REFERENCES
1. Lowder, S. K.; Skoet, J.; Raney, T. The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World. Dev. 2016, 87, 16-29.
2. Ricciardi, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Mehrabi, Z.; Jarvis, L.; Chookolingo, B. How much of the world's food do smallholders produce? Glob. Food. Secur. 2018, 17, 64-72.
3. Ricciardi, V.; Mehrabi, Z.; Wittman, H.; James, D.; Ramankutty, N. Higher yields and more biodiversity on smaller farms. Nat. Sustain. 2021, 4, 651-7.
4. Levers, C.; Romero-muñoz, A.; Baumann, M.; et al. Agricultural expansion and the ecological marginalization of forest-dependent people. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2021, 118, e2100436118.
5. IPCC. IPCC climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability; Part A: global and sectoral aspects contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015.
6. Arima, E. Y.; Barreto, P.; Araújo, E.; Soares-Filho, B. Public policies can reduce tropical deforestation: lessons and challenges from Brazil. Land. Use. Policy. 2014, 41, 465-73.
7. Godar, J.; Gardner, T. A.; Tizado, E. J.; Pacheco, P. Actor-specific contributions to the deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2014, 111, 15591-6.
8. Tyukavina, A.; Hansen, M. C.; Potapov, P.; et al. Congo basin forest loss dominated by increasing smallholder clearing. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaat2993.
9. Curtis, P. G.; Slay, C. M.; Harris, N. L.; Tyukavina, A.; Hansen, M. C. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 2018, 361, 1108-11.
10. Amaral, S.; Metzger, J. P.; Rosa, M.; Adorno, B. V.; Gonçalves, G. C.; Guedes, Pinto. L. F. Alarming patterns of mature forest loss in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Nat. Sustain. 2025, 8, 256-64.
11. He, X.; Spracklen, D. V.; Holden, J.; Zeng, Z. Tropical montane forest loss dominated by increased 1-10 hectare-sized patches. Environ. Res. Lett. 2025, 20, 024039.
12. Wang, M.; Hu, C.; Barnes, B. B.; Mitchum, G.; Lapointe, B.; Montoya, J. P. The great Atlantic Sargassum belt. Science 2019, 365, 83-7.
13. Qin, Y.; Wang, D.; Ziegler, A. D.; Fu, B.; Zeng, Z. Impact of Amazonian deforestation on precipitation reverses between seasons. Nature 2025, 639, 102-8.
14. Grant, L.; Vanderkelen, I.; Gudmundsson, L.; Fischer, E.; Seneviratne, S. I.; Thiery, W. Global emergence of unprecedented lifetime exposure to climate extremes. Nature 2025, 641, 374-9.
15. Griscom, B. W.; Adams, J.; Ellis, P. W.; et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2017, 114, 11645-50.
16. Ricketts, T. H.; Soares-filho, B.; Da, Fonseca. G. A. B.; et al. Indigenous lands, protected areas, and slowing climate change. PLoS. Biol. 2010, 8, e1000331.
17. Nepstad, D.; Schwartzman, S.; Bamberger, B.; et al. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20, 65-73.
18. Porter-Bolland, L.; Ellis, E. A.; Guariguata, M. R.; Ruiz-Mallén, I.; Negrete-Yankelevich, S.; Reyes-García, V. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 268, 6-17.
19. Blackman, A.; Corral, L.; Lima, E. S.; Asner, G. P. Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2017, 114, 4123-8.
20. Pfaff, A.; Robalino, J.; Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A.; Andam, K. S.; Ferraro, P. J. Park location affects forest protection: land characteristics cause differences in park impacts across costa rica. BE. J. Econ. Anal. Policy. 2009, 9.
21. Pfaff, A.; Robalino, J.; Herrera, D.; Sandoval, C. Protected areas’ impacts on Brazilian Amazon deforestation: examining conservation – development interactions to inform planning. PLoS. ONE. 2015, 10, e0129460.
22. Altieri, M.; Nicholls, C.; Montalba, R. Technological approaches to sustainable agriculture at a crossroads: an agroecological perspective. Sustainability 2017, 9, 349.
23. Torres, B.; Maza, O. J.; Aguirre, P.; Hinojosa, L.; Günter, S. Contribution of traditional agroforestry to climate change adaptation in the Ecuadorian Amazon: the chakra system. In: Leal Filho W, editors. Handbook of climate change adaptation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. pp. 1-19.
