Sociotechnical transitions towards decarbonization of Brazilian Agriculture: the potential to scale innovative niche production systems

Transições sociotécnicas para a descarbonização da agricultura brasileira: o potencial de escalar sistemas de produção inovadores de nicho

Abstract

Abstract  Brazil’s agricultural frontier and land-use change make decarbonization a central challenge for meeting climate targets while sustaining productivity. This article applies the multilevel perspective (MLP) to compare three innovative niches with low‑carbon potential: crop–livestock–forestry integration (CLFi), cabruca cocoa agroforestry in the Atlantic Forest, and the emerging forest restoration economy within various sociotechnical regime dimensions. The analysis draws on 42 semi‑structured interviews (2019–2024) with producers, civil‑society organizations, agribusiness, researchers and public officials, complemented by secondary quantitative indicators. We find that scaling these niches depends less on the existence of technical solutions than on (i) market and value‑chain coordination capable of rewarding environmental performance and (ii) institutional and knowledge infrastructures (credit, extension, standards and monitoring) that reduce entry costs and risks—especially for small and medium producers. Cross‑case comparison also shows that land governance and territorial inequalities condition both feasibility and benefit sharing. The paper contributes to sustainability transitions scholarship by grounding MLP concepts in Brazilian agrarian contexts and by identifying policy levers for scaling low‑carbon practices in tropical agri‑food systems.

Keywords:
sustainable transitions; low-carbon agriculture; crop–livestock–forestry integration (CLFi); agroforestry; forest restoration; decarbonization; Brazil

Resumo

Resumo  A expansão agropecuária e as mudanças no uso da terra tornam a descarbonização um desafio central para o Brasil cumprir metas climáticas mantendo a produtividade. Este artigo aplica a Perspectiva Multinível (PMN/MLP) para comparar três nichos inovadores com potencial de baixo carbono: integração lavoura‑pecuária‑floresta (ILPF), cacau cabruca na Mata Atlântica e a economia emergente da restauração florestal, dentro de diferentes dimensões do regime sociotécnico. A análise combina 42 entrevistas semiestruturadas (2019–2024) com produtores, organizações da sociedade civil, agronegócio, pesquisadores e gestores públicos e indicadores quantitativos secundários. Os resultados indicam que o escalonamento desses nichos depende menos da inexistência de soluções técnicas e mais de (i) coordenação de mercado e de cadeias de valor capaz de remunerar desempenho ambiental e (ii) infraestrutura institucional e de conhecimento (crédito, ATER, padrões e monitoramento) que reduza custos e riscos de adoção—sobretudo para pequenos e médios produtores. A comparação intersetorial também evidencia que governança fundiária e desigualdades territoriais condicionam viabilidade e distribuição de benefícios. O artigo contribui ao ancorar conceitos de transições sociotécnicas no contexto agrário brasileiro e ao apontar alavancas de política para ampliar práticas de baixo carbono em sistemas agroalimentares tropicais.

Palavras-chave:
transições sustentáveis; agricultura de baixo carbono; integração lavoura‑pecuária‑floresta (ILPF); agrofloresta; restauração florestal; descarbonização; Brasil

1 Introduction

The accelerating global climate crisis has intensified the need to decarbonize food systems and land use (Bridge et al., 2013; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014; 2023). Agriculture affects climate both through direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Willett et al., 2019; Springmann et al., 2018) as well as its indirect contributions through land-use change (Carter et al., 2017; Curtis et al., 2018; Henders et al., 2015; Pendrill et al., 2019). The urgency of transitioning towards low-carbon production is particularly pertinent in Brazil, where the agricultural and livestock sectors are major contributors to emissions (Rattis et al., 2021; Lovejoy & Nobre, 2019; Rajão, et al., 2020; Strassburg et al., 2017). By 2024, Brazilian agriculture was estimated to emit 626 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MtCO₂e), while emissions caused by land-use change, of which the agricultural sector is a substantial driver, accounts for 905.6 MtCO₂e (OC, 2025). Moreover, while the sector currently accounts for a large amount of GHG emissions, it is also extremely vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Rattis et al., 2021). Technical options for low‑carbon agriculture already exist—ranging from pasture rehabilitation and integrated systems to agroforestry and restoration (Newton et al., 2016; Carauta et al., 2018; Sá et al., 2022) —but many remain confined to niches or regionally concentrated initiatives. Understanding how such niches can scale up, and how benefits and burdens are distributed across Brazil’s heterogeneous agrarian territories, is therefore a key research agenda.

In this study, we analyze the paths for sustainable innovations to transform dominant modes of agricultural production in Brazil towards decarbonization. More specifically, we seek to explore which drivers and constraints define the scope for niche production models and practices to foster a trajectory towards low-carbon agriculture. Our point of departure is the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) (Geels, 2002; Geels & Schot, 2007) and the notion of anchoring innovations in existing regimes (Elzen et al., 2012). Empirically, we compare the cases of a) Crop, Livestock, Forestry integration (CLFi), b) Cabruca cocoa agro-forestry, and c) the emerging reforestation sector. We thereby assess the factors that shape the scope for decarbonization from a socio-technical perspective through a grounded analysis of recent developments within Brazilian agriculture. More broadly, we seek to contribute to the knowledge of sustainability transitions for agriculture in the Global South, and how these trajectories can be enforced in the years to come. The study builds on interviews with stakeholders from these three sub-sectors, conducted between 2019 and 2024 and on complementary secondary indicators. Our findings highlight two transversal challenges across cases—market/value‑chain coordination and the scaling of knowledge and institutional infrastructures—while also showing that land governance and territorial inequalities condition both feasibility and benefit sharing.

The article proceeds with an initial conceptual outline of our research design to analyze low-carbon transitions within agriculture. The second part presents the results of our case study analysis of 1) Crop, Livestock, Forestry integration, 2) Cabruca cocoa agro-forestry, and 3) the forest restoration economy. The third part discusses the challenges and opportunities for these production systems to foster a trajectory toward low-carbon agriculture in Brazil. The conclusion summarizes the article’s key points and findings.

2 Theoretical Foundation

An important conceptual issue is how to relate sociotechnical transitions to low-carbon agriculture. In this study, we treat decarbonization not as a single, linear ‘path’, but as a contested, multi‑pathway process shaped by biophysical constraints, political economy and territorial inequalities. In the Brazilian context, low-carbon agriculture encompasses a range of production methods that rely on the large-scale incorporation of integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems, sustainable management of existing forests and forest restoration, recovery of degraded pastures, and other negative, zero- or low-emission production practices (Newton et al., 2016; Carauta et al., 2018). Yet Brazil’s agrarian landscape is highly heterogeneous and marked by divergent production logics—from export‑oriented commodity agribusiness to family farming and traditional agro‑extractive systems—so transitions unfold through multiple sociotechnical regimes rather than one uniform regime (Niederle, 2018; Durán et al., 2023). This). This means that niche technologies and innovations require differentiated scaling strategies and that distributional impacts (who can adopt, who benefits, and where) matter for transition dynamics.

To analyze how niches scale and interact with regimes, we adopt the Multilevel Perspective (MLP) (Geels, 2002: Geels & Schot, 2007). MLP conceptualizes transitions as interactions between niche innovations (micro), sociotechnical regimes (meso), and broader landscape pressures (macro), such as climate policy, market due‑diligence requirements and civil‑society mobilization. The MLP accounts for how socio-technical regimes evolve as the result of a constant feedback process with technological niches and landscape developments, viewed as broader developments within society. Technological innovations (low-carbon production practices) feed into the wider socio-technical regime (Brazilian agriculture). Depending on the degree of their dissemination, niche innovations at the micro-level can support wider transformations within meso-level regimes (Geels, 2002). The fundamental drive towards these transformations is spurred by landscape developments at the macro-level, such as the global decarbonization drive. The MLP asserts that the interplay among niches, regimes, and landscapes is pivotal in shaping the trajectory and impact of sustainability transitions. These transitions encompass diverse aspects, including technological, social, and institutional dimensions, as El Bilali (2019) and Elzen et al. (2012) note. Niches and regimes represent a confluence of networks and actor groups that adhere to established rules and practices, facilitating or impeding the reconfiguration of systems (Feyereisen et al., 2017). Central to MLP is the concept of anchoring, a process initially conceptualized by Elzen et al. (2004), which was further expanded by Elzen et al. (2012). Anchoring describes the integration of innovations from technological niches into prevailing sociotechnical regimes. This concept holds a central position in the MLP framework and suggests that interactions at three levels drive sustainability transitions: niches, where nurturing of radical innovations occurs; regimes, comprising dominant practices and structures; and landscapes, representing the broader societal context (Geels, 2002; Geels & Schot, 2007).

Elzen et al. (2012) delineate three distinct forms of anchoring. Technological Anchoring entails the integration of novel technologies into existing systems. It involves not merely adopting new technologies but also their adaptation and refinement to align with current regimes (Elzen et al., 2012). The Network Anchoring focuses on expanding actor networks, fostering collaborations, and supporting and stabilizing innovations. This type of anchoring underscores the significance of social dynamics and actors’ roles in the innovation process (Hommels et al., 2007). Institutional Anchoring involves translating niche developments into new or modified institutional arrangements. These can be cognitive, dealing with social values and interests; normative, converting these values into formal and informal rules; and economic, by shaping new economic structures like contracts and value chains (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006). Anchoring is a multi-faceted process that embeds technological novelties and aligns social, institutional, and economic elements. Such alignment is crucial for successfully transitioning innovations from niches to regimes, ultimately leading to broader systemic changes (Smith & Raven, 2012).

By themselves, individual technologies and production methods are unlikely to foster profound socio-technical transitions within Brazilian agriculture. However, in conjunction, diverse innovations advanced by a multitude of different stakeholders within the sector can, in some cases, foster coevolutionary dynamics that help to bring about fundamental change (Geels et al., 2017). Assessing this process of change thus requires a systemwide perspective on the parallel evolution of different subsectors and technological niches. This highlights the need to assess the dynamics across different production models associated with low-carbon agriculture to gain a broader perspective of regime evolution.

