PERSPECTIVE
Indigenous and local communities can boost seed supply in the UN
decade on ecosystem restoration
Danilo Urzedo , Simone Pedrini, Daniel L. M. Vieira, Alexandre B. Sampaio,
Bruna D. F. Souza, Eduardo Malta Campos-Filho, Fatima C. M. Pin˜a-Rodrigues,
Isabel B. Schmidt, Rodrigo G. P. Junqueira, Kingsley Dixon
Received: 29 January 2021 / Revised: 29 April 2021 / Accepted: 11 June 2021 / Published online: 6 July 2021
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.
Keywords Community participation 
Environmental justice  Local livelihoods  Native seed 
Restoration economy
INTRODUCTION
Global policies and commitments are driving multiple
incentives to restore hundreds of millions of hectares of
degraded lands by 2030 (Chazdon et al. 2017). The Decade
of Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) is poised to trigger
the recovery of degraded ecosystems and create socioeco-
nomic opportunities across the world (UN 2020). Follow-
ing the 2020 bushfire crisis, most notably in Australia,
increasing tropical deforestation, and the COVID-19 pan-
demic, global social movements are emerging to denounce
how multiple crises exacerbate ongoing environmental
injustices (Martin et al. 2020). Indigenous and local com-
munities have demanded equitable landscape restoration
measures through participation in political decisions and
the creation of tangible local benefits (Reyes-Garcı´a et al.
2019).
The translation of these ambitious policies and targets
into real-world actions often fails to support local capa-
bilities, enhance community livelihoods and deliver a net
improvement in ecological functionality (Holl and Bran-
calion 2020). A key impediment in achieving the local to
global restoration opportunity is the shortage of high-
quality native seeds (Merritt and Dixon 2011; Jalonen et al.
2017). Native seed scarcity is often a result of the poor
performance of the restoration market to keep enduring
demands (Camhi et al. 2019), the limited application of
knowledge and technologies (Pedrini et al. 2020), and
restricted local participation in political decision-making
processes (Nyoka et al. 2014; de Urzedo et al. 2019).
Although local knowledge and engagement are considered
key components to achieving successful projects, millions
of Indigenous and local communities are commonly left
behind in negotiations and planning of large-scale
restoration programs across the globe (Erbaugh et al.
2020). These critical barriers accentuate the global use of
tree planting as the surrogate for ‘ecosystem restoration’
where species are limited in diversity that focuses on a few,
often non-native commercial varieties where the supply
chain is dominated by a few large companies (Lewis et al.
2019).
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio 2022, 51:557–568
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01593-z
Improving the availability of diverse native seeds in
restoration has required the rapid development of applied
strategies, techniques and technologies to solve complex
on-ground issues for strengthening the seed supply chain
(Pedrini and Dixon 2020). With an emergent restoration
economy creating the demand, multiple stakeholders have
structured commercial arrangements to scale-up plant
material production—including seed, tubestock, rootstocks
and cuttings to meet the large-scale restoration demand
(Smith 2017; Atkinson et al. 2018). Conventional native
seed enterprises, however, lack socioeconomic opportuni-
ties for local communities. In key restoration markets in
Australia and Brazil, for instance, plant material markets
are dominated by private companies which create few jobs,
poor community engagement with few opportunities for
enduring local livelihoods (Silva et al. 2016; Hancock et al.
2020). Multilevel restoration policies and financial incen-
tives now need to consider alternative approaches to pro-
mote recognition and inclusion of local communities, so
that grassroots actions address ongoing social and envi-
ronmental crises (Ceccon et al. 2020).
Emerging community-based seed networks have con-
nected local communities with multiple stakeholders to
influence higher levels of governance for co-managing and
innovating the seed supply chain from source to sink
(Smith 2017; Schmidt et al. 2019; Pin˜a-Rodrigues et al.
2021). Here we examine the co-creation of native seed
networks for landscape restoration through participatory
practices underpinned by local institutions and knowledge
as an environmental justice intervention. We provide
guidelines to community-based native seed supply, taking
into account region-specific conditions and focusing on two
decades of activities of the Brazilian seed networks oper-
ated through Indigenous and rural collectors in the Ama-
zon, Cerrado, and Atlantic Forest, and emerging Aboriginal
engagement with native seed production in Australia.
THE NEED FOR INCLUSIVE RESTORATION
APPROACHES
The strategy of The UN decade draws on new trajectories
to interconnect three pathways: building a global move-
ment, generating political support, and developing techni-
cal capacity (UN 2020). International instruments are
expected to drive political incentives for mobilizing social-
ecological connections (Fig. 1) to combine domestic poli-
cies and private sector’s arrangements with community
participation to scale up large-scale restoration. Interna-
tional initiatives and national programs have defined large-
scale restoration pledges and incentives to drive efforts to
restore 350 million hectares of degraded lands by 2030,
such as the Bonn Challenge (IUCN 2011) and the Paris
Agreement (UNFCCC 2015).
Amongst developing countries, Brazil has established
one of the most ambitious restoration targets to restore 12
million hectares of degraded lands by 2030 (Brazil 2017).
Brazil’s restoration pledge relies on mandatory forest
restoration on private lands required by the Forest Code
(Law No 12,65/2012). Implementing this national restora-
tion goal would require an unprecedented effort to structure
a restoration production network (Brancalion et al. 2019),
including the estimate for 57 000 collectors to supply a
total of 15 600 tonnes of native seeds during the UN
Decade (de Urzedo et al. 2020). In contrast, the leading
restoration drivers in Australia are mine site closure plans,
Indigenous land management, land care programs (Han-
cock et al. 2020) and, more recently, carbon sequestration
planting programs. The mining industry, in particular, must
restore more than 300 thousand hectares of degraded lands
throughout Australia, which will require a minimum of
1200 tonnes of seeds from diverse native species with
ongoing annual demand likely for many decades for infill
plantings (Merritt and Dixon 2011). Moreover, the Aus-
tralian government has recently committed AUD200 mil-
lion in response to the 2019–2020 bushfires to implement a
national restoration program, including AUD5 million
investment to develop a domestic native seed industry
(DAWE 2020).