24. IFAD; Climate Policy Initiative (CPI). Examining the climate finance gap for small-scale agriculture. London, UK: Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), 2020. Available from: https://www.ifad.org/en/web/knowledge/-/publication/examining-the-climate-finance-gap-for-small-scale-agriculture [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
25. Berg, T.; Nieto, E. A.; Moura, S.; et al. Socio-ecological conflict in Quilombola territory: land titling and ecosystem health. Sustain. Sci. 2025, 20, 903-18.
26. West, T. A. P.; Börner, J.; Sills, E. O.; Kontoleon, A. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2020, 117, 24188-94.
27. West, T. A.; Bomfim, B.; Haya, B. K. Methodological issues with deforestation baselines compromise the integrity of carbon offsets from REDD+. Global. Environ. Chang. 2024, 87, 102863.
28. Teo, H. C.; Tan, N. H. L.; Zheng, Q.; et al. Uncertainties in deforestation emission baseline methodologies and implications for carbon markets. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 8277.
29. Olofsson, P.; Foody, G. M.; Herold, M.; Stehman, S. V.; Woodcock, C. E.; Wulder, M. A. Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Remote. Sens. Environ. 2014, 148, 42-57.
30. IPCC. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2019-refinement-to-the-2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
31. Verra. VCS standard, version 4.5; Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available from: https://verra.org/verra-releases-version-4-5-of-the-vcs-standard [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
32. Verra. AFOLU non-permanence risk tool; Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available from: https://verra.org/verra-releases-updated-afolu-non-permanence-risk-tool [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
33. Gold Standard Foundation. Land use and forests activity requirements; Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. Available from: https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/203-ar-luf-activity-requirements [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
34. Plan Vivo Foundation. PV climate project requirements; Edinburgh, UK, 2024. Available from: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.planvivo.org/documents/PV-Climate_Project-Requirements_V5.5.pdf [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
35. Brumberg, H.; Hegwood, M.; Eichhorst, W.; Lopresti, A.; Erbaugh, J. T.; Kroeger, T. Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS. Nexus. 2025, 4, pgaf173.
36. Ellis, P. W.; Page, A. M.; Wood, S.; et al. The principles of natural climate solutions. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 547.
37. Kroeger, T.; Erbaugh, J.; Luo, Z.; et al. Implementation constraints on natural climate solutions: a global literature review and survey. Review 2025.
38. Fisher, B.; Lewis, S. L.; Burgess, N. D.; et al. Implementation and opportunity costs of reducing deforestation and forest degradation in Tanzania. Nature. Clim. Chang. 2011, 1, 161-4.
39. Merger, E.; Held, C.; Tennigkeit, T.; Blomley, T. A bottom-up approach to estimating cost elements of REDD+ pilot projects in Tanzania. Carbon. Balance. Manag. 2012, 7, 9.
40. De Sy, V.; Herold, M.; Achard, F.; et al. Synergies of multiple remote sensing data sources for REDD+ monitoring. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 696-706.
41. Köhl, M.; Neupane, P. R.; Mundhenk, P. REDD+ measurement, reporting and verification – A cost trap? Implications for financing REDD+MRV costs by result-based payments. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 168, 106513.
42. Social Carbon Foundation. SCM0011 - Methodology for avoided deforestation on smallholdings; London, UK, 2025. Available from: https://www.socialcarbon.org/scm0011 [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
43. Social Carbon Foundation. SCD0004: smallholder livelihood vulnerability index module, version 1.0; London, UK, 2025. Available from: https://www.socialcarbon.org/scd0004 [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
44. Scoones, I. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis; The Institute of Development Studies and Partner Organisations: Brighton, UK, 1998. Available from: https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/sustainable-rural-livelihoods-a-framework-for-analysis/ [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
45. Hahn, M. B.; Riederer, A. M.; Foster, S. O. The livelihood vulnerability index: a pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change - A case study in Mozambique. Global. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 74-88.
46. Brazil. Constituição da República federativa do Brasil de 1988. Ato das Disposições Constitucionais Transitórias (ADCT); 1988. Available from: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm#adct [Last accessed on 6 May 2026] (in Portuguese).
48. Instituto Socioambiental (ISA). Comunidades quilombolas de São Paulo são atingidas por cheia do Rio Ribeira de Iguape. Available from: https://www.socioambiental.org/noticias-socioambientais/comunidades-quilombolas-de-sao-paulo-sao-atingidas-por-cheia-do-rio [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026] (in Portuguese).
49. MapBiomas Project. Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD): MapBiomas Brazil 10 m; São Paulo, Brazil, 2025. Available from: https://brasil.mapbiomas.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2025/08/ATBD-Collection-10-v1.pdf [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
50. Islam, A.; Ghosh, S. A comparison of performance measures of two livelihood vulnerability indices in the context of recurrent tropical flood hazards. Nat. Hazards. Res. 2024, 4, 498-506.
51. Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Mudança do Clima (MMA). Brazil’s forest reference emission level (FREL) for the Amazon Biome - 2024 Update; Brasília, Brazil, 2024. Available from: https://redd.unfccc.int/media/brazil-national-frel_modified_v3_clean-13-mar-2024.pdf [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026] (in Portuguese).
52. Social Carbon Foundation. Social carbon standard; London, UK, 2024. Available from: https://www.socialcarbon.org/nature3 [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
53. Oviedo, A. F.; Mitraud, S.; Mcgrath, D. G.; Bursztyn, M. Implementing climate variability adaptation at the community level in the Amazon floodplain. Environ. Sci. Policy. 2016, 63, 151-60.
54. Mansur, A. V.; Brondizio, E. S.; Roy, S.; De Miranda Araújo Soares, P. P.; Newton, A. Adapting to urban challenges in the Amazon: flood risk and infrastructure deficiencies in Belém, Brazil. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 18, 1411-26.
55. Towner, J.; Cloke, H. L.; Lavado, W.; et al. Attribution of Amazon floods to modes of climate variability: A review. Meteorol. . Appl. 2020, 27, e1949.
56. Ávila, J. V. D. C.; Ticktin, T.; Steward, A. M.; Giehl, E. L. H.; Cantor, M.; Clement, C. R. Recovery of local agrobiodiversity after an extreme flood in Amazon floodplains. Biol. Conserv. 2024, 292, 110536.
57. Bravo-Peña, F.; Yoder, L. Agrobiodiversity and smallholder resilience: a scoping review. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 351, 119882.
59. Impact Observatory. Land use land cover (LULC) maps on demand 2018-2022. Available from: https://www.esri.com/partners/impact-observatory-a2T5x0000084pJXEAY/land-use-land-cover--a2d5x000005juReAAI [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
60. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE). Nota Técnica PRODES Amazônia 2023: estimativa de desmatamento na Amazônia Legal para 2023; São José dos Campos, Brazil, 2023. Available from: https://www.gov.br/inpe/pt-br/assuntos/ultimas-noticias/estimativa-de-desmatamento-na-amazonia-legal-para-2023-e-de-9-001-km2 [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026] (in Portuguese).
61. MapBiomas Project. Projeto MapBiomas - collection 8.0: annual series of land use and land cover map; São Paulo, Brazil, 2024. Available from: https://brasil.mapbiomas.org/colecoes-mapbiomas [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
62. Yang, G.; Crowther, T. W.; Lauber, T.; Zohner, C. M.; Smith, G. R. A globally consistent negative effect of edge on aboveground forest biomass. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2025, 9, 2036-45.
63. Verra. Methodology for avoided unplanned deforestation; Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available from: https://verra.org/methodologies/vm0015-methodology-for-avoided-unplanned-deforestation-v1-2 [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
64. Verra. Jurisdictional and nested REDD+ baseline module; Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available from: https://verra.org/programs/jurisdictional-nested-redd-framework [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
65. Delacote, P.; Le, Velly. G.; Simonet, G. Distinguishing potential and effective additionality of forest conservation interventions. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2024, 29, 518-38.
66. American Carbon Registry (ACR). ACR non-permanence risk mitigation requirements; Arlington, VA, USA, 2020. Available from: https://acrcarbon.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/ACR-Standard-v7.0-Dec-2020.pdf [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
67. Forestry Commission. Woodland carbon code: requirements for voluntary woodland creation projects; Edinburgh, UK, 2022. Available from: https://www.woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/Woodland_Carbon_Code_V2.2_April_2022.pdf [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
68. Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART). Using carbon markets to protect forests at risk: a case study of jurisdictional REDD+ in Guyana; Washington, DC, USA, 2024. Available from: https://artredd.org/using-carbon-markets-to-protect-forests-at-risk-a-case-study-of-jurisdictional-redd-in-guyana/ [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
69. Ecosystem Marketplace. State of the voluntary carbon markets 2023; Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available from: https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/publications/state-of-the-voluntary-carbon-market-report-2027 [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
70. World Bank. State and trends of carbon pricing 2017; Washington, DC, USA, 2017. Available from: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/468881509601753549/pdf/State-and-trends-of-carbon-pricing-2017.pdf [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
71. World Bank. State and trends of carbon pricing 2023; Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available from: https://ppp.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/State%20and%20Trends%20of%20Carbon%20Pricing%202023.pdf [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
72. Alves, R. N. B.; Modesto, Júnior. M. S.; eds. Mandioca: agregação de valor e rentabilidade de negócios; Embrapa: Brasília, DF, Brazil, 2019. Available from: https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/1108529/mandioca-agregacao-de-valor-e-rentabilidade-de-negocios [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026] (in Portuguese).