Following Elzen et al. (2012), we use the concept of anchoring to examine how innovations become embedded through technological, network and institutional processes. Alignment is understood as the gradual stabilization of shared expectations, infrastructures and rules that make niche practices ‘fit’ within wider regimes; this can be deliberate or emergent and is typically driven by combinations of policy, market incentives and learning. Operationally, we examine five regime dimensions— 1) technology and knowledge, 2) industrial networks and markets, 3) infrastructure, 4) sectoral policies, and 5) culture, which grosso modo follows the categorizations by Geels (2002). This approach thereby aims to provide a multidimensional perspective of how the opportunities and challenges relate to the process of anchoring niche innovations within the broader socio-technical landscape of Brazilian agriculture.

3 Methodology

In the study, we combine qualitative fieldwork with secondary quantitative indicators and sources, apart from academic and gray literature within the field to contextualize three decarbonization niches in Brazilian agriculture. The study synthesizes empirical findings from three different research projects focusing on 1) cabruca cocoa 2) deforestation challenges, and 3) carbon markets, spanning from 2019 to 2024. In total, a number of 42 interviews were conducted with actors from civil society, small and medium-scale producers, agribusiness entities, academics, and public servants and officials. The interviews were conducted either in-person, online or by telephone, and followed a semi-structured format. Anonymity was preserved and oral consent given to record or annotate the conversations.

Interview guides were organized around the five sociotechnical regime dimensions and the MLP levels. Core questions addressed were (i) technological practices and knowledge needs; (ii) market organization, value‑chain coordination and price formation; (iii) infrastructure and service provision; (iv) policy, finance and regulatory constraints; and (v) cultural norms, risk perceptions and narratives. Data were analyzed using a hybrid deductive–inductive coding approach in a matrix aligned with these dimensions, enabling cross‑case comparison. Secondary indicators (e.g., adoption area, production volumes, and carbon‑stock estimates) were compiled from official statistics and peer‑reviewed or technical sources to triangulate interview evidence; they are used for contextualization rather than for a full carbon accounting model.

4 Results and Discussion

In the following sections, we assess the prospects for sociotechnical transitions within Brazilian agriculture through analysis of the transformatory potential of three different agricultural production systems: crop–livestock–forestry integration (CLFi), cabruca cocoa agroforestry, and reforestation economy. For each case, we discuss evidence along five sociotechnical regime dimensions -1) technology and knowledge, 2) industrial networks and markets, 3) infrastructure, 4) sectoral policies, and 5) culture - and then synthesize a cross‑case comparison in Table 1.

Table 1
Summary of findings from analysis of the CLFi, cabruca cocoa, and forest restoration production systems, categorized according to different dimensions of the sociotechnical regime.

Dimension of sociotechnical regime	CLFi	Cabruca cocoa agro-forestry	Forest restoration
Technology	- Existing technologies provide potential for yield increases without expansion of cultivated areas	- Innovations, such as shade management, organic farming practices, controlled fermentation and drying have raised the quality of beans in recent years.	- Complexities are associated with restoration through the use of native regional species.
	- Sustainable intensification through CLFi can help support improved conservation outcomes		- Experience generated with natural regeneration and direct seeding can help mitigate the economic costs of forest restoration.
		- Diverse actor networks, such as NGOs, public entities, and researchers have supported innovations for improved production practices and market potential
	- CLFi systems provide important pathways for climate adaptation and mitigation
		-Without the technical assistance, the transition to the niche would not be possible
	- There is still room for improving technical aspects regarding the tree component integration
Markets and industry networks	- Low adoption of CLFi amongst farmers due to elevated implementation costs and lacking know-how	- Changing awareness of sustainability issues has provided a new market potential for cabruca cocoa.	- Forest Code compliance should generate a large demand for forest afforestation services
			- Carbon markets are still at an incipient stage, and many uncertainties currently appear to limit producers’ demands in engaging within these markets.
	- Credit access dedicated to CLFi modality could play an important role for CLFi dissemination, and high returns on investment make this a potentially attractive investment	- Accentuated competition within high-quality markets presents challenges for value chain improvements and brand development
		- GI/certifications; premiums depend on quality/traceability
	- CLFi industry networks support the growth of this production system at the early stage
		-Economic viability is essential for producers
Infrastructure	- Lacking human skill formation and dedicated agricultural service providers constitutes a bottleneck to CLFi dissemination.	- High-quality warehouse demands within the premium market are a challenge to many small- and medium-sized producers	- A lack of nurseries, specialized labor, and frequent seed scarcity provide obstacles within the market infrastructure
			- Machinery and tools for seed processing are often not available to geographically isolated collectors.
	- Poor regional infrastructure, such as roads, warehouses, resellers of inputs and machinery providers constitute an obstacle	- These challenges can be overcome as producers join efforts to gain access to proper logistics
			- Deficient transportation infrastructure in many regions complicates transactions.
Institutions and policies	- Public policies at the federal level provide an overarching framework that could support CLFi development.	- Public policies support sectoral R&D efforts and financing for cabruca cocoa	- Global commitments support the general momentum for forest restoration initiatives.
		- Sector-based initiatives have aimed to ensure favorable certifications which can improve the international market position.	- Domestic policies and multistakeholder commitments provide frameworks and concrete incentives for reforestation activities.
	- Favorable credit allocation that accounts for the synergistic characteristics of different crops within integrated systems, along with efforts to diffuse technology and knowledge targeted at smallholders, could provide positive incentives for CLFi.
		- Persistent gaps in continuous ATER, finance and disease support; land governance matters.
Culture	- Conservatism and risk-aversion provides a significant impediment to CLFi adoption.	- The cultural and traditional significance of Cabruca cocoa has strong territorial identity (heritage landscape’) and supports legitimacy and collective action but can mask inequalities and conflicts over land and value added.	- Horizontal engagement with local communities and incorporation of traditional knowledge are key to inclusive projects which can support local livelihoods.
	- Generational changes in farms could spur increased risk taking and innovative practices.
			- Well-planned seed collection projects can support local community cohesion and gender inclusion, albeit the profit potential in some instances also has fostered local disputes.
		- Cabruca holds the potential to produce positive reverberations in local communities through inclusive growth

• Source: Authors’ elaboration.

4.1 Crop-Livestock-Forestry Integration (CLFi)

Crop-Livestock-Forestry Integration (CLFi) combines crops, livestock and, in some modalities, planted trees in the same area through intercropping, crop succession or crop rotation (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, 2023). Integrated systems seek to optimize land use by improving productivity levels, using resources more efficiently, diversifying production, and increasing output. Pasturelands cover 179 million hectares in Brazil (Lapig-Remote Sensing, 2023) while the total cultivated area comprised approximately 97 million hectares in 2025 (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2026). CLFi systems have been gaining traction since the mid-2000s. From 2010 to 2020, the area dedicated to CLFi increased by almost 10 million hectares (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, 2021). Estimates suggest that it currently occupies 20 million hectares (Polidoro et al., 2020), with a very large theoretical expansion potential given the extent of pasturelands suitable for conversion. At the same time, adoption of the forestry component remains more limited and often relies on fast‑growing eucalyptus designed for a long‑term revenue stream (Skorupa et al., 2021).

When functioning synergistically, the system components have potential to provide a series of environmental, economic, and social benefits, ranging from improving the soil quality to adding product value, while also fostering important social impacts through labor skill enhancement and job creation (dos Reis et al., 2025; Rodrigues et al., 2023). Increasing canopy cover with trees in the system can provide thermal comfort to the animals, and by regulating air temperature and soil moisture, provide more favorable conditions for the development of soil organisms (Gomes et al., 2016). Thus, CLFi adoption is also an important strategy to mitigate the impacts of drought in agricultural areas (Bosi et al., 2020). Furthermore, the soil covering year-round provides organic matter and promotes better water retention, advancing the soil fertility and carbon stock levels, thus enabling higher animal stocking rates, forage production and nutritional value, and ultimately higher productivity per hectare (Oliveira et al., 2024a; Paciullo et al., 2021). In addition to yield improvements, the system holds a conservationist potential (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, 2023).

This conservation potential is further reflected in the system’s capacity to foster low‑carbon agricultural development through sustainable intensification, whereby higher yields reduce pressures for agricultural expansion into new areas and, consequently, help curb deforestation and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Estimates indicate that such dynamics could avoid approximately 1.5 million hectares of deforestation and mitigate 21.7 Mt CO₂e between 2025 and 2030 (Gurgel et al., 2025), although the empirical basis for these projections warrants further investigation particularly in light of ongoing debates regarding potential Jevons‑type rebound effects (Costa, 2026). Existing literature has documented the outcomes of CLFi under particular circumstances. However, because these systems involve multiple operational and managerial layers, the factors that limit their broader adoption are still in the process of being established.

From a technology and knowledge perspective, ILPF is not a single package but a family of designs (crop‑livestock, livestock‑forest, crop‑forest, and full ILPF). CLFi technology can be adopted by all property sizes but should be designed according to the edaphoclimatic conditions and logistics facilities to supply the crops output that occur locally. Improving the knowledge for the optimal choice of species and cultivars to be mixed in these systems is an ongoing process. The key point is to find the ideal combination between diverse species of agricultural, livestock and forestry components that adapt to different soil and climate conditions with mutually enforcing environmental, economic, and social benefits. Furthermore, it is essential to consider the productivity of the entire system. Increasing the number of trees will lead to a reduction in crop- and livestock production. Therefore, the higher number of trees must be considered in the overall assessment (Behling, 2024). In Brazil, the most adopted modality is the crop-livestock integration, which is estimated to correspond to 83% of the total. Integrated systems with forestry components are the least used (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, 2023). Technologies and knowledge concerning some aspects related to this component are still underdeveloped. Spacing between trees that permits carrying out cultural treatments by agricultural machinery as well as proper harvesting still needs to be further explored. Another concern is the variety of forest species with economic potential that can be used. This highlights the need to further develop the technological chain of different species as well as their commercial attractiveness. In July 2024, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) concluded the first 12-year cycle of the world’s largest experiment with CLFi systems (Behling, 2024). The forthcoming results will provide crucial recommendations, especially on the use of the tree component.