Although community participation is a critical compo-
nent of successful restoration programs (Xu et al. 2012),
global restoration policies and domestic initiatives fail to
include effective mechanisms that would allow for the
inclusion, engagement and benefit of local groups (Romijn
et al. 2019). Legal and technical frameworks have limited
the participatory planning and excluded Indigenous and
community engagement to directly influence restoration
negotiations and actions in Australia (O’Faircheallaigh and
Lawrence 2019) and Brazil (de Urzedo et al. 2019). A
transformative restoration economy must recognize and
engage deeply with environmental justice values. Envi-
ronmental justice emphasizes not only the necessity for
access and distribution of environmental benefits (Schlos-
berg and Carruthers 2010), but also the challenges of
addressing structural inequalities in power dynamics rooted
in racial, ethnic, social class, age and gender discrimination
(Martin et al. 2020). Meaningful ecosystem restoration
actions should recognize the diversity of local members,
equity in the distribution of benefits and risks, while cre-
ating multiple instruments that ensure vulnerable groups
regain ownership and power in different political processes
(Schlosberg 2004).
123
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en
558 Ambio 2022, 51:557–568
MOVING TOWARDS SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY-
BASED SEED PRODUCTION
From Latin America to Australasia, Indigenous peoples
have been collecting, processing and selecting seeds for
thousands of years to produce a diversity of products,
including food, medicinal components and material culture
(e.g., Le´vis-Strauss 1952; Cane 1987). Local groups also
have the innovation potential based on profound time
experiences in local ecosystems. In recent decades, many
seed programs worldwide have recognised these historical
gaps and connected local communities to restoration mar-
kets built upon fair-trading schemes (Nyoka et al. 2014;
Schmidt et al. 2019). Regional seed networks have united a
diverse group of collectors who have collected, processed,
and stored seeds with seed users and practitioners who
implement different land restoration projects (Atkinson
et al. 2018). Community seed networks are grounded in
Fig. 1 The emerging global restoration economy proposed for the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. A Establishing large-scale restoration
demand through multilevel political and financial investments driven by multilateral organizations, national and sub-national governments and
private sector; B Enabling the interconnections between local and traditional knowledge with science and technology to create capacity-building
processes that results in innovate restoration interventions, such as the native seed networks; C Structuring regional and local supply chain
systems which are expected to create opportunities for Indigenous and rural communities to co-design and co-manage the supply of multiple
products and services, including native seeds, which can improve human well-being across scales
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio 2022, 51:557–568 559
meaningful relationships and knowledge exchange between
stakeholders, including universities, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), public and private sectors (Abizaid
et al. 2016).
In Brazil, more than 24 networks have co-create
opportunities to Indigenous and rural communities to
supply native plant material to restoration markets over the
last two decades (Pin˜a-Rodrigues et al. 2021). In Australia,
the emerging restoration economy ignites participation by
Traditional Owners to create seed supply systems as ‘on
country’ socioeconomic opportunities. We draw on seven
well-structured community networks in these two countries
to collect participatory-based experiences to co-develop-
ment successful native seed networks for restoration
alignment with the creation of socioeconomic benefits for
local groups (Table 1). Although each initiative has
established a specific set of interventions shaped by local
context and particular stakeholder perspectives, there are
essential values to be considered to operate native seed
production as an opportunity to combine the restoration of
ecosystem services with environmental justice.
KEY STEPS FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
WITH NATIVE SEED SUPPLY
The following are key guidance steps to co-design and co-
manage native plant material production that acknowledges
issues of recognition, participation, and equity between
participants (Box 1). Each of these issues is fully explored
in the following subsections.
Co-development of local supply capabilities
The first efforts to establish seed networks are commonly
driven outside communities. Local communities can have
high species ecological knowledge, but they frequently
lack access to technical information on legal requirements
Box 1: Questions of relevance about community participation in native seed production for the restoration
economy
• How is seed supply capacity co-designed to include local perspectives, interest and knowledge?
• Is the emerging restoration economy structured to promote culturally appropriate local participation based on
ensuring long-lasting native seed demand?
• Who’s-who in the decision-making process of native seed production and commercialization?
• How are local knowledge and practices leading the capacity-building processes across sociocultural groups?
• Are community seed suppliers benefiting from the restoration environmental outcomes?
Table 1 Key case studies of community-based native seed supply for landscape restoration in Australia and Brazil
Seed network Country Region Ecosystems Establishment
(year)
Main restoration market
Gelganyem seed
program
Australia Western Australia Tropical grasslands 2019 Mine site restoration
MEEDAC native seed
farm
Australia Western Australia Dry shrublands 2018 Mine site restoration
Rio Tinto’s
Weipa bauxite mine
Australia Northern Australia Tropical woodlands 2010 Mine site restoration
Cerrado de Pe´
Association
Brazil Brazil Central Tropical savanna 2012 Environmental offset
Jirau hydroelectric dam Brazil Western Amazon Tropical rainforest 2011 Environmental offset
Vale do Ribeira
network
Brazil Southeastern
Atlantic Forest
Tropical rainforest 2017 Restoration on private proprieties
Xingu Seed Network Brazil Southeastern
Amazon
Tropical rainforest and
Savanna
2007 Restoration on private proprieties and
Environmental offset
123
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en
560 Ambio 2022, 51:557–568
and market opportunities for participating in seed supply
for restoration (Brancalion et al. 2012; Silva et al. 2016).
Participatory approaches for activating community-based
systems rely on meaningful and long-lasting relationships
between multiple stakeholders, including seed suppliers
and users (Valette et al. 2020). Organizations with exper-
tise in ecosystem restoration—such as government agen-
cies, NGOs, and universities—play a crucial role in
identifying seed market demands or stimulating restoration
projects (Richards et al. 2015). Participation of local
organizations increases trust and recognition to provide
technical assistance and local engagement for the social
licence to operate.
