Indigenous and local communities can boost seed supply in the UN decade on ecosystem restoration

Abstract

The UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration is poised to trigger the recovery of ecosystem services and transform structural injustices across the world in a way unparalleled in human history. The inclusion of diverse Indigenous and local communities to co-create robust native seed supply systems is the backbone to achieve the goals for the Decade. Here we show how community-based organizations have co-developed native seed supply strategies for landscape restoration from the bottom-up. We draw on the interconnections over two decades of seed networks in Brazil and the emerging Indigenous participation in native seed production in Australia. From an environmental justice perspective, we provide a participatory seed supply approach for local engagement, noting local geographical, social and cultural contexts. Meeting large-scale restoration goals requires the connection between local seed production and collaborative platforms to negotiate roles, rights and responsibilities between stakeholders. An enduring native seed supply must include a diversity of voices and autonomy of community groups that builds equitable participation in social, economic, and environmental benefits.

Are Tree Seed Systems for Forest Landscape Restoration Fit for Purpose? An Analysis of Four Asian Countries

“…Insufficient involvement of local communities is likely a limiting component for the success of FLR in other countries as well [150][151][152]. On the other hand, examples from emerging community-based seed networks in Burkina Faso [55], Brazil [23] and Australia [153] illustrate that informal seed systems can play an important role in contributing seed for a high diversity of native species as well as supporting local livelihoods. Further research is needed to understand how informal tree seed systems operate under different policy and socio-economic contexts and how operators can be supported to participate in formal seed markets.…”

Indigenous environmental justice through coproduction of mining restoration supply chains in Australia

“…Transforming these social relations into contractual and formal MR&C procedures should hold the mining industry accountable for environmental justice (O'Faircheallaigh & Lawrence 2019). Indigenous communities require realistic expectations and timelines to manage socio-political concerns and assess the values and benefits of the restoration actions (Urzedo et al 2022). For Box 1.…”

“…A shortage of native plant material remains a significant bottleneck for Australia's restoration programs (Gibson-Roy et al 2021), and linking plant material demands to Indigenous Australian groups is an opportunity to reshape MR&C operations. As a result, Indigenous-led organizations aligned with restoration demands can include and value Indigenous knowledge, generate socioeconomic opportunities, and trigger local participation in political decision-making processes (Urzedo et al 2022).…”

Asia-Pacific roadmap for innovative technologies in the forest sector

“…Simultaneously, it is important that a participatory breeding approach be undertaken with a broad group of local stakeholders (farmer groups, communities, civil society, indigenous communities) targeting locally prioritized tree species, including indigenous species. Low-input and 'tree diversity breeding' 33 encompasses multiple species, with varied improvement objectives for different environments (Urzedo et al 2022;Graudal et al 2021;Lillesø et al 2021;Lillesø et al 2018). These approaches can focus on timber, fruit, vegetables or other prioritized tree products and services.…”

“…Training and skill acquisition will be required in a wide range of areas including institutional management, leadership, language proficiency, the integration of indigenous and technical knowledge, value chains, marketing and small business operations. Experience indicates that scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge are complementary, and efforts to integrate them are synergistic (Urzedo et al 2022;HLPE 2019; see also Sections 3.1 and 3.7).…”