Market and industry networks are uneven across the ILPF bundle. Unlike the well-established market structure for grains and meat, forestry products lack a consolidated local market. As highlighted by one interviewee, depending on the type of wood, the prices could be very volatile and must almost “pay for selling”.¹ Wood sent to sawmills has a higher added value, but this depends on the regional availability of processing infrastructure. In parts of Brazil where corn ethanol plants have emerged, the demand for biomass for boilers has grown significantly creating an alternative market (Behling, 2024). Despite their potential benefits, CLFi systems are often still far from reaching their full market potential. Although evidence indicates that the return on investment for farmers who adopt CFLi systems is greater than for those who use exclusive farming or livestock systems (Rodrigues et al., 2023), these systems are associated with elevated costs of implementation. It is especially the case of small producers for whom the initial investment and the hiring of labor represent a financial risk (Souza et al., 2012; Cechin et al., 2021; Soendergaard et al., 2021). CLFi area grown in Brazil has been supported by a market network of diverse actors such as research and teaching institutions, cooperatives, NGOs, international organizations, and the Federal and state governments. The Rede ILPF (CLFi Network), which is composed and co-financed by public and private institutions, seeks to encourage, and accelerate the adoption of the CFLi by rural producers. It has a broad focus on technology transfer, training, and other measures to add value through the promotion of product and property certification (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, 2021).

Infrastructure constraints are therefore context dependent. While parts of Brazil’s grain and livestock sectors operate with mature logistics, storage and slaughter capacity, the addition of trees may require adapted machinery, fencing and local processing capacity. For family farmers and remote territories, deficiencies in rural roads, access to inputs and service provision increase transaction costs and perceived risk, making collective arrangements (cooperatives, shared equipment and technical hubs) particularly important.

Adequate policies and regulatory incentives can be crucial to support CLFi dissemination. Institutionally, CLFi is strongly associated with the ABC+/RenovAgro policy agenda - which is Brazil's public policy to decarbonize the agricultural sector - and related credit lines, which frame integrated systems as mitigation technologies. Credit access influences the CLFi mix, especially when it involves the forestry component (Sá et al., 2022; Rodrigues et al., 2023). The ABC+/RenovAgro aims to increase the adoption of CLFi across 10 million hectares between 2021 and 2030 and includes a correlated mitigation goal of 72 MtCO₂e (Brasil, 2023). The ABC/RenovAgro provides rural credit with attractive rates for producers. However, according to some of the interviewees, this credit line is more suitable for investment, while a specific loan to crop production is still needed. Thus, despite the dedication of one of the credit lines to CLFi, there is a demand from the agricultural sector for improving the concession format considering the peculiarities of the integrated systems. Another policy goal that is connected to the increase in the CLFi area relates to the recovery of degraded pastures. In December of 2023, the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture announced a program to convert 40 million hectares of low-productivity degraded pastures into cropland, well managed pastures, and forestry systems, in ten years. The use of integrated systems stands out as a promising strategy to support this goal (Lima et al., 2019).

Greater than the technological challenge itself is the challenge of providing technical assistance and technology transfer services to facilitate CLFi dissemination (Zu Ermgassen et al. 2018). As stated by one interviewee, technical assistance that combines CLFi synergistically, rather than individually, would significantly impact adoption rates, particularly for integrating the forestry component.² This is crucial because operating CLFi systems requires a technical understanding that is not commonplace to the farmers, which also encompasses the dynamics of the integration with the other components (Sá et al., 2022).

Adoption thus also encompasses a cultural dimension. Due to conservatism and resistance to new technologies, some Brazilian farmers exhibit resistance to implementing more sustainable production practices like CLFi (Bungenstab, 2012; Rodrigues et al., 2023). Livestock-based properties are generally more reluctant in adopting CLFi because they are not used to risk taking and to managing complex systems as in the case of soybean, corn and other crops. The joint management of the three interconnected components further raises the complexity of the system (Soendergaard et al., 2021). In general, farmers may face difficulties in advancing towards certain production methods and practices, which call for more organized planning and the provision of new information (Nobre & Oliveira, 2018). Additionally, the absence of trailblazers and innovators may impede the spread and uptake of sustainable technology (Mattila et al., 2022). In Brazil, the process of property succession by younger generations may play a significant role in accelerating the shift to low-carbon agriculture. Apart from the fact that these generations tend to be more optimistic about emerging technologies and socio-environmental concerns (Sá et al., 2022), recent policy measures have moved in this direction, including dedicated credit lines for young farmers and an attractive interest‑rate subsidy for low‑carbon rural credit, which encompasses production systems such as CLFi (Banco Nacional do Desenvolvimento, 2025).

4.2 Cacau Cabruca (Cabruca cocoa)

Cabruca cocoa is a traditional shade‑grown cacao agroforestry system in southern Bahia, where cacao is cultivated under a retained canopy of native trees within a working landscape of Atlantic Forest remnants and managed agroforests (König &Pinsky, 2023). As an agroforestry system, cabruca tends to support biodiversity conservation and carbon storage while maintaining agricultural production (Sambuichi & Haridasan, 2007; Perfecto & Vandermeer, 2008; Nair, 2011; Brainer, 2021). Beyond its biophysical attributes, cabruca is embedded in a territorial identity shaped by cocoa’s historical role in regional development, labor relations, and land tenure.

Cocoa expansion in southern Bahia historically combined export‑oriented growth with strong land concentration and political power asymmetries often described as coronelismo cacaueiro (“cocoa strongmen”), shaping local livelihoods and patterns of inclusion (Rangel & Tonella, 2013). Institutional arrangements and technical assistance influenced which production models were valued and supported. For decades, modernization efforts emphasized yield‑oriented management and encouraged producers to reduce shade and “rationalize” traditional systems, in some cases through “derruba total” (removal of original vegetation followed by simplified shade arrangements) and input‑intensive technological packages (Fernandes, 2008; Silva, 2013). This helps explain why cabruca—despite its ecological value—was often framed as “low productivity system” and in need of transformation.

The sector’s trajectory changed sharply with the witches’ broom (vassoura‑de‑bruxa) crisis. The disease was identified in southern Bahia in 1989 and became a key driver of regional decline, with strong impacts on production, employment and the rural economy. Evidence from the region suggests that the crisis was also associated with changes in land dynamics, including abandoned or devalued cocoa estates and a subsequent expansion of landless movements and settlements in the 1990s. Over time, Bahia lost national primacy and Brazilian cocoa production shifted towards the Amazon, especially Pará (Arantes, 2021; Amazônia 2030, 2023), while global supply remained highly concentrated in West Africa, particularly Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana.

In the post‑crisis period, new actors—especially NGOs focused on Atlantic Forest conservation and rural development—helped reframe cabruca as pathway of “productive conservation” and supported collective action, quality upgrading and value‑chain innovation (König et al., 2024).

At the same time, rising international demand for sustainable and traceable products created opportunities for differentiated pricing, helping to sustain cabruca as both an environmental and an economic strategy. Consequently, this economic incentive has encouraged the continued use of the Cabruca system. Moreover, the Cabruca system is not restricted to its agricultural practices, as it integrates ecological elements (i.e., biodiversity), socio-cultural components (such as festivals and religious beliefs), and economic benefits. Recent field evidence indicates that cabruca remains widespread among small and medium farms: in the Litoral Sul territory, 78% of establishments operated under cabruca with an average size of 10.9 ha, but yields were modest and access to credit and technical assistance was limited (Chiapetti et al., 2020; CocoaAction Brazil, 2021a).

The transition from traditional cabruca to premium cocoa segment can provide a pathway to revitalize the cocoa industry, offering a sustainable and economically viable alternative to traditional cultivation methods. This transition depends on new technologies and knowledge, including improved shade management, disease control, organic practices where viable, and post-harvest innovations such as controlled fermentation and drying (CocoaAction Brazil, 2021a). A carbon assessment across 17 farms estimated an average stock of 66 t C ha⁻¹ (≈242 t CO2 ha⁻¹) in cabruca systems, with wide variation (31–109 t C ha⁻¹) according to tree density, size and species composition (Instituto Arapyaú, 2021). This highlights a key trade‑off in the transition: strategies that reduce shade or simplify the canopy may increase short‑term yields, but they can also reduce carbon stocks and biodiversity. By contrast, a low-carbon cabruca pathway requires knowledge‑intensive shade management, disease control and quality‑focused post‑harvest practices. The introduction of innovative processing, such as controlled fermentation and drying, is also necessary to meet the demanding quality standards in the premium cocoa market (CocoaAction Brazil, 2021b).

Interviewees also emphasized important coordination barriers. Many producers still operate individually, and the costs of upgrading remain high for small and medium farms. In this context, NGOs have played an extremely important role in connecting producers, disseminating technical knowledge, and creating a more favorable environment for sectorial innovation. This exchange of knowledge and connections has been essential to fostering trust and involvement of producers, NGOs, government agencies, and other partners in the Cabruca production system. This has helped to provide effective farming techniques, improving innovation uptake while adding valuable market information, improving scalability and economic returns. NGOs have financed agronomists and researchers to increase plantation productivity by developing and disseminating innovative agricultural techniques. The creation of the Cocoa Innovation Center (CIC) in 2017 was an important milestone in this process, as it strengthened bean analysis, quality assessment, and buyer–producer connections, thereby improving commercialization conditions for cabruca cocoa. CIC serves various farm sizes and even the cocoa processing industry. These initiatives have contributed to the body of technical knowledge that has improved the manufacturing processes for Cabruca cocoa, its quality, and its commercialization.