In Australia, partnerships between mining companies
and Indigenous groups have resulted in many extractive
resources agreements where operations are on traditional
land (Bauman and Glick 2012). Although the social licence
to close a mine requires a set of safeguards to protect
Indigenous interests, overall mine closure plans have
resulted in environmental injustices for Indigenous peoples
(O’Faircheallaigh and Lawrence 2019). In response,
emerging partnerships between the mineral industry, gov-
ernment agencies, research institutes and developmental
program providers have developed socioeconomic oppor-
tunities for Traditional Owners through community-based
seed supply systems for mine site restoration. Examples
include the seed collection program of the Rio Tinto’s
Weipa bauxite mine in Cape York Peninsula and the Gel-
ganyem seed program for the closure of the Argyle Dia-
mond Mine in the East Kimberley region of Western
Australia.
The process of engagement requires carefully structured
engagement planning. Communities are commonly con-
tacted early in the process to identify local motivational
triggers to stimulate and nurture local interest in engaging
with seed production activities (de Urzedo et al. 2020).
Prioritizing communities with well-established social
organization and groups with the greatest need to access
financial support build regional capacity to provide tem-
plates for engaging other less coordinated communities
(Urzedo et al. 2016). In the Madeira river region of the
Amazon, research institutes and NGOs supported com-
munity members of the local rural cooperative to connect
their experiences with technical restoration approaches to
meet emerging restoration demands for offsetting the
impacts of the Jirau hydropower plant. In turn, the energy
company contracted 81 members of the local cooperative
for supplying native plants and planting services to restore
3000 ha of degraded lands (Kishy et al. 2020).
To ensure success in a community seed engagement
program it is preferable an initial focus on just a few ref-
erence seed production groups with a modest seed demand
focussing on well-known species that avoid seed
production complexities (Campos-Filho et al. 2013). Once
communities have defined what native species they are
interested in supplying, external experts play an essential
role in ensuring proper taxonomic identification to estab-
lish a production planning. Local groups can then map the
seed collection areas, identify species, estimate the number
of parent plants, and improve seed collection and pro-
cessing techniques (Kindt et al. 2006). These elements are
the starting point in structuring the community network’s
production side, which then feeds into engagement,
agreements, and co-management processes to effectively
operate seed supply planning, actions, and assessments.
Operating community business
There are different business arrangements for structuring
seed supply chains that engage with local communities:
hiring individuals and contracting local cooperatives
(Brancalion et al. 2012; Smith 2017) or building a com-
munity-based business through a regional restoration
market demand (Schmidt et al. 2019). Here, we present the
operations of the community network model for seed
marketing. This business model is a result of a 15 years’
experience of the Xingu Seed Network in the Amazon, one
of the largest community-based native seed suppliers in
terms of number of participants and seed volume for land
restoration in the world (de Urzedo et al. 2020).
The Xingu Seed Network engages 600 Indigenous, rural
and urban collectors who supply up to 25 tonnes of native
seed yearly from 220 native species in the southeastern
Amazon. The business involves many stakeholders geo-
graphically distant, requiring effective communication to
select the right native seed in the right place and at the right
time (Fig. 2). A centralized business coordination identifies
the regional market demand, and coordinates the distribu-
tion of seed production between communities’ groups,
ensuring yearly collection and income opportunities.
Meanwhile, seed collectors observe in-field plant phenol-
ogy in the seed collection areas to define their yearly seed
production capacity (Fig. 2, part b) (Pedrini et al. 2020).
With this local level estimate, the management office is
responsible for matching collectors’ supply capacity with
the total commercial seed demand of different projects. A
significant factor in building community trust is the
establishment of an annual minimum seed demand that
ensures producers have clear financial expectations, suit-
able time commitments, with broad community
involvement.
When the seed order list arrives in each community
(Fig. 2, part c), local leaders are responsible for distributing
the seed collection according to local agreements. A set of
practices is adopted and adapted by groups, households, or
individuals for seed collection, processing, and storage
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio 2022, 51:557–568 561
according to the local knowledge and access to infras-
tructure (Kindt et al. 2006). When the community complete
the production activities, they deliver the seed lots—in-
cluding labels—to a storage and quality assurance facility
(De Vitis et al. 2020). Seeds are tested for quality to ensure
all aspects from collecting time, cleaning and handling
procedures result in the best quality seed (Frischie et al.
2020). Information on seed purity, viability and ger-
minability need to be recorded and provided to the
restoration practitioners to calibrate seeding density to
optimise in-field outcomes (Pedrini and Dixon 2020).
Collectors also apply simple seed quality and purity tests to
revise and improve their management techniques.
The search for commercial partners is a continuous
processes with a focus on establishing medium to long-
term supply contracts with restoration markets. Supply
agreements require shifting from a common logic of
ordering seed at the beginning of a planting season to a
long-term planning perspective where lead-times are suf-
ficient to allow for cooperative planning, respect seed
production phenology and critical uncertain climate sce-
narios (Broadhurst et al. 2016). Customers have learned
that seed networks are not an on-demand enterprise but a
community-based organization where market demand
directly impacts community livelihoods. The business
managers may be responsible for species selections or even
for implementing the restoration project based on regional
successful restoration models and on customer’s wishes
(Fig. 2, part a). This support encourages the customers to
purchase seeds and be confident to meet their restoration
goals. Currently, the Xingu Seed Network’s business
management roles are transitioning from a entirely external
technical team to the inclusion of community members in
order to promote local leadership not just for seed collec-
tion, but the entire supply chain arrangements (Fig. 3).
