São Paulo http://www.ipabhi.org/projeto-recarga/projeto-recarga-relatorio-final.pdf.
  » http://www.ipabhi.org/projeto-recarga/projeto-recarga-relatorio-final.pdf.
• Melo, F. P. L., Parry, L., Brancalion, P. H. S., Pinto, S. R. R., Freitas, J., Manhães, A. P., Meli, P., Ganade, G., & Chazdon, R. L. (2020). Adding forests to the water-energy-food nexus.Nat Sustain4, 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00608-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00608-z
• Mittermeier, R. A. & Rylands, A. B. (2018). Biodiversity hotspots. Elsevier Inc, v. 1-5
• Moreira, M., Castanheira Neto, F. & Kimura, W. (2016). Avaliação de linhas públicas de crédito para restauração de áreas de Preservação Permanente (APP) e de Reserva Legal (RL). Input/Agroincone, 14p. https://agroicone.com.br/portfolio/avaliacao-de-linhas-publicas-de-credito-para-restauracao-de-app-e-reserva-legal/
  » https://agroicone.com.br/portfolio/avaliacao-de-linhas-publicas-de-credito-para-restauracao-de-app-e-reserva-legal/
• Moura, A. M. M. (2016). Governança ambiental no Brasil: instituições, atores e políticas públicas Ipea. ISBN: 978-85-7811-275-2.
• Murakami, L. Y. K., Massi, G. & Mendes, T. S. G. (2023). Land Use Policy Socioeconomic aspects of riparian vegetation debt in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Land Use Policy , v. 130 (2023) 106652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106652
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106652
• Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature , v. 403, p. 853-858, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
• Nalon, M. A., Matsukuma, C. K., Pavão, M., Ivanauskas, N. M., & Kanashiro, M. M. (2022). Inventário da cobertura vegetal nativa do Estado de São Paulo Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais/Governo de são Paulo. https://smastr16.blob.core.windows.net/portaleducacaoambiental/sites/11/2025/01/INVENTARIOflorestal_livroFINAL_compressed.pdf
  » https://smastr16.blob.core.windows.net/portaleducacaoambiental/sites/11/2025/01/INVENTARIOflorestal_livroFINAL_compressed.pdf
• NASADEM. (Acessado em 2022). Dados de altimetria https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov/search
  » https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov/search
• Oliveira, C. E., Pavanelli, J. M. M., & Igari, A. T. (2021). Governança de Bens Comuns e o Turismo no Monte Everest: uma análise a partir da perspectiva do Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Turismo E Sociedade, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.5380/ts.v14i3.80965
  » https://doi.org/10.5380/ts.v14i3.80965
• Oliveira, M., Alves, L. M., Buzati, J. R., Sanches, V. H., Sanches, R. A., Adams, C., Araujo, L., & Futemma, C. (2022). A Paisagem Social no Planejamento da Restauração World Resources Institute Brasil/ Instituto de Energia e Ambiente da Universidade de São Paulo/ Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
• Organização das Nações Unidas. (2021). Começa a Década da ONU da Restauração de Ecossistemas Brasil https://brasil.un.org/pt-br/130341-come%C3%A7a-d%C3%A9cada-da-onu-da-restaura%C3%A7%C3%A3o-de-ecossistemas
  » https://brasil.un.org/pt-br/130341-come%C3%A7a-d%C3%A9cada-da-onu-da-restaura%C3%A7%C3%A3o-de-ecossistemas
• Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press
• Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x
• Padovezi, A., Oliveira, M., Matsumoto, M. & Feltran-Barbieri, R. (2018). Oportunidades para restauração de paisagens e florestas na porção paulista do Vale do Paraíba: Plano de Desenvolvimento Florestal Territorial para a porção paulista do Vale do Paraíba Secretaria Estadual do Meio Ambiente, São Paulo. ISBN 978-85-61975-47-0
• Palmer, C. G., Fry, A., Libala, N., Ralekhetla, M., Mtati, N., Weaver, M., Mtintsilana, Z., & Scherman, P. A. (2022). Engaging society and building participatory governance in a rural landscape restoration context. Anthropocene, 37(1), 100320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2022.100320
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2022.100320
• Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction. (2010). Demonstrating the Role of Ecosystem-based Management for Disaster Risk Reduction Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction. https://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/PEDRR_2010.pdf
  » https://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/PEDRR_2010.pdf
• Pérez, D. R., & Freire, L. M. (2023). Restoration-based education: a brief overview of a field under construction. Restoration Ecology, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13983
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13983
• Pinto, R. M. S., & Siqueira, G. D. (2019). A Governança da Região Metropolitana do Vale do Paraíba e Litoral Norte/SP: Um Olhar Crítico sobre a Trajetória Institucional. XVI SIMPURB, 646-664.
• Projeto MapBiomas. (Acessado em 26 de outubro de 2022). Coleção 7 da Série Anual de Mapas de Uso e Cobertura da Terra do Brasil. https://mapbiomas.org/colecoes-mapbiomas-1?cama_set_language=pt-BR
  » https://mapbiomas.org/colecoes-mapbiomas-1?cama_set_language=pt-BR
• Regea. (2016). Revisão e Atualização do Plano de Bacia da UGRHI 02 Comitê das Bacias Hidrográficas do Rio Paraíba do Sul. https://comiteps.sp.gov.br/planos/
  » https://comiteps.sp.gov.br/planos/
• Regea. (2021). Revisão e atualização do Plano de Bacia Hidrográfica da UGRHI 02 - Paraíba do Sul (2020-2023) Comitê das Bacias Hidrográficas do Rio Paraíba do Sul (CBH-PS). https://comiteps.sp.gov.br/planos/
  » https://comiteps.sp.gov.br/planos/
• Resolução SMA nº 07, de 18 de janeiro de 2017. (2017, 18 de janeiro). Dispõe sobre os critérios e parâmetros para compensação ambiental de áreas objeto de pedido de autorização para supressão de vegetação nativa, corte de árvores isoladas e para intervenções em Áreas de Preservação Permanente no Estado de São Paulo. https://semil.sp.gov.br/legislacao/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/07/2017resolucao_sma_007_2017.pdf
