Climatic Change

, 97:339 | Cite as

A science–policy interface in the global south: the politics of carbon sinks and science in Brazil

Article

Abstract

The IPCC and other global environmental assessment processes stress the need for national scientific participation to ensure decision makers’ trust in the associated scientific conclusions and political agendas. The underpinning assumption is that the relationship between scientists and decision makers at the national level is characterized by trust and interpretive synergy. Drawing on ethnographic research in Brazil, this article challenges that assumption through a case study of the policy uptake of divergent scientific interpretations as to whether or not the Amazon is a net carbon sink. It shows that the carbon sink issue became a site for struggles between important Brazilian scientists and decision-makers with central authority over the definition of the country’s official position in international climate negotiations. In a geopolitically charged scientific controversy involving scientific evidence bearing on the Kyoto Protocol, Brazilian decision makers studied revealed critical distance from national scientists advancing evidence that the Amazon is a net carbon sink. As such, the decision-makers’ interpretations were at odds also with dominant framings in the Brazilian media and closer to those of American scientists involved in carbon cycle research in the Amazon. Seeking to explain this disconnect, the paper discusses the divergent policy preferences of key scientists and decision-makers involved, and the correlations of these preferences with interpretations of the available scientific evidence. It identifies the continued impact of a national political tradition of limited participation in decision making and suggests that this tradition—while increasingly challenged by countervailing democratizing trends—is reinforced by key Brazilian decision makers’ constructions of science as a medium through which rich countries maintain political advantage. Reflecting this, key Brazilian decision-makers justified rejecting national scientists’ interpretations of the Amazon as a significant overall carbon sink by suggesting that the scientists’ scientific training and associated foreign interactions bias them in favor of foreign interests, compromising their ability to accurately identify national interests. The paper situates its analysis in terms of theories of the science–policy interface and argues for greater attention to the role of culturally and politically laden understandings of science and the role of science in policy and geopolitics.

Supplementary material

10584_2009_9610_MOESM1_ESM.doc (48 kb)
(DOC 48 kb)