Local institutional development
Community networks rely on complex relationships
between multiple stakeholders responsible for exchanging
skills, knowledge, and resources to operate the seed pro-
duction chains (Valette et al. 2020). Coordinating the
various interactions among local members and stakehold-
ers outside the communities requires clear understanding of
roles, rights, and responsibilities (Atkinson et al. 2018).
Institutions refer to the social norms, patterns of behaviour,
and agreements, either formal or informal mechanisms,
which are influenced by the ways that stakeholders are
participating in decision-making processes (Dequech
2009). Collective agreements define values and principles
Fig. 2 Commercial seed supply arrangements connecting different stakeholders in a flux of information (dotted lines) and resources (continuous
line): (a) Native seed demand is identified and commercial contracts are established at the regional level; (b) producers plan their seed supply
capacity; (c) a business office distribute the commercial seed demand between community groups according to their production capacity;
(d) communities organize, produce and transport the seed batches to a storage and quality testing facility; (e) the seed business office assess and
maintain the seed quality and then deliver the lots to users at the right time; (f) seed producers get the information about their seed quality;
(g) consumers pay for the seed and provide their feedback to improve the supply chain
123
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en
562 Ambio 2022, 51:557–568
to establish platforms where members can discuss and
negotiate at the local level based on participatory principles
(Ostrom 2009). The cooperation between multiple stake-
holders to co-manage seed networks lead to larger pro-
duction capacity aligned with the inclusion of a greater
diversity of species (Abizaid et al. 2016). These local
institutions allow for a dynamic and organic evolution of
the seed production procedures according to local needs,
while a broader network outside the community is
responsible for consolidating the market arrangement and
other external resources (Urzedo et al. 2020).
At the community level, institutions assist local orga-
nizational processes to self-organize management systems
among users to sustain the resources while respecting
sociocultural norms (Ostrom 2009). The institutional
structures in a seed network rely on the local agreements
across multiple community groups for coordinating infor-
mation sharing, conflict management, and political deci-
sion-making processes (Sanches et al. 2021). These
agreements support, for instance, the selection of local
leaders and community representatives for meeting and
workshops forums where diverse members can raise con-
cerns and influence decision-making processes in real time.
Local rules also support the establishment of manage-
ment practices to cope with the impacts of seed harvesting
in the plants and ecosystems (Meissen et al. 2015; Liu et al.
2019). Seed harvesting without damaging adult plants
tends to have lower impacts than harvesting other plant’s
parts, particularly for perennial plants (Schmidt et al.
2011). Species selection for seed collection must consider
species abundance, distribution and conservation status.
Importantly, rare, endemic and/or endangered species
should not be prioritized for commercial seed collection
programs to avoid impacts on native populations. In
addition, seed suppliers should establish and observe the
seed harvesting scale and frequency to allow natural
regeneration of plant populations and food supply for
granivores and frugivores (Nevill et al. 2018). In the
Atlantic Forest in Brazil, collectors of the Vale do Ribeira
Network agreed to not harvest at least half of the native
seeds of the selected species. These collectors also under-
take restoration projects in their communities to improve
the seed source availability and the local environmental
conditions.
Agreements and contracts should also be established
between stakeholders outside the community groups to
ensure their roles within the network. Although decen-
tralized operations and power devolution are essential
components to promote local engagement (Valette et al.
2020), the state has the vital role of enforcing laws and
Fig. 3 Community-based native seed supply activities, including A A community workshop with seed collectors and practitioners in Vale do
Ribeira, Brazil’s Atlantic Forest (Claudio Tavares/ISA); B Native seed grass collection in the Neotropical Savanna of the Central-West region of
Brazil (Tui Anandi); C Installation of an Indigenous owned and operated native seed farm in Morawa, Western Australia (Simone Pedrini);
D Yarang women’s movement processing native seed in the Xingu Indigenous Territory, Brazilian Amazon (Carol Quintanilha/ISA)
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio 2022, 51:557–568 563
creating incentives to support local participation and ben-
efits (Ribot et al. 2006). These processes are not a result of
signed contracts but rely on the capacity to effectively
negotiate a clear understanding and respect of the unique
perspectives that shape the place-specific community
organization.
Incorporating local knowledge into technical
development
Incorporating local knowledge and stimulating learning
processes between local communities are crucial compo-
nents of participatory seed programs (Baumann et al.
2020). Sharing experiences between community members,
researchers and practitioners create opportunities to fully
interconnect local experiences with scientific frameworks
to co-design plural ways to operate supply systems (Kindt
et al. 2006). A key advantage of prioritizing Indigenous
participation is connecting to traditional lands of the
community members who retain information and cultural
values related to native species, vegetation and ecosystems
(Brancalion et al. 2012). Beginning seed supply activities
equipped with local knowledge is more effective, faster,
and meaningful for promoting the development of local
engagement than a standard ‘school room’ technical
training approach (Campos-Filho et al. 2013).
The capabilities necessary for a fully functional com-
munity-based seed collection system are underpinned by
how local communities perceive and determine the local
needs, rather than offering a universal and specific set list
of capabilities (Schlosberg and Carruthers 2010). When
community members lead both planning and implementa-
tion of the learning processes to exchange experiences and
innovate solutions, they are also building the social and
political foundations for the development of an enduring
and functional network. Through periodic meetings,
workshops, and training courses, stakeholders can
exchange and enrich knowledge sharing (Dawson et al.
2011). Such intercultural environments require the use of
cross-culture educational material to effectively engage
diverse groups, such as short documentaries, photo shoots
and maps. The Gelganyem Seed Project in Australia pro-
motes knowledge exchange events among Aboriginal
groups and restoration practitioners to assist collectors in
using their own experiences to identify species and collect
the right type of seed in the right way. These training
processes are designed based on the local community work
plans and goals to encourage collectors to undertake the
activities following their ways at their own pace.
