When people visit restoration sites, they usually expect to see results.
Trees established. Canopy forming. Clear visual signals that the project is “working.” That expectation is understandable. It is also why most sites are opened only after several years.
At MORFO, we sometimes choose a different timing. Over the past years, we have brought visitors to multiple restoration sites in Brazil. These visits took place in different regions and at very different moments in project timelines, including sites near Porto Seguro and Belém. Each site raised different questions. Some were more mature. Others were still in their first months. The Belém site drew particular attention. It concentrated a significant amount of time, energy, and discussion, both during and after the visits. For that reason, we will use it as an example here.
This article explains why we accept showing restoration sites at a very early stage, when ecosystems are still forming and outcomes are not yet settled.
Why early-stage sites are rarely shown
Early stages are operationally dense and visually uneven, with soil behaving differently across short distances and species establishing at different speeds, meaning some zones progress quickly while others advance more slowly; at five months, trajectories are still forming. There is also a reputational dimension: opening a site this early means accepting exposure to partial data, non-uniform visuals, and explanations that require context, as well as the risk of misinterpretation, selective imagery, or statements taken out of context.
For these reasons, early-stage sites are usually kept internal, and what is shared externally tends to be the outcome rather than the process. In Belém, opening the site meant accepting this level of exposure, although the risk was lower in this case, as early results were already exceeding our expectations.
The context of the Belém site
The 1-hectare site opened during COP30 was established on land previously degraded by cattle grazing.
Before planting, the site went through a diagnostic phase combining satellite screening, drone imagery, and soil analysis. Species selection and deployment strategies were defined based on these diagnostics and on the site’s ecological context.
Planting took place five months before the event.
At the time of the visits:
- vegetation cover was still forming,
- 18 native species had already been identified on site,
- establishment patterns were visible across the hectare,
- monitoring systems were already active.
Over two weeks, 983 visitors walked the site, often in small groups, accompanied by field teams and scientists.
What became visible by opening the site early
Opening the site during establishment made several elements observable that are usually discussed only in theory.
First, spatial heterogeneity was immediately visible. Soil conditions, moisture levels, and vegetation density varied significantly within the same hectare. This helped ground discussions about why uniform planting strategies tend to break down at scale.
Second, early trajectories could be examined. Using high-resolution drone imagery and AI-based detection, more than 4,000 seedlings had already been identified and mapped. The spatial distribution of those seedlings made it possible to discuss where establishment was progressing smoothly and where closer attention would be needed over time.
Third, biodiversity signals were already present. Bioacoustic monitoring recorded 106 bird species during the monitoring period. The proximity of a mature forest clearly contributed to this number. At the same time, bird activity on the site itself, particularly early in the morning and at the end of the day, was notable.
Several of the species planted had been selected specifically to attract avifauna and encourage seed dispersal through bird movement. Seeing birds actively using the site so early provided concrete context for how biodiversity-driven design choices can influence ecological dynamics from the first months.
These observations were not presented as proof of success. They were discussed as early signals, interpreted within their broader ecological context.
Climate variability as a visible constraint
Opening the site early also made it possible to discuss climate-related challenges openly.
Visitors often asked whether early-stage establishment could withstand climatic stress. This led to comparisons with other MORFO sites, including one in Bahia, where climatic conditions had diverged sharply within the same project. In that case, zones with higher initial density and biodiversity showed strong resistance, even three months after planting, while adjacent areas reserved for testing suffered significantly under the same conditions. For visits conducted in between interventions, this required explanation.
These discussions were not theoretical. They illustrated how climate variability can affect outcomes differently within the same project, and why early monitoring is critical to interpret what is happening on the ground before drawing conclusions.
Monitoring as a way to see problems early
On the Belém site itself, establishment was progressing as expected and no major corrective actions were required at the time of the visits.
What could be shown instead was how monitoring tools are designed to detect issues early when they do arise. Spatialized data, seedling detection, and temporal comparisons make it possible to identify emerging problems before they become structural.
For visitors, this was often reassuring. The focus was not on reacting to failure on this site, but on demonstrating how visibility works across projects, including those where conditions are less favorable.
A site designed to be observed
The Belém site was not presented as a finished forest or a model to replicate visually. It was presented as a system under observation. Visitors were invited to see how early signals emerge, how variability manifests, and how monitoring helps interpret what is visible on the ground. If you were present in Belém, you may recognize moments where context changed how you read what you were seeing.
What was made visible was not certainty. It was the process by which uncertainty is observed, discussed, and managed while it still matters.
—
The entire MORFO team would like to thank everyone who took the time to visit our restoration sites.
Over the two weeks of COP30, we were struck by the quality of the conversations: the curiosity, the questions, the encouragements, and, at times, the congratulations. The energy we felt on the ground was tangible and deeply motivating.
These exchanges reinforce our desire to continue opening sites and creating opportunities for direct field discussions, even though time, access, and operational constraints do not always make this possible.
If you were not able to visit our sites in person, you can find additional field content and site walkthroughs on our YouTube channel, where we share videos and explanations directly from the ground.
.jpg)