Market and network dynamics have improved due to the rise of ‘fine cocoa’ and local chocolate initiatives, supported by certification and geographic indication schemes that seek to reward quality and environmental attributes. Yet this niche remains small relative to bulk cocoa and still depends on coordination among producers, cooperatives, processors and buyers to standardize fermentation, traceability and quality premiums. Interviewees stressed that, without stable purchasing arrangements and transparent price formation, environmental differentiation alone does not guarantee additional income, especially for smallholders. In this context, some niche actors seek support to access external markets. ApexBrasil—the Brazilian Trade and Investment Promotion Agency—supports export promotion through trade missions, business matchmaking and participation in international fairs (Brasil, 2022).

Infrastructure and logistics therefore emerge as non‑trivial barriers. Quality upgrading requires fermentation boxes, drying structures and appropriate storage, raising per‑ton fixed costs and constraining smallholder entry. Larger producers and consortia have partially addressed these bottlenecks by sharing facilities and services, but scaling still depends on targeted finance and technical assistance. As the NGO noted,

The idea of sharing expenses within the consortium, will allow individual cost reduction, enabling small scale producers to actually produce and commercialize. (Interview with producer).

Participating in consortium assemblies is fundamental for experience exchanging. We must set by contract that assemblies are mandatory. (Interview with producer).

Ideally we would get APEX Brazil support to conquer the external market. (NGO).

From a sectoral policy perspective, the transition to premium cabruca cocoa has been shaped by both past policy legacies and more recent institutional support. Historically, during the renewal of cocoa cultivation in the 1970s, CEPLAC encouraged producers to increase light incidence by simplifying cabruca shade—reducing the richness of native trees and, in some cases, converting to systems with clear‑cutting and monodominant shade with exotic species (e.g., Erythrina) (Silva, 2013). More recently, public agencies and civil‑society organizations have supported training and value‑chain projects, but interviewees reported gaps in continuous extension, finance and disease‑management support. Certifications such as the Rainforest Seal and the Geographical Indication of Southern Bahia have also helped strengthen the environmental and territorial legitimacy of cabruca, while Brazil’s recognition in the fine cocoa segment by the ICCO in 2019 increased visibility for high-quality national production.

Policy and regulatory initiatives have also been undertaken, with the Cabruca system of cocoa agroforestry receiving assistance with its high-quality output³. Standardizing the principle and on-farm practices for desirable cocoa types is key to successfully enabling the commercialization process, as it involves setting new norms from regulation, policy, values, beliefs and enforcement both by farmers and other relevant stakeholders. This has been accompanied by policy instruments and regulatory changes that promote sustainable practices, with rewards given for implementing new certification systems based on accreditations as well as other attributes. This involves, among other things, creating farm-level certification to support sustainable organic cocoa production⁴. Great expectations exist within the Cabruca sector concerning the potential to grow as part of a wider push towards bioeconomy development,

This region has the best conditions to become a great bio-economy platform. Experience in this region shows that the so-called bioeconomy perfectly fits the area, between Espírito Santo and Recôncavo Baiano. Palm oil, peach palm, cupuaçu, cocoa. This ecological combination of forest and coast destines Bahia to this. (Interview with public official).

The cultural dimension is equally central to cabruca. The system carries strong territorial identity and is often framed as a heritage landscape that reconciles production with forest conservation. This legitimacy can facilitate social acceptance and collective action, however, it can also mask conflicts over who controls land, trees and value added. For this reason, scaling cabruca as a low‑carbon niche requires not only technical support, but also mechanisms that improve smallholder bargaining power, such as cooperatives, transparent contracts, and targeted credit and technical assistance and rural extension (ATER). As one NGO representative stated, “We are part of a regional growing movement to strengthen this production chain and revitalize Cabruca, Atlantic Forest cocoa. Cocoa and chocolate, when produced respecting the environment, can boost Southern Bahia’s development”.

The cultural changes disseminated among producers as well as consumers have led to the creation of a typology of the Cabruca cocoa production system as a niche market. Farmers have come to recognize the potential of Cabruca beyond cocoa production, starting to exploit the cultural and environmental value of producer regions by fostering ecotourism and promoting Cabruca in other ecologically oriented segments, such as the cosmetics industry. Advanced production technology means that more complicated production processes require skilled labor, which has increased the social value of this kind of labor in the region. Producers seek to provide higher wages and invest in training their workforce, collaborating with the local development, and improving the living conditions for those who live or work under the cabruca system. As stressed by a public official, “Cabruca generates environmental conservation, generates wealth for towns, income for farmers, jobs for rural workers, that is, Cabruca brings sustainability to municipalities”⁵. This social innovation has increased awareness and understanding of the value of nature conservation among producers, the local population, NGOs, and regime representatives. The cultural value of Cabruca, its historical importance, and its potential to generate new sources of income have also been stressed by a producer:

Cabruca’s cultural value and our history should be used to tap the potential that may be explored. Not only to bring new sources of income, but to educate consumers about the production process, the reason for the premium price⁶. (Interview with producer).

The traditional farming methods that have been inherited from previous generations are also part of the local culture. Likewise, the mobilization of regional actors is another factor in improving the production chain and structuring state policies to support it by engaging local leadership and institutions. This collective approach further contributes to fostering a regional persona built on sustainable cocoa and environmental stewardship. An NGO staffer thus stressed,

We are part of a regional growing movement to strengthen this production chain and revitalize Cabruca, Atlantic Forest cocoa. Cocoa and chocolate, when produced respecting the environment, can boost Southern Bahia’s development. Our goal has always been to foster public policies to support the sector, involving local leaders and institutions. (Interview with NGO).

These findings suggest that cabruca’s scaling potential hinges on simultaneously strengthening quality‑based markets, technical support, and inclusive territorial governance.

4.3 Forest Restoration

Although forest restoration efforts in Brazil date back to the 19^th Century (Sales et al., 2026), these projects have gained ground in recent decades. Growing environmental and climate concerns have spurred restoration efforts, and a production network and related technologies and knowhow are being developed (Urzedo et al., 2020). Brazilian law mandates that a certain proportion of private rural properties should be kept as native vegetation, in addition to slopes and riverbeds. There is a deficit of approximately 20-24 million hectares of native vegetation, which landholders currently are obliged to restore (Silva et al., 2017; Nunes et al., 2017). Although the Brazilian Forest Code grants landholders until 2032 to restore an area that size, the absence of complementary regulatory measures in force, combined with weak compliance and enforcement, makes this restauration obligation challenging to achieve. Moreover, although it is doubtful whether compliance with legal conservation is likely to be monetized, payment for environmental services as well as restoration of areas beyond legal obligations to generate carbon credits can in principle also yield income for farmers – although few mechanisms for carbon credit generation have thus far been defined for this purpose. As highlighted by a specialist within the field, restoration motivated by generation of carbon credits could potentially surpass that driven by legal compliance⁷. Beyond their climate-mitigation effects, forest restoration also helps preserve biodiversity and important water sources (Oliveira et al., 2025; Brancalion et al., 2025). A transition towards low-carbon agriculture within a Brazilian context should therefore also encompass producers’ efforts to restore and preserve native vegetation. As such, restoration services become a niece of practices and technology with the potential to accelerate this transition process. The continued absence of national wide carbon markets including the agricultural sector, nonetheless constitutes a noticeable challenge to creating comprehensive economic incentives for restoration.

In recent decades, important experiences and technologies related to afforestation and forest regeneration have been generated in Brazil. The complexities associated especially with the restoration of native vegetation nonetheless pose substantial challenges and create a need for grounded technical skills. According to a restoration specialist interviewed, the challenge revolves around the task of “scaling the complexity” inherent in native landscapes⁸. Often, the most economic and simple approaches to restoration have been to introduce exotic species within regional biomes. However, while this may provide a ‘quick fix’, exotic species are rarely ideal to guarantee ecological recovery of the flora and fauna characteristic of local ecosystems (Costa et al., 2016). Innovative restoration models have been developed, in which exotic species initially are introduced to provide canopy cover to facilitate the planting of more slow-growing native species (Holl, 2017). Another approach to scaling restoration projects relies on native tree clusters which help to attract seed-dispersing animals. Because of the elevated costs of active restoration (complete planting), natural regeneration can provide an attractive alternative (Strassburg et al., 2016). Direct seeding constitutes another low-cost restoration strategy (Freitas et al., 2019). It is crucial that such interventions are context-specific and adapted to local landscape characteristics, thereby relying on diverse interventions and technologies (Duden et al., 2025; Nunes et al., 2017). A key challenge is to restore slopes and hills, which serve an important function of retaining water and avoiding erosion. Seeding via drone technology could play an important role in that regard. Finally, improving the training of sufficient qualified personnel is likewise important. Inserting landscape restoration within curricula in technical schools and higher education institutions could help to provide the necessary human capital to meet future demand for these services (Bustamante et al., 2019).

Advancing forest restoration in Brazilian agriculture also depends on a functional and efficient market structure. On the supply side, demand for carbon credits has thus far not taken off, despite great expectations. On the supply side, many rural producers are poorly informed about how to monetize carbon sequestration (Soendergaard et al., 2021). Projects involving restoration beyond landholders’ legal conservation obligations could become eligible for generation of carbon credits. In a situation with internationally integrated carbon markets and higher CO₂ prices, carbon credits or Payments for Environmental Services (PES) would provide economically attractive monetization options (Nunes et al., 2017). Many interviewees nonetheless stressed how producers often lack knowledge of the procedures and basic principles for mitigation projects. This points to a need for improved information and capacity building to spur landholders’ interest and ability to engage in carbon markets (Brancalion et al., 2017). Rural cooperatives can facilitate information campaigns amongst small- and medium-sized producers and also help to pool their efforts through joint projects. This would be important to avoid that profits are reaped primarily by multinational companies and large-scale investors,⁹ considering that there has been a tendency for restoration incentives mainly to become accessible for large-scale commercial producers (Pienkowski et al., 2024). In sum, informing and engaging producers within carbon markets can help spur their interest in restoration projects.