Beyond seed production techniques, capacity-building
assists local groups to strength skills and share experiences
about business development, accounting, policy, and reg-
ulations. Building business models does depend upon seed
collectors being able to manage their production costs (e.g.,
time allocated for each production activity and depreciation
of equipment) to quantify seed production costs that ensure
the long term viability of the commercial arrangements
(Camhi et al. 2019). In central Brazil, collectors of the
Association Cerrado de Pe´ have exchanged practices to
design materials and mechanism for defining seed pricing.
Collectors use a seed pricing formulation system based on
a set of conditions applied for each species, and then during
annual meetings, they make the seed trade agreements
considering the seed production notes. This learning pro-
cess among collectors and restoration practitioners has
produced a significant amount of ecological data for 70
native species from savanna ecosystems.
Improving practices to strengthen local engagement
and benefits
Once seeds have left the community of local collectors and
producers, and continue through the supply chain towards
the restoration site, the original seed providers have little
visibility of the fate of their seeds, and how ultimately their
efforts impact restoration outcomes. Transparency and a
proactive dialogue between seed producers and restoration
practitioners are therefore critical to strengthen the native
seed supply chain by (i) providing useful technical feed-
back to continually improve practices and efficiencies and
(ii) increase motivation, engagement and commitment of
the local community through positive feedback that locally
sourced seed is ‘making a difference’. For example, if the
seed success rate on a restoration site is low, but seed
quality information is known, then other causes of failure
can be investigated and resolved, such as timing of seeding,
seeding depth, seeding density, site preparation, seeding
time (Shaw et al. 2020).
Community participation in the restoration economy is
required beyond native seed supply systems. Native seed
production areas and plant nurseries, for example, offer
abundant opportunities to increase the availability of high-
quality plants for restoration, while strengthening eco-
nomic returns (Nevill et al. 2018). In Western Australia,
the partnership between different stakeholders and the
Midwest Employment and Economic Development Abo-
riginal Corporation (MEEDAC) identified the role of
Aboriginal leadership in implementing the first Australian
Indigenous-owned native seed farm in Morawa for sup-
plying local market needs in post-mining restoration.
Despite the costly initial financial and infrastructural
investments, seed production areas in the long run upscale
supply systems and improve the economic outcomes for
producers as a better alternative to wild seed collection
(Nevill et al. 2018). In this way, community groups can be
active participants in the long term ecological, human
123
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en
564 Ambio 2022, 51:557–568
health, and economic benefits of rebuilding nature and
restoring global ecosystems.
NEXT STEPS
Community restoration networks focused on efficiency and
revenue alone will not guarantee the long-term sustainable
success of local seed production. We suggest that partici-
pation in seed supply requires full recognition of geo-
graphical, cultural, and social dynamics that transform
structural power asymmetries into effective justice proce-
dures for scaling up equitable restoration interventions. It is
central to enshrining participation that builds visibility and
recognises diverse groups within local communities
(Schlosberg 2004). Beyond the local scale, it is essential
that local-informs-global to ensure co-creation of policies
and programs that are well-aligned with the reality and
needs (Jalonen et al. 2017).
Seed programs are just the beginning of the shared
journey towards community engagement linked to nature
and natural environments. A transformative restoration
economy to overcome structural inequalities during The
Decade on Ecosystem Restoration must recognize that
degraded lands and environmental impacts are often the
result of historical socio-spatial asymmetries. Policies,
funding support, and business investment for landscape
restoration designed within national or international
frameworks may not reflect the intentions and aspirations
of local communities (Ho¨hl et al. 2020). Community sup-
ply systems for restoration will only address the ongoing
social and environmental inequalities if its instruments are
applied as mechanisms to reshape the power dynamics
among stakeholders executed in a respectful, open and
informed way. This requires incorporating justice princi-
ples at the heart of restoration policies, funding, and actions
through the participation of diverse community members to
influence and shape multiple decision-making processes
(Martin et al. 2020).
Acknowledgements This publication was supported by the Aus-
tralian Government through the Australian Research Council Indus-
trial Transformation Training Centre for Mine Site Restoration
(Project Number ICI150100041). The views expressed herein are
those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian
Government or Australian Research Council. This project has also
received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under
the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No.866006). We thank local collectors,
producers and seed networks for the collaboration, particularly Rede
de Sementes do Xingu, Rede de Sementes do Cerrado, Associac¸a˜o
Cerrado de Pe´, and MEEDAC for sharing experiences and database.
The authors acknowledge Paul Gibson-Roy and Clancy Hearps for
discussions during the conception of this study.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
REFERENCES
Abizaid, C., O.T. Coomes, and M. Perrault-Archambault. 2016. Seed
sharing in amazonian indigenous rain forest communities: A social
network analysis in three Achuar Villages, Peru. Human Ecology
44: 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-016-9852-7.
Atkinson, R., J. Cornelius, R. Zamora, and M.F. Chuaire. 2018. Fit
for purpose seed supply systems for the implementation of
landscape restoration under Initiative 20 9 20: An analysis of
national seed systems in Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica,
Colombia, Peru, Chile and Argentina. Lima, Peru: World
Resources Institute; Bioversity International; ICRAF.
Bauman, T., and L. Glick. 2012. The limits of change: Mabo and
native title 20 years on. Canberra: AIATSIS Research
Publications.
Baumann, M.D., K.S. Zimmerer, and J. van Etten. 2020. Participatory
seed projects and agroecological landscape knowledge in Central
America. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 18:
300–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1775930.
Brancalion, P.H.S., P. Meli, J.R.C. Tymus, F.E.B. Lenti, R.M. Benini,
A.P.M. Silva, I. Isernhagen, and K.D. Holl. 2019. What makes
ecosystem restoration expensive? A systematic cost assessment
of projects in Brazil. Biological Conservation 240: 108274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108274.
Brancalion, P.H.S., R.A.G. Viani, J. Aronson, R.R. Rodrigues, and
A.G. Nave. 2012. Improving planting stocks for the Brazilian
atlantic forest restoration through community-based seed har-
vesting strategies. Restoration Ecology 20: 704–711. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1526-100x.2011.00839.x.
