What can and should be legalized in ecological restoration?

After listing the five key elements of ecological restoration, ecology, economics, social values, cultural values, and politics, I celebrate the fact that in Brazil there is legislation on how to perform ecological restoration of degraded tropical forests, as well as an ongoing dialogue among legislators and scientists about this legislation, and also a lively debate among scientists as the best way forward, referring to articles by Brancalion et al. (2010) and Durigan et al. (2010) in this issue of Revista Árvore. Legislators elsewhere, especially megadiversity countries, should take note. I do not take sides in the debate; I think both groups of authors make very good points. Instead I call on the scientists and legislators concerned with restoration to ponder five strategic tools: A. Start with clear concepts. B. Decide where you want to go and why. C. Negotiate who should benefit & how, and who should pay, how, & why. D. Work out how an honest cost-benefit analysis of restoration would look, regardless of the biome in which you are working. Finally, figure out how to make the restoration immediately attractive for private landowners. Otherwise, they will not cooperate as fully as they could or should, and restoration efforts will not achieve its full potential.

Has social justice any legitimacy in Kant's theory of right? The empirical conditions of the legal state as a civil union

This paper aims at shedding light on an obscure point in Kant's theory of the state. It discusses whether Kant's rational theory of the state recognises the fact that certain exceptional social situations, such as the extreme poverty of some parts of the population, could request institutional state support in order to guarantee the attainment of a minimum threshold of civil independence. It has three aims: 1) to show that Kant's Doctrine of Right can offer solutions for the complex relation between economics and politics in our present time; 2) to demonstrate the claim that Kant embraces a pragmatic standpoint when he tackles the social concerns of the state, and so to refute the idea that he argues for an abstract conception of politics; and 3) to suggest that a non-paternalistic theory of rights is not necessarily incompatible with the basic tenets of a welfare state.