Because of the scale of the Brazilian territory, many restoration challenges pertain to logistics and infrastructure. Important obstacles include, 1) a need for supply chain integration to reconcile supply and demand for seedlings 2) the lack of nurseries in some regions, and 3) the frequent unavailability of seeds and specialized labor and gatherers (Silva et al., 2017). According to sectorial surveys, 80% of respondents connect the main obstacles in native seedling production to deficient supply, while 75% point to commercialization (Silva et al., 2017). These difficulties are also strongly related to geography, and the challenge for seed collectors to reach markets which often are located at a distance of hundreds of kilometers (Urzedo et al., 2016). In Northern Brazil, connections between collectors, nurseries, and farms are frequently hindered by heavy precipitation in the rainy season (Durigan et al., 2013). Moreover, especially isolated settlers and indigenous communities often lack the basic infrastructure and machinery for seed production, meaning that their total yields can fall significantly short of those in urban centers (Urzedo et al., 2016). Finally, forest restoration also requires a certain fencing and monitoring infrastructure, which constitutes additional costs for rural producers engaged in these activities (Durigan, et al., 2013). Moreover, fire risks also mean that growing seedlings often need to be protected by buffer strips (aceiros) and require constant vigilance to avert this hazard. Thus, while some important nodes in the production chain for forest restoration have been developed, improved logistics and infrastructure are still needed to scale up its potential.

As part of a wider “agro-environmental” agenda, forest restoration depends strongly on favorable institutions and policies. Developments within the wider field of global environmental governance can help support this goal. The Bonn Challenge of 2013 joined national governments, - among them, Brazil – and civil society actors in a commitment to reforest 150 million hectares towards 2020, and 350 million hectares towards 2030. In a similar vein, the New York Declaration on Forests, signed at the UN Climate Summit in 2014, stated a commitment to restore 150 million hectares of degraded landscapes and forestlands by 2020 (New York Declaration on Forests, 2014). Before the COP21 in Paris in 2015, Brazil also made a national commitment to restore 12 million hectares by 2030. While progress towards this goal has been cumbersome, reaching it remains an official governmental policy (Oliveira et al., 2024b). Moreover, to comply with the revised Forest Code of 2012, an area between 20-24 million hectares on private lands would need to be restored (Silva et al., 2017; Nunes et al., 2017). This could create a large market for restoration services, potentially reaching R$ 52 billion towards 2030 (Instituto Escolhas, 2015). The Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact, comprising different public and private actors, has also set the goal of restoring 30% of this biome towards 2050, which would reach 15 million hectares. Research suggests that this initiative increased restored forest cover by around 10-20%, as it helped landowners overcome financial and information-related obstacles (Toto et al., 2025). Recently, some legal steps have also been made to advance restoration. The National Policy on Climate Change of 2009 encouraged restoration of vegetation, while the National Plan for Recovery of Native Vegetation of 2017 further developed the regulatory framework for these activities. However, institutional and regulatory challenges persist. As highlighted by a trader within the carbon market, Brazilian laws pose cumbersome bureaucratic challenges and are often even outright hostile to the development of the sector¹⁰. A restoration specialist also points to a large but still untapped potential for the creation of concessions to reforest and preserve illegally deforested federal public lands.¹¹ In summary, important international and domestic initiatives have been made to accelerate restoration, albeit much still needs to be done to improve the regulatory environment for sectoral development. The successful dissemination and implementation of restoration projects within Brazilian agriculture likely depends on continuous efforts to create the necessary incentives and a transparent legal framework through a multitude of mutually reinforcing institutions and regulations.

With the regional differences and cultural heterogeneity that characterizes Brazil, restoration projects also interface with this dimension. Principles such as social involvement and bottom-up engagement have thus become integral to campaigns to encourage seed collection and restoration (Durigan et al., 2013; Holl, 2017). Such initiatives can also support the livelihoods of local communities, as seed collectors often earn many times the value of the Brazilian minimum salary - which is much above the average income in many rural areas (Silva et al., 2017). Moreover, nurseries, planting, and irrigation also generate potential for local employment. Other important social co-benefits can also be achieved. A survey conducted among seed collector communities by Urzedo et al. (2016) shows that these projects had strengthened local organization, knowledge sharing, and womens’ empowerment. Amongst indigenous communities, seed collection has improved community organization, with particularly positive results for women. This type of activity also appeared to overlap with the traditional responsibilities, and skill sets of women within these communities. Moreover, surpluses of fruit pulp from seed collection also helped improve diets. However, in urban communities, the opportunities created by seed production have spurred some degree of conflict over areas and trees used for seed collection. An overview of the cultural dimension of seed collection thereby suggests that increased demand for seed and seedlings by local farmers can lead to a range of potentially positive reverberations for local and indigenous communities. This converges with research emphasizing the crucial importance of a multifunctional approach, contemplating socioecological goals and cultural values alongside restoration objectives as part of these projects.

4.4 Niche Dynamics and the Limits to Scaling Low-Carbon Agriculture

The three cases analyzed have yielded several insights about the challenges and opportunities for niches to spur a transformation towards low-carbon agriculture in Brazil. In this regard, two key challenges stand out: First, within the technological dimension, existing knowledge and techniques have proven to yield positive outcomes in terms of both outputs, environmental performance, and social impact. Yet, remaining technical complexities mean that significant entry costs related to financial investments and know-how impede many producers from adopting these production models, thereby limiting their potential for large-scale dissemination. Second, in terms of markets and industry networks, joint initiatives within both the CLFi and cabruca sectors have provided important networks with the aim of supporting the dissemination and successful continuation of these practices. Some general market trends at the sociotechnical landscape level, such as increased consumer sustainability concerns and climate awareness have spurred increased demand fueling these production models. Yet underdeveloped market structures persist across all three cases. In the case of CLFi, however, this constraint applies specifically to arrangements that include the tree component; crop-livestock configurations do not face the same limitation. - These underdevelopment structures appear to hamper the translation of this demand into substantial growth. This is particularly salient regarding actors’ ability to connect with profitable market segments, which constitutes an important economic precondition to scale these production systems.

Moreover, challenges can also be identified within other regime dimensions, which are not crucial, but which play a secondary role in terms of defining the potential for a transition towards low-carbon production models. In the infrastructural dimension, poor logistics and key market infrastructure, as well as a lack of human capital capacity, provide a significant obstacle for scaling. In some cases, the pooling of joint resources by producers has mitigated these problems, and cooperative measures appear to hold a potential for further developing this line of action. Under the institutional and regulatory dimensions, public and private initiatives have proven to be important to support sectoral growth at the early stage. However, the provision of comprehensive and transparent legal frameworks to regulate market development and incentives for the long-term growth of the three production systems still stands as a critical task - in the case of CLFi, only those configurations that incorporate the tree component, as previously noted. Finally, within the cultural dimension, conservatism and risk-aversion appears still to constitute an obstacle for widespread CLFi adoption. However, changing consumer perceptions and generational shifts amongst producers could help attenuate this situation. Moreover, the cultural value associated with these production systems appears to lay the ground for positive synergies within local communities in terms of productive inclusion, gender empowerment, and appreciation of traditional knowledge. The summary of the findings from the analysis is displayed in Table 1:

Across the three cases, the cross‑case comparison highlights that low‑carbon innovations are already technically feasible but remain fragile niches. Two transversal challenges stand out. First, market and value‑chain coordination: in all cases, environmental performance is imperfectly rewarded (commodity pricing for ILPF, volatile premiums for fine cocoa, and uncertain prices for restoration credits). Second, the scaling of knowledge and institutional infrastructures: credit, insurance, extension services, standards and monitoring systems are decisive for lowering entry costs and risks. A third cross‑cutting dimension—often underemphasized in transitions frameworks applied to agriculture —is land governance and territorial inequality. Brazil’s agrarian heterogeneity shapes who can adopt capital‑intensive innovations, who captures value in differentiated markets, and where restoration can occur without exacerbating conflicts. Therefore, scaling strategies cannot be one‑size‑fits‑all: they must be tailored to distinct regimes (commodity agribusiness, traditional agroforestry territories, and environmental‑service economies) and should combine productivity goals with safeguards against rebound effects and exclusion.

In sum, existing experiences as well as ongoing calibrations and novel innovations within the production systems analyzed demonstrate their technical potential to contribute to a transition towards low-carbon agriculture. To catalyze this transition, improving sectorial organization to facilitate market connections, as well as scaling innovations and know-how stand as two critical concerns. The first task will invariably depend on private actors’ engagement in facilitating market insertion. In this regard, sourcing agents and NGOs can perform an important function in terms of strengthening especially small- and medium-sized entities’ market connections. The second task in large measure depends on public initiative to provide education and rural extension services. Moreover, creating knowledge banks and codifying best practices could be important to help scale positive experiences.

More broadly, the results highlight the relevance of sectoral approaches to understanding transitions in different production systems, a perspective that is in line with the contributions of Elzen et al. (2012) on anchoring innovations in existing regimes. Our findings underscore the importance of network anchoring to stabilize market networks around an economically viable production model and value chain, as well as technological anchoring to spur the horizontal integration of existing technologies within the regime. The analysis of Brazilian cases illustrates specific challenges and opportunities for the dissemination of low-carbon practices, highlighting the importance of transversal challenges related to market initiatives, public support and stakeholder engagement.

The analysis also reveals the interconnection between technological transitions and the socioeconomic and cultural aspects inherent to Brazilian agriculture, an area little explored in previous studies. A noticeable exception are Feola & Nunes (2013) who discuss the resilience and adaptability of agricultural systems in the face of climate change. We have aimed to deepen this discussion by illustrating how social acceptance, cultural practices and farmer engagement play crucial roles in the adoption of sustainable technologies. Resistance to change, motivated by cultural factors and risk aversion highlights the need for approaches that consider not only the technical, but also the human and cultural aspect in promoting sustainable agricultural practices.