Brazil. 2017. Planaveg: Plano Nacional de Recuperac¸a˜o da
Vegetac¸a˜o Nativa. Edited by MMA - Ministe´rio do Meio
Ambiente. Brası´lia: Ministe´rio da Agricultura, Pecua´ria e
Abastecimento, Ministe´rio da Educac¸a˜o.
Broadhurst, L.M., T.A. Jones, F.S. Smith, T. North, and L. Guja.
2016. Maximizing seed resources for restoration in an uncertain
future. BioScience 66: 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/
biv155.
Camhi, A.L., C. Perrings, B. Butterfield, and T. Wood. 2019. Market-
based opportunities for expanding native seed resources for
restoration: A case study on the Colorado Plateau. Journal of
Environmental Management 252: 109644. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2019.109644.
Campos-Filho, E.M., J.N.M.N. Da Costa, R.G.P. Sousa, O. Junqueira,
J.N.M.N. Da Costa, O.L. De Sousa, and R.G.P. Junqueira. 2013.
Mechanized direct-seeding of native forests in Xingu, Central
Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 32: 702–727. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10549811.2013.817341.
Cane, S. 1987. Australian Aboriginal subsistence in the western
desert. Human Ecology 15: 391–434.
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio 2022, 51:557–568 565
Ceccon, E., M. Me´ndez-Toribio, and C. Martı´nez-Garza. 2020. Social
participation in forest restoration projects: Insights from a
National Assessment in Mexico. Human Ecology 48: 609–617.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00178-w.
Chazdon, R.L., P.H.S. Brancalion, D. Lamb, L. Laestadius, M.
Calmon, and C. Kumar. 2017. A policy-driven knowledge
agenda for global forest and landscape restoration. Conservation
Letters 10: 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12220.
DAWE. 2020. Wildlife and habitat funding support.
Dawson, I.K., B. Vinceti, J.C. Weber, H. Neufeldt, J. Russell, A.G.
Lengkeek, A. Kalinganire, R. Kindt, et al. 2011. Climate change
and tree genetic resource management: Maintaining and enhanc-
ing the productivity and value of smallholder tropical agro-
forestry landscapes. A review. Agroforestry Systems 81: 67–78.
de Urzedo, D.I., R. Fisher, F.C.M. Pin˜a-Rodrigues, J.M. Freire, and
R.G.P. Junqueira. 2019. How policies constrain native seed
supply for restoration in Brazil. Restoration Ecology 27:
768–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12936.
de Urzedo, D.I., F.C.M. Pin˜a-Rodrigues, R. Feltran-Barbieri, R.G.P.
Junqueira, and R. Fisher. 2020. Seed networks for upscaling
forest landscape restoration: Is it possible to expand native plant
sources in Brazil? Forests. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11030259. In
Press.
De Vitis, M., F.R. Hay, J.B. Dickie, C. Trivedi, J. Choi, and R.
Fiegener. 2020. Seed storage: Maintaining seed viability and
vigor for restoration use. Restoration Ecology 28: 249–255.
https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13174.
Dequech, D. 2009. Institutions, social norms, and decision-theoretic
norms. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 72:
70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.05.001.
Erbaugh, J.T., N. Pradhan, J. Adams, J.A. Oldekop, A. Agrawal, D.
Brockington, R. Pritchard, and A. Chhatre. 2020. Global forest
restoration and the importance of prioritizing local communities.
Nature Ecology & Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-
020-01282-2.
Frischie, S., A. Miller, S. Pedrini, and O. Kildisheva. 2020. Ensuring
seed quality in ecological restoration: Native seed cleaning and
testing. Restoration Ecology 28: 239–248. https://doi.org/10.
1111/rec.13217.
Hancock, N., P. Gibson-roy, M. Driver, and L. Broadhurst. 2020. The
Australian native seed survey report. Canberra.
Ho¨hl, M., V. Ahimbisibwe, J.A. Stanturf, P. Elsasser, M. Kleine, and
A. Bolte. 2020. Forest landscape restoration-WHat generates
failure and success? Forests. https://doi.org/10.3390/F11090938.
Holl, B.K.D., and P.H.S. Brancalion. 2020. Tree planting is not a
simple solution 368: 580–582.
IUCN. 2011. The Boon Challenge. Available on: https://www.
bonnchallenge.org/.
Jalonen, R., M. Valette, D. Boshier, J. Duminil, and E. Thomas. 2017.
Forest and landscape restoration severely constrained by a lack
of attention to the quantity and quality of tree seed: Insights from
a global survey. Conservation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/
conl.12424.
Kindt, R., J.P.B. Lillesø, A. Mbora, J. Muriuki, C. Wambugu, W.
Frost, J. Beniest, A. Aithal, et al. 2006. Tree seeds for farmers: A
toolkit and reference source. Nairobi: World Agroforestry
Centre.
Kishy, I., F. Reis, D. Solidera, D. Solidera, A. Borges, G.M. Rezende,
and D.L.M. Vieira. 2020. How a company is restoring its 3,000
hectares of forest liability and supporting local communities. In
Forest landscape restoration and social opportunities in the
tropical world, ed. S.R.R. Pinto, F.C. Santos, and C. Prescott,
249–258. Recife: CEPAM.
Le´vis-Strauss, C. 1952. The use of wild plants in Tropical South
America x. Economic Botany 6: 252–270.
Lewis, S., C.E. Wheeler, E.T.A. Mitchard, and A. Koch. 2019.
Regenerate natural forests to store carbon. Nature 568: 25–28.
Liu, H., S.W. Gale, M.L. Cheuk, and G.A. Fischer. 2019. Conser-
vation impacts of commercial cultivation of endangered and
overharvested plants. Conservation Biology 33: 288–299. https://
doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13216.