  » https://semil.sp.gov.br/legislacao/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/07/2017resolucao_sma_007_2017.pdf
• Resolução SMA n° 146, de 08 de novembro de 2017. (2017, 08 de novembro). Institui o Mapa de Biomas do Estado de São Paulo, e dá outras providências. https://semil.sp.gov.br/legislacao/2022/07/resolucao-sma-146-17/
  » https://semil.sp.gov.br/legislacao/2022/07/resolucao-sma-146-17/
• Ribeiro, J. V. M. (2021) Análise estratégica da paisagem da UGRHI 02 baseada em análise multicritério para a definição de áreas potenciais de restauração ativa [Dissertação de Mestrado]. Universidade Estadual Paulista & Centro Nacional de Monitoramento e Alertas de Desastres Naturais.
• Ribeiro, J. V. M., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Massi, K. G., Camarinha, P. I. M., & Ferreira, C. C. (2023). Strategic landscape analysis relating multicriteria analysis and socioeconomic and environmental context to define potential areas for active restoration in São Paulo, Brazil. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 130(104561), 104561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2023.104561
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2023.104561
• Ribeiro, N. B., & Johnsson, R. M. F. (2018). Discussions on water governance: patterns and common paths. Ambiente & Sociedade, 21(0). https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc0125r2vu18l1ao
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc0125r2vu18l1ao
• Ribeiro, T. C. L. (2015). Mapeamento, quantificação e valoração do serviço ecossistêmico de retenção de sedimentos no trecho paulista da bacia do rio Paraíba do Sul [Dissertação de Mestrado, Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica]. Biblioteca Digital do ITA.
• Rolfe, J., Schilizzi, S., & Iftekhar, M. S. (2021). Increasing environmental outcomes with conservation tenders: The participation challenge. Conservation Letters, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12856X’
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12856X’
• Sampaio, A. B., Ribeiro, K. T., Vieira, D. M. & Silva, D. C. B. (2021). Guia de restauração ecológica para gestores de unidades de conservação Instituto Chico Mendes. https://www.funbio.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Guia-de-Restauracao-Ecologica_digital.pdf.
  » https://www.funbio.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Guia-de-Restauracao-Ecologica_digital.pdf.
• Sanches, R. A. (2015). Campanha ’Y Ikatu Xingu: Governança Ambiental da Região das Nascentes do Xingu (Mato Grosso, Brasil) [Tese de doutorado, Universidade Estadual de Campinas]. Repositório UNICAMP.
• Sanches, R. A., Futemma, C. R. T., & Alves, H. Q. (2021). Indigenous territories and governance of forest restoration in the Xingu River (Brazil). Land Use Policy, 104, 104755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104755
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104755
• Sapucci, G. R., Negri, R. G., Casaca, W. & Massi, K. G. (2021). Analyzing Spatio-temporal Land Cover Dynamics in an Atlantic Forest Portion Using Unsupervised Change Detection Techniques. Environ Model Assess, 26, 581-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-021-09758-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-021-09758-6
• SICAR. Cadastro Ambiental Rural. Serviço Florestal Brasileiro. https://www.car.gov.br/publico/imoveis/index
  » https://www.car.gov.br/publico/imoveis/index
• Silva, R. F., Batistella, M., Moran, E. F., & Lu, D. (2017). Land Changes Fostering Atlantic Forest Transition in Brazil: Evidence from the Paraíba Valley. The Professional Geographer, 69(1), 80-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2016.1178151
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2016.1178151
• Silva Filho, J. C. L. da, Küchler, J., Nascimento, L. F., & Abreu, M. C. S. de. (2009). Gestão ambiental regional: usando o IAD Framework de Elinor Ostrom na “análise política”da gestão ambiental da região metropolitana de Porto Alegre. Organizações & Sociedade, 16(51), 609-627. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1984-92302009000400001
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s1984-92302009000400001
• Sistema Estadual de Análise de Dados. (2022). População - Seade Censo 2022 Sistema Estadual de Análise de Dados. https://censo2022.seade.gov.br/
  » https://censo2022.seade.gov.br/
• Tedesco, A. M., Brancalion, P. H. S., Hepburn, M. L. H., Walji, K., Wilson, K. A., Possingham, H. P., Dean, A. J., Nugent, N., Elias-Trostmann, K., Perez-Hammerle, K.-V., & Rhodes, J. R. (2023). The role of incentive mechanisms in promoting forest restoration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378(1867). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0088
  » https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0088
• Tortajada, C. (2010). Water Governance: Some Critical Issues. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 26(2), 297-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900621003683298
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/07900621003683298
• van Oosten, C. (2013). Restoring landscapes - governing place: a learning approach to forest landscape restoration. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 32(7), 659-676. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.818551
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.818551

• Data Availability Statement:
  The complete dataset supporting the findings of this study has been published within the article itself.

Edited by

• Responsible Editor
  Mariana da Paz

• Associate Editor
  Debora Sotto

Data availability

The complete dataset supporting the findings of this study has been published within the article itself.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  07 Sept 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  19 Aug 2024
• Accepted
  11 Nov 2025