In particular, cross‑case evidence points to the need to (i) expand technical assistance and credit mechanisms accessible to small and medium producers; (ii) invest in measurement, traceability and monitoring infrastructures so that environmental attributes can be credibly valued; and (iii) align land‑use governance instruments (e.g., CAR/PRA/CRA implementation and enforcement) with territorial development agendas. As a limitation, our analysis is primarily qualitative and uses secondary indicators for contextualization. Future research should quantify mitigation additionality at relevant scales and examine how transition policies interact with land concentration, labor relations and frontier dynamics.

5 Conclusion

We compared three low‑carbon niches in Brazilian agriculture through the Multi‑Level Perspective and sociotechnical regime dimensions. The cross‑case analysis shows that scaling depends on aligning technical practices with market coordination and with institutional and knowledge infrastructures (credit, extension, standards and monitoring), while land governance and territorial inequality condition both adoption and benefit sharing. For ILPF, policy and credit have enabled diffusion, but the forestry component and smallholder access remain bottlenecks. For cabruca, maintaining shade‑based carbon and resilience while upgrading quality markets requires coordinated value chains and inclusive territorial governance. For restoration, the main barriers are long time horizons, transaction costs and uncertain revenue streams; meeting national targets will likely require blended finance and effective compliance instruments beyond voluntary markets. Overall, decarbonization strategies should be differentiated to the diverse regimes of Brazilian agriculture and prioritize mechanisms that reduce risks, increase transparency and foster equitable participation.

Data availability:

Research data is available upon request.

Acknowledgements:

We acknowledge Instituto Pensi - Fundação José Luiz Setúbal for the financial support that made this study possible

• 1
  Interview with CLFi farmer, 20/6, 2024
• 2
  Ibid.
• 3
  As stressed by a producer, the CIC (Cocoa Innovation Center) provided key information on product quality standards “Through CIC it was possible to understand what would be necessary to improve our nuts”. (Producer)
• 4
  "In 2011 cabruca was recognized as an important culture. 2012 forest code brought up these agricultural systems’ value", (FAEB). "Ordinance no. 3, 2019, on cabucra agroforestry system, aimed at helping to manage without disregarding environmental assets. This ordinance is still being elaborated. It currently faces some obstacles ", (Bahia State Public Ministry).
• 5
  Interview with public official, June, 2019.
• 6
  Interview with producer June, 2019.
• 7
  Interview with forest restoration specialist, 28/5, 2024.
• 8
  Interview with forest restoration specialist, 28/5, 2024.
• 9
  Interview with carbon market trader, 10/6, 2021.
• 10
  Interview with carbon market trader, 10/6, 2021.
• 11
  Interview with forest restoration specialist, 28/5, 2024.
• How to cite:
  Søndergaard, N., König, C. C., & Dias de Sá, C. (2026). Sociotechnical transitions towards decarbonization of Brazilian Agriculture: the potential to scale innovative niche production systems. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 64, e301090. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2026.301090
• Financial support:
  Instituto Pensi - Fundação José Luiz Setúbal.
• Ethics approval:
  Not applicable
• JEL Classification:
  R11