Martin, A., M.T. Armijos, B. Coolsaet, N. Dawson, G.A.S. Edwards,
R. Few, N. Gross-Camp, I. Rodriguez, et al. 2020. Environmen-
tal justice and transformations to sustainability. Environment:
Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 62: 19–30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2020.1820294.
Meissen, J.C., S.M. Galatowitsch, and M.W. Cornett. 2015. Risks of
overharvesting seed from native tallgrass prairies. Restoration
Ecology 23: 882–891. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12295.
Merritt, D.J., and K.W. Dixon. 2011. Restoration seed banks—A
matter of scale. Science 332: 424–425.
Nevill, P.G., A.T. Cross, and K.W. Dixon. 2018. Ethical seed
sourcing is a key issue in meeting global restoration targets.
Current Biology 28: R1378–R1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cub.2018.11.015.
Nyoka, B.I., J. Roshetko, R. Jamnadass, J. Muriuki, A. Kalinganire,
J.-P.B. Lillesø, T. Beedy, and J. Cornelius. 2014. Tree seed and
seedling supply systems: A review of the Asia, Africa and Latin
America Models. Small-Scale Forestry 14: 171–191. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11842-014-9280-8.
O’Faircheallaigh, C., and R. Lawrence. 2019. Mine closure and the
Aboriginal estate. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1: 65.
Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of
social-ecological systems. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1172133.
Pedrini, S., and K.W. Dixon. 2020. International principles and
standards for native seeds in ecological restoration. Restoration
Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13155.
Pedrini, S., P. Gibson-Roy, C. Trivedi, C. Ga´lvez-Ramı´rez, K.
Hardwick, N. Shaw, S. Frischie, G. Laverack, et al. 2020.
Collection and production of native seeds for ecological
restoration. Restoration Ecology 28: S228–S238. https://doi.
org/10.1111/rec.13190.
Pin˜a-Rodrigues, F.C.M., A.M.C. Euler, J.M. Freire, M. de J. V. Junior
Lima, A.M. da S. Mendes, A.S. de A. Sandim, D.O. Franco, and
D.I. Urzedo. 2021. Native forest seeds as an income generator
within the forest landscape restoration chain. In Forest land-
scape restoration and social opportunities in the Tropical World,
189–212. Recife: CEPAN.
Reyes-Garcı´a, V., A´. Ferna´ndez-Llamazares, P. McElwee, Z. Molna´r,
K. O¨llerer, S.J. Wilson, and E.S. Brondizio. 2019. The contri-
butions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to
ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 27: 3–8. https://doi.
org/10.1111/rec.12894.
Ribot, J.C., A. Agrawal, and A.M. Larson. 2006. Recentralizing while
decentralizing: How national governments reappropriate forest
resources. World Development 34: 1864–1886. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.020.
Richards, R.C., J. Rerolle, J. Aronson, P.H. Pereira, H. Gonc¸alves,
and P.H.S. Brancalion. 2015. Governing a pioneer program on
payment for watershed services: Stakeholder involvement, legal
frameworks and early lessons from the Atlantic forest of Brazil.
Ecosystem Services 16: 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.
2015.09.002.
Romijn, E., R. Coppus, V. De Sy, M. Herold, R.M. Roman-Cuesta,
and L. Verchot. 2019. Land restoration in Latin America and the
Caribbean: An overview of recent, ongoing and planned
restoration initiatives and their potential for climate change
mitigation. Forests 10: 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10060510.
Sanches, R.A., C.R.T. Futemma, and H.Q. Alves. 2021. Indigenous
territories and governance of forest restoration in the Xingu
123
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en
566 Ambio 2022, 51:557–568
River (Brazil). Land Use Policy 104: 104755. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.landusepol.2020.104755.
Schlosberg, D. 2004. Reconceiving environmental justice: Global
movements and political theories. Environmental Politics 13:
517–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229025.
Schlosberg, D., and D. Carruthers. 2010. Indigenous struggles,
environmental justice, and community capabilities. Global
Environmental Politics 10: 12–35.
Schmidt, I.B., D.I. de Urzedo, F.C.M. Pin˜a-Rodrigues, D.L.M. Vieira,
G.M. de Rezende, A.B. Sampaio, and R.G.P. Junqueira. 2019.
Community-based native seed production for restoration in
Brazil—The role of science and policy. Plant Biology 21:
389–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12842.
Schmidt, I.B., L. Mandle, T. Ticktin, and O.G. Gaoue. 2011. What do
matrix population models reveal about the sustainability of non-
timber forest product harvest? Journal of Applied Ecology 48:
815–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01999.x.
Shaw, N., R.S. Barak, R.E. Campbell, A. Kirmer, S. Pedrini, K.
Dixon, and S. Frischie. 2020. Seed use in the field: Delivering
seeds for restoration success. Restoration Ecology. https://doi.
org/10.1111/rec.13210.
Silva, A.P.M., D. Schweizer, H. Rodrigues Marques, A.M. Cordeiro
Teixeira, T.V.M. Nascente dos Santos, R.H.R. Sambuichi, C.G.
Badari, U. Gaudare, et al. 2016. Can current native tree seedling
production and infrastructure meet an increasing forest restora-
tion demand in Brazil? Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.
1111/rec.12470.
Smith, S. 2017. Regional native seed cooperatives: Working toward
available, affordable, and appropriate native seed. Native Plants
Journal 18: 126–13413.
UN. 2020. The United Nations decade on ecosystem restoration:
Strategy.
UNFCCC. 2015. Paris Agreement. 2015. Available on: https://unfccc.
int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.
Urzedo, D., F. Pin˜a-Rodrigues, R. Feltran-Barbieri, R. Junqueira, and
R. Fisher. 2020. Seed networks for upscaling forest landscape
restoration: Is it possible to expand native plant sources in
Brazil? Forests 11: 259. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11030259.
Urzedo, D.I., E. Vidal, E.O. Sills, F.C.M. Pina-Rodrigues, and R.G.P.