73. Alves, R. N. B.; Modesto, Júnior. M. S.; Cravo, M. S. Custos de produção do sistema de derruba e queima: cultivo de mandioca no sistema de derruba e queima para processamento de raízes para extração de tucupi e colheita de folhas para maniçoba; Embrapa Amazônia Oriental: Belém, PA, Brazil, 2020. Available from: https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/bitstream/doc/1127223/1/DOC456.pdf [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026] (in Portuguese).
74. Ministério da Agricultura Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA). Viabilidade econômica de sistemas produtivos com cacau: pleno sol e sistemas agroflorestais nos estados da Bahia e do Pará. Available from: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/cocoaactionbrasil [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026] (in Portuguese).
75. DATAGRO. Brazilian agriculture yearbook 2022; São Paulo, Brazil, 2022. Available from: http://portal.datagro.com.br [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
76. Carlos, S. M.; Assad, E. D.; Estevam, C. G.; et al. Costs of recovering degraded pastures in the Brazilian States and biomes; Observatório de Conhecimento e Inovação em Bioeconomia, Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV-EESP): São Paulo, Brazil, 2022. Available from: https://agro.fgv.br/sites/default/files/2023-02/costs_of_recovering_degraded_pastures_in_the_brazilian_states_and_biomes_0.pdf [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
77. World Bank. Financial resilience against climate shocks and disasters: recent progress and new frontiers; Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available from: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099732511072314227/pdf/IDU0893ba78605dc8048f5091f70893ee26173ef.pdf [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026].
78. Mechler, R.; Deubelli, T. M. Finance for Loss and Damage: a comprehensive risk analytical approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 50, 185-96.
79. Mechler, R.; Calliari, E.; Bouwer, L. M.; et al. Science for loss and damage. Findings and propositions. In: Mechler R, Bouwer LM, Schinko T, Surminski S, Linnerooth-Bayer J, editors. Loss and damage from climate change. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 3-37.
80. Wunder, S. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 117, 234-43.
81. Börner, J.; Baylis, K.; Corbera, E.; et al. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World. Dev. 2017, 96, 359-74.
82. Ramachandran Nair P, Nair VD, Mohan Kumar B, Showalter JM. Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Elsevier; 2010. pp. 237-307.
83. Shi, L.; Feng, W.; Xu, J.; Kuzyakov, Y. Agroforestry systems: meta‐analysis of soil carbon stocks, sequestration processes, and future potentials. Land. Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 3886-97.
84. Celentano, D.; Rousseau, G. X.; Paixão, L. S.; et al. Carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling in agroforestry systems on degraded soils of Eastern Amazon, Brazil. Agrofor. Syst. 2020, 94, 1781-92.
85. Marques, J. D.; Dias, V. H. R.; Gomes, M. F.; et al. Soil quality in an agroforestry system in the scenario of family farming in the eastern Amazon. Agrofor. Syst. 2025, 99, 174.
86. Poeplau, C.; Don, A. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops - A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 200, 33-41.
87. Jian, J.; Du, X.; Reiter, M. S.; Stewart, R. D. A meta-analysis of global cropland soil carbon changes due to cover cropping. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 2020, 143, 107735.
88. De Stefano, A.; Jacobson, M. G. Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis. Agrofor. Syst. 2017, 147, 285-99.
89. Lorenz, K.; Lal, R. Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 443-54.
90. De Oliveira, D. C.; Maia, S. M. F.; Freitas, R. D. C. A.; Cerri, C. E. P. Changes in soil carbon and soil carbon sequestration potential under different types of pasture management in Brazil. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2022, 22, 87.
91. Brazil. Lei nº 14.119, de 13 de janeiro de 2021: institui a política nacional de pagamento por serviços ambientais e cria o programa federal de pagamento por serviços ambientais. 2021. Available from: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2021/lei/l14119.htm [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026] (in Portuguese).
92. Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Mudança do Clima (MMA). Floresta+ Amazônia: pagamentos por serviços ambientais para conservação e recuperação da vegetação nativa na Amazônia legal; Brasília, DF, Brazil, 2023. Available from: https://florestamaisamazonia.mma.gov.br [Last accessed on 29 Apr 2026] (in Portuguese).