6 References

• Amazônia 2030. (2023). Oportunidades para a produção de cacau na Amazônia Brasileira Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://amazonia2030.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Oportunidades-para-a-producao-de-cacau-na-Amazonia-Brasileira.pdf
  » https://amazonia2030.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Oportunidades-para-a-producao-de-cacau-na-Amazonia-Brasileira.pdf
• Arantes, J. T. (2021). Estudo avança no entendimento da vassoura-de-bruxa, doença que derrubou a produção de cacau no Brasil. Agência FAPESP. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://agencia.fapesp.br/estudo-avanca-no-entendimento-da-vassoura-de-bruxa-doenca-que-derrubou-a-producao-de-cacau-no-brasil/36258
  » https://agencia.fapesp.br/estudo-avanca-no-entendimento-da-vassoura-de-bruxa-doenca-que-derrubou-a-producao-de-cacau-no-brasil/36258
• Banco Nacional do Desenvolvimento (2025). Ponaf Jovem: Financiamentos Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.bndes.gov.br/wps/portal/site/home/financiamento/produto/pronaf-jovem
  » https://www.bndes.gov.br/wps/portal/site/home/financiamento/produto/pronaf-jovem
• Behling, M. (2024). Após 12 anos, pesquisa traz embasamento para plantio de árvores em sistemas ILPF Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.embrapa.br/en/busca-de-noticias/-/noticia/91026692/apos-12-anos-pesquisa-traz-embasamento-para-plantio-de-arvores-em-sistemas-ilpf
  » https://www.embrapa.br/en/busca-de-noticias/-/noticia/91026692/apos-12-anos-pesquisa-traz-embasamento-para-plantio-de-arvores-em-sistemas-ilpf
• Bosi, C., Pezzopane, J. R. M., & Sentelhas, P. C. (2020). Soil water availability in a full sun pasture and in a silvopastoral system with eucalyptus. Agroforestry Systems, 94(2), 429-440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00402-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00402-7
• Brainer, M. S. C. P. (2021). Produção de Cacau. Caderno Setorial ETENE, 6, 1-23. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.bnb.gov.br/revista/cse/article/view/2767
  » https://www.bnb.gov.br/revista/cse/article/view/2767
• Brancalion, P. H. S., Hua, F., Joyce, F. H., Antonelli, A., & Holl, K. D. (2025). Moving biodiversity from an afterthought to a key outcome of forest restoration. Nature Reviews Biodiversity, 1(4), 248-261. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00032-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00032-1
• Brancalion, P. H. S., Lamb, D., Ceccon, E., Boucher, D., Herbohn, J., Strassburg, B., & Edwards, D. P. (2017). Using markets to leverage investment in forest and landscape restoration in the tropics. Forest Policy and Economics, 85, 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.009
• Brasil. (2022). Agência Brasileira de Promoção de Exportações e Investimentos – Apex. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.gov.br/empresas-e-negocios/pt-br/invest-export-brasil/exportar/busque-apoio/agencia-brasileira-de-promocao-de-exportacoes-e-investimentos-apex
  » https://www.gov.br/empresas-e-negocios/pt-br/invest-export-brasil/exportar/busque-apoio/agencia-brasileira-de-promocao-de-exportacoes-e-investimentos-apex
• Brasil. Ministério da Agriculura e Pecuária. (2023). Metas do ABC+ Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/planoabc-abcmais/abc/metas-do-abc
  » https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/planoabc-abcmais/abc/metas-do-abc
• Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., & Eyre, N. (2013). Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy, 53, 331-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066
• Bungenstab, D. J. (2012). Sistemas de integração lavoura-pecuária-floresta: a produção sustentável (2. ed.). Brasília, DF: Embrapa. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.embrapa.br/en/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/938814/sistemas-de-integracao-lavoura-pecuaria-floresta-a-producao-sustentavel
  » https://www.embrapa.br/en/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/938814/sistemas-de-integracao-lavoura-pecuaria-floresta-a-producao-sustentavel
• 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., Siqueira, J. A., Shimbo, J., Generoso, L. G., Tabarelli, M., Biderman, R., Paiva Salomão, R., Valle, R., Junior, B., & 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
• Carauta, M., Latynskiy, E., Mössinger, J., Gil, J., Libera, A., Hampf, A., Monteiro, L., Siebold, M., & Berger, T. (2018). Can preferential credit programs speed up the adoption of low-carbon agricultural systems in Mato Grosso, Brazil? Results from bioeconomic microsimulation. Regional Environmental Change, 18(1), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1104-x
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1104-x
• Carter, S., Herold, M., Avitabile, V., Bruin, S., Sy, V., Kooistra, L., & Rufino, M. C. (2017). Agriculture-driven deforestation in the tropics from 1990–2015: emissions, trends and uncertainties. Environmental Research Letters, 13(1), 014002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9ea4
  » https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9ea4
• Cechin, A., da Silva Araújo, V., & Amand, L. (2021). Exploring the synergy between Community Supported Agriculture and agroforestry: Institutional innovation from smallholders in a Brazilian rural settlement. Journal of Rural Studies, 81, 246-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.031
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.031
• Chiapetti, J., Rocha, R. B., Conceição, A. S., Baiardi, A., Szerman, D., & VanWey, L. (2020). Panorama da Cacauicultura no Território Litoral Sul da Bahia 2015–2019. In L. VanWey, S. Porder, J. Chiapetti, D. Szerman, R. Rocha & D. Piotto (Eds.), Revelando desafios e oportunidades sociais, econômicas, e ecológicas para restauração de florestas em propriedades rurais na Mata Atlântica do Sul da Bahia 2015-2019 Ilhéus, BA: Instituto Floresta Viva. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://worldcocoafoundation.org/storage/files/panorama-da-cacauicultura-tilsb-versao-final-web.pdf
  » https://worldcocoafoundation.org/storage/files/panorama-da-cacauicultura-tilsb-versao-final-web.pdf
• CocoaAction Brazil. (2021a). Colhendo melhor, vendendo com mais lucro: boas práticas de colheita e processamento para impulsionar a qualidade do cacau Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCJsBxp1SdQ
  » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCJsBxp1SdQ
• CocoaAction Brazil. Instituto Arapyaú. WRI Brasil. (2021b). Viabilidade econômica de sistemas produtivos com cacau: Cabruca, Pleno Sol e Sistemas Agroflorestais nos estados da Bahia e do Pará Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://worldcocoafoundation.org/storage/files/viabilidade-economica-de-sistemas-produtivos-com-cacau-cabruca-pleno-sol-e-sistemas-agroflorestais-nos-estados-da-bahia-e-do-para-cocoaaction-brasil-instituto.pdf
  » https://worldcocoafoundation.org/storage/files/viabilidade-economica-de-sistemas-produtivos-com-cacau-cabruca-pleno-sol-e-sistemas-agroflorestais-nos-estados-da-bahia-e-do-para-cocoaaction-brasil-instituto.pdf
• Costa, A. S., Malhado, A. C. M., Bragagnolo, C., Correia, R. A., & Ladle, R. J. (2016). Ecological outcomes of Atlantic Forest restoration initiatives by sugar cane producers. Land Use Policy, 52, 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.025
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.025
• Costa, F. A. (2026). Agricultural intensification increases rather than reduces pressure on the Amazon Forest: Jevons’ paradox prevails in the cases of soy and cattle in Brazil (2001–2021). Land Use Policy, 160, 107842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107842
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107842
• Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A., & Hansen, M. C. (2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361(6407), 1108-1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445
  » https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445
• dos Reis, J. C., Kamoi, M. Y. T., Tanure, T. M. P., Rodrigues, M. I., Etienne, J. J. D., Valentim, J. F., Pereira, M. A., & Wruck, F. J. (2025). Integrated crop-livestock-forest systems: a path to improved agro-economic performance in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 9, 1518747. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1518747
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1518747
• Duden, A. S., Verweij, P. A., Martensen, A. C., & Verburg, R. W. (2025). Drivers of reforestation across land-use sectors in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Land Use Policy, 150, 107477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107477
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107477
• Durán, Y., Gómez-Valenzuela, V., & Ramírez, K. (2023). Socio-technical transitions and sustainable agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review of the literature 2010–2021. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7, 1145263. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1145263
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1145263
• Durigan, G., Guerin, N., & da Costa, J. N. M. N. (2013). Ecological restoration of Xingu Basin headwaters: motivations, engagement, challenges and perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 368(1619), 20120165. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0165
  » https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0165
• El Bilali, H. (2019). The multi-level perspective in research on sustainability transitions in agriculture and food systems: A systematic review. Agriculture, 9(4), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9040074
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9040074
• Elzen, B., Geels, F. W., & Green, K. (2004). System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845423421
  » https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845423421
• Elzen, B., van Mierlo, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2012). Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 4, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.10.006
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.10.006
• Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. (2021). Rede projeta 35 milhões de hectares com sistemas de ILPF até 2030 Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.embrapa.br/en/busca-de-noticias/-/noticia/61192805/rede-projeta-35-milhoes-de-hectares-com-sistemas-de-ilpf-ate-2030
  » https://www.embrapa.br/en/busca-de-noticias/-/noticia/61192805/rede-projeta-35-milhoes-de-hectares-com-sistemas-de-ilpf-ate-2030
• Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. (2023). Technical Note: Integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.embrapa.br/en/tema-integracao-lavoura-pecuaria-floresta-ilpf/nota-tecnica
  » https://www.embrapa.br/en/tema-integracao-lavoura-pecuaria-floresta-ilpf/nota-tecnica
• Feola, G., & Nunes, R. (2013). Failure and success of transition initiatives: a study of the international replication of the transition movement. Research Policy, 42(6-7), 1517-1528.
• Fernandes, V. M. A. (2008). Manejo de árvores em sistemas agroflorestais cacaueiros: percepção dos agricultores do Sul da Bahia, Brasil (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/92076
  » https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/92076
• Feyereisen, M., Stassart, P. M., & Mélard, F. (2017). Fair trade milk initiative in Belgium: bricolage as an empowering strategy for change. Sociologia Ruralis, 57(3), 297-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12174
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12174
• Freitas, M. G., Rodrigues, E. M., Campos-Filho, E. M., do Carmo, G. H. P., da Veiga, J. M., Junqueira, R. G. P., & Vieira, D. L. M. (2019). Evaluating the success of direct seeding for tropical forest restoration over ten years. Forest Ecology and Management, 438, 224-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.02.024
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.02.024
• Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
• Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
• Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., & Sorrell, S. (2017). Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science, 357(6357), 1242-1244. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao3760
  » https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao3760
• Gomes, L. C., Cardoso, I. M., Sá, E. M., Fernandes, R. B. A., Lopes, V. S., & Oliveira, T. S. (2016). Trees modify the dynamics of soil CO₂ efflux in coffee agroforestry systems. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 224, 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.05.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.05.001
• Gurgel, A., Estevam, C. G., de Lima, C. Z., Pavão, E. de M., Queiroz, P., & Possamai, R. (2025). Potencial Econômico das Práticas Sustentáveis na Agricultura e Pecuária. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://institutoequilibrio.org.br/
  » https://institutoequilibrio.org.br/
• Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 864-888. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527458
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527458
• Henders, S., Persson, U. M., & Kastner, T. (2015). Trading forests: land-use change and carbon emissions embodied in production and exports of forest-risk commodities. Environmental Research Letters, 10(12), 125012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125012
  » https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125012
• Holl, K. D. (2017). Restoring tropical forests from the bottom up. Science, 355(6324), 455-456. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5432
  » https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5432
• Hommels, A., Peters, P., & Bijker, W. E. (2007). Techno therapy or nurtured niches? Technology studies and the evaluation of radical innovations. Research Policy, 36(7), 1088-1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.04.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.04.002
• Instituto Arapyaú (2021). Dados da flora das cabrucas e estimativa de estoque de carbono. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://arapyau.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/dados-da-flora-das-cabrucas-e-estimativa-de-estoque-de-carbono.pdf
  » https://arapyau.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/dados-da-flora-das-cabrucas-e-estimativa-de-estoque-de-carbono.pdf
• Instituto Escolhas (2015). Quanto Custa Reflorestar 12 Milhões de Hectares? Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://escolhas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/92594f_b37a7ea57beb4bce85922381600631a0.pdf
  » https://escolhas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/92594f_b37a7ea57beb4bce85922381600631a0.pdf
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014). Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Synthesis Report IPCC. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
  » https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Synthesis Report IPCC. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-29853-0
  » https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-29853-0
• Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (2026). Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola. Tabela 2 - Área, Produção e Rendimento Médio - Confronto das safras de 2025 e das estimativas para 2026. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fftp.ibge.gov.br%2FProducao_Agricola%2FLevantamento_Sistematico_da_Producao_Agricola_%5Bmensal%5D%2FTabelas_xls%2F2026%2Flspa_202606_02.xls&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
  » https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fftp.ibge.gov.br%2FProducao_Agricola%2FLevantamento_Sistematico_da_Producao_Agricola_%5Bmensal%5D%2FTabelas_xls%2F2026%2Flspa_202606_02.xls&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