Junqueira. 2016. Tropical forest seeds in the household econ-
omy: Effects of market participation among three sociocultural
groups in the Upper Xingu region of the Brazilian Amazon.
Environmental Conservation 43: 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s0376892915000247.
Valette, M., B. Vinceti, N. Gregorio, A. Bailey, E. Thomas, and R.
Jalonen. 2020. Beyond fixes that fail: Identifying sustainable
improvements to tree seed supply and farmer participation in
forest and landscape restoration. Ecology and Society 25: art30.
https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12032-250430.
Xu, J., M. van Noordwijk, J. He, K.-M.K.-J. Kim, R.-S. Jo, K.-G. Pak,
U.-H. Kye, J.-S. Kim, et al. 2012. Participatory agroforestry
development for restoring degraded sloping land in DPR Korea.
Agroforestry Systems 85: 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10457-012-9501-0.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Danilo Urzedo (&) is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the
University of Cambridge and an Adjunct Research Associate at
Curtin University investigating how community participation drives
forces to transform landscape restoration across scales. He has
experience in working with Indigenous and rural communities to co-
design native seed supply systems and grassroots restoration actions.
Address: ARC Centre for Mine Site Restoration, Curtin University,
Perth, WA 6102, Australia.
Address: Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge, Cam-
bridge CB2 1SB, UK.
e-mail: danilo.urzedo@gmail.com
Simone Pedrini is a Research Fellow in the Centre for Mine Site
Restoration at Curtin University (Perth, Australia). He is specialised
in plant species conservation and reintroduction. His focus is on
optimising the native seed supply chain for ecological restoration,
from seed collection and production, seed processing, quality testing,
dormancy treatment, seed enhancement, and seed use in the field.
Address: ARC Centre for Mine Site Restoration, Curtin University,
Perth, WA 6102, Australia.
e-mail: simone.pedrini@curtin.edu.au
Daniel L. M. Vieira is a Researcher at Embrapa (Brazilian Corpo-
ration of Agricultural Research), unit Genetic Resources and
Biotechnology, Brazil. He is also a Professor at the Ecology and
Forest Science Graduate Programs at the University of Brası´lia. His
research focuses on restoration ecology by developing methods,
monitoring restoration success, and involving landholders.
Address: Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecua´ria Recursos
Gene´ticos e Biotecnologia, Brası´lia DF 70770-917 Brazil .
e-mail: daniel.mascia@gmail.com
Alexandre B. Sampaio is a Researcher at ICMBio, Chico Mendes
Institute (Brazilian Agency for Protected Areas). His work focuses on
developing ecological restoration techniques and regulation to help
scaling up the restoration practice in Brazil, especially within the
Brazilian savanna region.
Address: ICMBio - Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservac¸a˜o da Bio-
diversidade, CBC - Centro de Avaliac¸a˜o da Biodiversidade, Pesquisa
e Conservaca˜o do Cerrado, Lago Sul, Brası´lia, DF, Brazil.
e-mail: sampaio.ab@gmail.com
Bruna D. F. Souza completed her bachelor’s degree in biology at
Mato Grosso State University and she is the director of the Xingu
Seed Network. She has one decade’s experience in coordinating
community-based native seed supply in the southeastern Amazon,
supporting 600 Indigenous and rural collectors to produce tonnes of
native seed yearly to regional restoration markets.
Address: Xingu Seed Network, Canarana, MT 78640, Brazil.
e-mail: brunaferreira@socioambiental.org
Eduardo Malta Campos-Filho received his bachelor’s degree in
biology from the University of Sa˜o Paulo (2000). He has been
working at the Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) since 2006, focused on
the development of native seed networks and the implementation of
direct seeding for restoring degraded ecosystems.
Address: Instituto Socioambiental, Sa˜o Paulo, SP 01238-001, Brazil.
e-mail: eduardomalta@socioambiental.org
Fatima C. M. Pin˜a-Rodrigues is a Full-Professor at the Federal
University of Sa˜o Carlos working on native seed technology for
ecosystem restoration. She supported the creation of the very first
native seed network in Brazil and coordinated the RioEsBa network
in the Atlantic Forest. She has 30 years’ experience formulating
public policy and capacity-building processes to support community-
based native seed production throughout Brazil.
Address: Environmental Science Department, Federal University of
Sao Carlos campus de Sorocaba, Sorocaba, SP 18052-780, Brazil.
e-mail: fpinarodrigues@gmail.com
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio 2022, 51:557–568 567
Isabel B. Schmidt is an Assistant Professor at the Ecology Depart-
ment at the University of Brası´lia working on how traditional and
scientific knowledge can help better manage Brazilian ecosystems,
especially related to ecological restoration and fire management.
Address: Ecology Department, University of Brası´lia, Brası´lia, DF
70910-900, Brazil.
e-mail: isabelbschmidt@gmail.com
Rodrigo G. P. Junqueira is an agronomist and holds a master’s
degree in environmental science. He coordinated for 15 years
Indigenous land management, ecosystem restoration and community-
based value chain projects in the Xingu watershed of the Brazilian
Amazon before becoming the executive secretary of the Instituto
Socioambiental (ISA) in 2020.
Address: Instituto Socioambiental, Sa˜o Paulo, SP 01238-001, Brazil.
e-mail: rodrigojunqueira@socioambiental.org
Kingsley Dixon is a Distinguished Professor at Curtin University
working in threatened species conservation science and practice and
ecological restoration. He is a strong advocate of enabling commu-
nities to be effective deliverers of science in conservation and
restoration. This includes programs with Traditional Owners in the
mid-west of Western Australia, the Galganyem Trust in the Kim-
berley and southwest Australian Noongar groups.
Address: ARC Centre for Mine Site Restoration, Curtin University,
Perth, WA 6102, Australia.
e-mail: kingsley.dixon@curtin.edu.au
123
 Crown 2021
www.kva.se/en
568 Ambio 2022, 51:557–568