• König, C. C., & Pinsky, V. (2023). Bioeconomy: Brazilian potential and challenges. In N. Soendergaard, C. D. Sá, A. F. B. Platiau (Eds.), Sustainability Challenges of Brazilian Agriculture: Governance, Inclusion, and Innovation (pp. 271-293). Cham: Springer.
• König, C. C., Saes, M. S. M., & Schnaider, P. S. B. (2024). How and why did the transition process towards a fully sustainable production of cocoa beans in Bahia (Brazil) take place? The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 27(3), 425-440. https://doi.org/10.22434/ifamr2023.0049
  » https://doi.org/10.22434/ifamr2023.0049
• Lapig-Remote Sensing. GIS Lab (2023). Atlas Digital das Pastagens Brasileiras Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://atlasdaspastagens.ufg.br/map
  » https://atlasdaspastagens.ufg.br/map
• Lima, M. A., Paciullo, D. S. C., Morenz, M. J. F., Gomide, C. A. M., Rodrigues, R. A. R., & Chizzotti, F. H. M. (2019). Productivity and nutritive value of Brachiaria decumbens and performance of dairy heifers in a long-term silvopastoral system. Grass and Forage Science, 74(1), 160-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12395
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12395
• Lovejoy, T. E., & Nobre, C. (2019). Amazon tipping point: Last chance for action. Science Advances, 5(12), eaba2949. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2949
  » https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2949
• Mattila, T. J., Hagelberg, E., Söderlund, S., & Joona, J. (2022). How farmers approach soil carbon sequestration? Lessons learned from 105 carbon-farming plans. Soil & Tillage Research, 215, 105204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105204
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105204
• Nair, P. R. (2011). Agroforestry systems and environmental quality: introduction. Journal of Environmental Quality, 40(3), 784-790. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2011.0076
  » https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2011.0076
• New York Declaration on Forests. (2014). Declaration and Action Agenda. Climate Summit 2014 Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://forestdeclaration.org/about/new-york-declaration-on-forests/
  » https://forestdeclaration.org/about/new-york-declaration-on-forests/
• Newton, P., Gomez, A. E. A., Jung, S., Kelly, T., de Araújo Mendes, T., & Rasmussen, L. V. (2016). Overcoming barriers to low carbon agriculture and forest restoration in Brazil: The Rural Sustentável project. World Development Perspectives, 4, 5-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2016.11.011
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2016.11.011
• Niederle, P. A. (2018). A pluralist and pragmatist critique of food regime’s genealogy: varieties of social orders in Brazilian agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(7), 1460-1483. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1313238
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1313238
• Nobre, M. M., & Oliveira, I. R. (2018). Agricultura de baixo carbono: tecnologias e estratégias de implantação. Brasília, DF: Embrapa. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.embrapa.br/en/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/1101744/agricultura-de-baixo-carbono-tecnologias-e-estrategias-de-implantacao
  » https://www.embrapa.br/en/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/1101744/agricultura-de-baixo-carbono-tecnologias-e-estrategias-de-implantacao
• Nunes, F. S. M., Soares-Filho, B. S., Rajão, R., & Merry, F. (2017). Enabling large-scale forest restoration in Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Environmental Research Letters, 12(4), 044022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6658
  » https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6658
• Observatório do Clima. 2025. Sistema de Estimativas de Emissões e Remoções de Gases de Efeito Estufa. SEEG. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://seeg.eco.br/#panorama
  » https://seeg.eco.br/#panorama
• Oliveira, D. M., Santos, R. S., Chizzotti, F. H., Bretas, I. L., Franco, A. L., Lima, R. P., Freitas, D. A. F., Cherubin, M. R., & Cerri, C. E. P. (2024a). Crop, livestock, and forestry integration to reconcile soil health, food production, and climate change mitigation in the Brazilian Cerrado: a review. Geoderma Regional, 37, e00796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00796
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00796
• Oliveira, M., Sandrini, M., & Alves, L. M. (2024b). Planaveg2.0: Brasil reafirma meta de 12 mi de hectares com novo plano de restauração WRI Brazil. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.wribrasil.org.br/noticias/planaveg-20-brasil-reafirma-meta-de-12-mi-de-hectares-com-novo-plano-de-restauracao
  » https://www.wribrasil.org.br/noticias/planaveg-20-brasil-reafirma-meta-de-12-mi-de-hectares-com-novo-plano-de-restauracao
• Oliveira, P. C. R., Gualda, G. A. F., Rossi, G. F., Camargo, A. F. M., Filoso, S., Brancalion, P. H., & Ferraz, S. F. B. (2025). Forest restoration improves habitat and water quality in tropical streams: a multiscale landscape assessment. The Science of the Total Environment, 963, 178256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178256
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178256
• Paciullo, D. S. C., Fernandes, P. B., Carvalho, C. A. B., Morenz, M. J. F., Lima, M. A., Maurício, R. M., & Gomide, C. A. M. (2021). Pasture and animal production in silvopastoral and open pasture systems managed with crossbred dairy heifers. Livestock Science, 245, 104426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104426
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104426
• Pendrill, F., Persson, U. M., Godar, J., Kastner, T., Moran, D., Schmidt, S., & Wood, R. (2019). Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Global Environmental Change, 56, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.002
• Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2008). Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems: a new conservation paradigm. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134(1), 173-200. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.011
  » https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.011
• Pienkowski, T., Freni Sterrantino, A., Tedesco, A. M., Clark, M., Brancalion, P. H. S., Jagadish, A., Mendes, A., Pugliese de Siqueira, L., & Mills, M. (2024). Spatial predictors of landowners’ engagement in the restoration of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. People and Nature, 7(1), 247-264. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10765
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10765
• Polidoro, J. C., Freitas, P. L., Hernani, L. C., Anjos, L. H. C., Rodrigues, R. D. A. R., Cesário, F. V., Andrade, A. & Ribeiro, J. (2020). The impact of plans, policies, practices and technologies based on the principles of conservation agriculture in the control of soil erosion in Brazil. Preprints. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.authorea.com/doi/pdf/10.22541/au.158750264.42640167
  » https://www.authorea.com/doi/pdf/10.22541/au.158750264.42640167
• Rajão, R., Soares-Filho, B., Nunes, F., Börner, J., Machado, L., Assis, D., Oliveira, A., Pinto, L., Ribeiro, V., Rausch, L., Gibbs, H., & Figueira, D. (2020). The rotten apples of Brazil’s agribusiness. Science, 369(6501), 246-248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba6646
  » https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba6646
• Rangel, M. C., & Tonella, C. (2013). A crise da região cacaueira do sul da Bahia/Brasil e a reconstrução da identidade dos cacauicultores em contexto de adversidades. Geoingá: Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geografia (UEM), 5(1), 77–101. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/Geoinga/article/download/49216/751375140376
  » https://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/Geoinga/article/download/49216/751375140376
• Rattis, L., Brando, P. M., Macedo, M. N., Spera, S. A., Castanho, A. D. A., Marques, E. Q., Costa, N. Q., Silverio, D. V., & Coe, M. T. (2021). Climatic limit for agriculture in Brazil. Nature Climate Change, 11(12), 1098-1104. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01214-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01214-3
• Skorupa, L. A., Behling, M., & Porfirio-da-Silva, V. (2021). O eucalipto e os desafios para a transferência de tecnologias em sistemas de integração lavoura pecuária-floresta (ILPF). In Oliveira, E. B. (Ed.), O eucalipto e a Embrapa: Quatro décadas de pesquisa e desenvolvimento (pp. 1148-1160). Brasília, DF: Embrapa. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.embrapa.br/en/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/1131510/o-eucalipto-e-a-embrapa-quatro-decadas-de-pesquisa-e-desenvolvimento
  » https://www.embrapa.br/en/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/1131510/o-eucalipto-e-a-embrapa-quatro-decadas-de-pesquisa-e-desenvolvimento
• Rodrigues, R. D. A. R., Ferreira, I. G. M., Silveira, J. G., Silva, J. J. N., Santos, F. M., & Conceição, M. C. G. (2023). Crop-Livestock-Forest Integration Systems as a Sustainable Production Strategy in Brazil. In N. Soendergaard, C. D. Sá, A. F. B. Platiau (Eds.), Sustainability Challenges of Brazilian Agriculture: Governance, Inclusion, and Innovation (pp. 165-182). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29853-0_9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29853-0_9
• Sá, C. D., König, C. C., & Søndergaard, N. (2022). Unlocking the Brazilian potential: the necessary incentives to engage farmers in decarbonization Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://de.apdbrasil.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Unlocking-the-brazilian-potential-EN.pdf
  » https://de.apdbrasil.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Unlocking-the-brazilian-potential-EN.pdf
• Sales, G. P. S., Costa, W. S., Pierre, R. M., Callado, C. H., & Guedes-Bruni, R. R. (2026). Uncovering the First Reforestation Project in the 19th Century Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest: insights from wood anatomy and historical analysis. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 14(1), 423-436. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2026.141023
  » https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2026.141023
• Sambuichi, R. H. R., & Haridasan, M. (2007). Recovery of species richness and conservation of native Atlantic Forest trees in the cacao plantations of southern Bahia in Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(13), 3681-3701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9017-x
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9017-x
• Silva, M. A. P., Schweizer, D., Rodrigues, H., & Marques, A. M. (2017). Can current native tree seedling production and infrastructure meet an increasing forest restoration demand in Brazil? Restoration Ecology, 25(4), 509-515. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12470
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12470
• Silva, M. A. S. (2013). Conservação produtiva: manejo do sombreamento no sistema cabruca, região cacaueira da Bahia (Dissertação de mestrado). ESCAS/IPÊ, Uruçuca, BA. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from https://www.escas.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/CONSERVACAO-PRODUTIVA-MANEJO-DO-SOMBREAMENTO-NO-SISTEMA-CABRUCA-REGIAO-CACAUEIRA-DA-BAHIA.pdf
  » https://www.escas.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/CONSERVACAO-PRODUTIVA-MANEJO-DO-SOMBREAMENTO-NO-SISTEMA-CABRUCA-REGIAO-CACAUEIRA-DA-BAHIA.pdf
• Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025-1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012
• Soendergaard, N., Sá, C. D., Portilho, L. M. L., & König, C. C. (2021). Brazilian Agriculture in a World of Carbon Pricing: Challenges and Opportunities. Retrieved in 2023, September 23, from rs/March2023/f0XTLecyiTXVCTaeNIC0.pdf.
• Souza, H. N., Graaff, J., & Pulleman, M. M. (2012). Strategies and economics of farming systems with coffee in the Atlantic Rainforest Biome. Agroforestry Systems, 84(2), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9452-x
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9452-x
• Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B. L., Lassaletta, L., de Vries, W., Vermeulen, S. J., Herrero, M., Carlson, K. M., Jonell, M., Troell, M., DeClerck, F., Gordon, L. J., Zurayk, R., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., Loken, B., Fanzo, J., Godfray, H. C. J., Tilman, D., Rockström, J., & Willett, W. (2018). Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562(7728), 519-525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0
• Strassburg, B. B., Barros, F. S., Crouzeilles, R., Iribarrem, A., Santos, J. S. D., Silva, D., Sansevero, J. B. B., Alves-Pinto, H. N., Feltran-Barbieri, R., & Latawiec, A. E. (2016). The role of natural regeneration to ecosystem services provision and habitat availability: a case study in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biotropica, 48(6), 890-899. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12393
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12393
• Strassburg, B. B., Brooks, T., Feltran-Barbieri, R., Iribarrem, A., Crouzeilles, R., Loyola, R., Latawiec, A. E., Oliveira Filho, F. J. B., Scaramuzza, C. A. M., Scarano, F. R., Soares-Filho, B., & Balmford, A. (2017). Moment of truth for the Cerrado hotspot. Nature Ecology Evolution, 1, 0099. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0099
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0099
• Toto, R., Alix-García, J., Sims, K. R., Coutinho, B., Muñoz Brenes, C., Pugliese, L., & Mendes, A. F. (2025). Evidence on scaling forest restoration from the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil. Nature Communications, 16(1), 4715. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59194-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59194-3
• Urzedo, D. I., Neilson, J., Fisher, R., & Junqueira, R. G. P. (2020). A global production network for ecosystem services: the emergent governance of landscape restoration in the Brazilian Amazon. Global Environmental Change, 61, 102059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102059
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102059
• Urzedo, D. I., Vidal, E., Sills, O., Piña-Rodrigues, F. C. M., & Junqueira, R. G. P. (2016). Tropical forest seeds in the household economy: effects of market participation among three sociocultural groups in the Upper Xingu region of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Conservation, 43(1), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892915000247
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892915000247
• Willett, W., Rockstrom, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M., Clark, M., Gordon, L. J., Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J. A., De Vries, W., Majele Sibanda, L., Afshin, A., Chaudhary, A., Herrero, M., Agustina, R., Branca, F., Lartey, A., Fan, S., Crona, B., Fox, E., Bignet, V., Troell, M., Lindahl, T., Singh, S., Cornell, S. E., Srinath Reddy, K., Narain, S., Nishtar, S., & Murray, C. J. L. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet, 393(10170), 447-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
• Zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J., Alcântara, M. P., Balmford, A., Barioni, L., Neto, F. B., Bettarello, M. M. F., Brito, G., Carrero, G. C., Florence, E. A. S., Garcia, E., Gonçalves, E. T., Da Luz, C. T., Mallman, G. M., Strassburg, B. B. N., Valentim, J. F., & Latawiec, A. (2018). Results from on-the-ground efforts to promote sustainable cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon. Sustainability (Basel), 10(4), 1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041301
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041301

Edited by

• Associate Editor:
  Ana Claudia Machado Padilha

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  24 Aug 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  23 Sept 2025
• Accepted
  18 May 2026