References

  1. Adeodaio S (1990) Amazônia Filtra Gás Carbônico e Melhora a Atmosfera da Terra. J Bras (page number unavailable)Google Scholar
  2. Adler E, Haas P (1992) Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. Int Organ 46(1):367–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreae MO, Artaxo P, Brandão C, Carswell FE, Ciccioli P, da Costa AL, Culf AD, Esteves JL, Gash JHC, Grace J, Kabat P, Lelieveld J, Malhi Y, Manzi AO, Meixner FX, Nobre AD, Nobre C, Ruivo MdLP, Silva-Dias MA, Stefani P, Valentini R, von Jouanne J, Waterloo MJ (2002) Biogeochemical cycling of carbon, water, energy, trace gases, and aerosols in Amazonia: the LBA-EUSTACH experiments. J Geophys Res Atmos 107(D20):8066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araujo AC, Nobre AD, Kruijt B, Culf AD, Stefani P, Elbers J et al (2002) Dual tower long-term study of carbon dioxide fluxes for a central Amazonian rain forest: the Manaus LBA site. J Geophys Res Atmos 107(D20):8090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker TR, Phillips OL, Malhi Y, Almeida S, Arroyo L, Di Fiore A, Higuchi N, Killeen TJ, Laurance SG, Laurance WF, Lewis SL, Monteagudo A, Neill DA, Pitman NCA, Silva N, Vasquez R (2004) Increasing biomass in Amazon forest plots. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbosa LC (1993) The “greening” of the ecopolitics of the world-system: Amazonia and changes in the ecopolitics of Brazil. J Polit Mil Soc 21(1):107–134Google Scholar
  7. Beck U (1992) The risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S (1994) Reflexive modernization: politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker BK (2001) Amazonian frontiers at the beginning of the 21st century. In: Hogan DJ, Tolmasquim MT (eds) Human dimensions of global environmental change: Brazilian perspectives. Academia Brasileira de Ciências, Rio de Janeiro, pp 299–323Google Scholar
  10. Benvenuti C (1990) Uma taxa para respirar. Veja 1113:98Google Scholar
  11. Brosius PJ (1999) Green dots, pink hearts: displacing politics from the Malaysian rain forest. Am Anthropol 101(1):36–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown RGE Jr (1996) Environmental science under siege: fringe science and the 104th congress, 23 October, report, Democratic Caucus of the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. http://www.house.gov/science_democrats/archive/envrpt96.htm. Accessed 10 November 2004
  13. Brown IF, Brilhante SHC, Mendoza E, Oliveira IRd (2002) Estrada de Rio Branco, Acre, Brasil aos Portos do Pacífico: Como maximizar os benefícios e minimizar os prejuízos para o desenvolvimento sustentável da Amazônia Sul-Ocidental. In: Tizón AW, Duarte RSG (eds) La Intergración Regional Entre Bolívia, Brasil y Peru, Seminarios, Mesas Redondas y Conferencias, 25, Lima, Peru, pp 281–296Google Scholar
  14. Capozzoli U (2002) Floresta Ameniza o Aquecimento da Terra. Sci Am Bras 1:30–35Google Scholar
  15. Caropreso A (1990) Amazônia Ajuda a Regular Efeito Estufa. O Estado de São Paulo, 10 October, p 5Google Scholar
  16. Chambers JQ, Tribuzy E, Toledo LC, Crispim BF, Higushi NSJ, Araújo AC et al (2004) Respiration from a tropical forest ecosystem: partitioning of sources and low carbon use efficiency. Ecol Appl Suppl 14(4):S72–S88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chandler GG (1998) Civil society and development—the role of the third sector in the public policy process in Santa Catarina and Sergipe, Brazil, Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Department of Political ScienceGoogle Scholar
  18. Checkel J (1997) International norms and domestic politics: bridging the rationalist–constructivist divide. Eur J Int Relat 3(4):473–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chou WW, Wofsy SC, Harriss RC, Lin JC, Gerbig C, Sachse GW (2002) Net fluxes of CO2 in Amazonia derived from aircraft observations. J Geophys Res 107(D22):4614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cloud J (2001) Imaging the world in a barrel: CORONA and the clandestine convergence of the earth sciences. Soc Stud Sci 31(2):231–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Defries RS, Houghton RA, Hansen M, Field CB, Skole D, Townsend J (2002) Carbon emissions from tropical deforestation and regrowth based on satellite observations for the 1980s and 1990s. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:14256–14261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Demeritt D (2001) The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91(2):307–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Demeritt D (2006) Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique. Econ Soc 35(3):453–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dickson D (1989) The new politics of science, 2nd edn. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunlap RE, Xiao C, McCright AM (2001) Politics and environment in America: partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environ Polit 10(4):23–48Google Scholar
  26. Escobar H (2002) Floresta Também Absorve 2 Toneladas de Carbono por Hectare por Ano. O Estado de S. Paulo. http://www-eosdis.ornl.gov/lba_cptec/lba/port/documentos/materias/20020219.html. Accessed 31 January 2006
  27. Fan S, Wofsy S, Bakwin P, Jacob D (1990) Atmosphere-biosphere exchange of CO2 and O3 in the central Amazon forest. J Geophys Res 95:16851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fan S, Gloor M, Mahlman J, Pacala S, Sarmiento J, Takahashi T, Tans P (1998) A large terrestrial carbon sink in North America implied by atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide data and models. Science 282:442–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fearnside PM (2001) Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure: an issue that divides the environmental movement. Ecol Econ 39(2):167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fearnside PM (2006) Greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric dams: reply to Rosa et al. Clim Change 75:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fitch JS (1998) The armed forces and democracy in Latin America. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  32. Fitzjarrald DR, Moore KE (1990) Mechanisms of nocturnal exchange between the rain forest and the atmosphere. J Geophys Res 9(5):16839–16850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fogel CA (2002) Greening the earth with trees: science, storylines and the construction of international climate change institutions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa CruzGoogle Scholar
  34. Fogel CA (2004) The local, the global, and the Kyoto Protocol. In: Jasanoff S, Long Martello M (eds) Earthly politics, worldly knowledge: local and global in environmental politics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 103–125Google Scholar
  35. Fogel CA (2007) Constructing progressive climate change norms: the US in the early 2000s. In: Pettinger M (ed) Social construction of climate change. Ashgate, Surrey, pp 99–120Google Scholar
  36. Friedman EJ, Hochstetler K (2002) Assessing the third transition in Latin American democratization: representational regimes and civil society in Argentina and Brazil. Comp Polit 35(1):21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Friedman EJ, Hochstetler K, Clark AM (2001) Sovereign limits and regional opportunities for global civil society in Latin America. Lat Am Res Rev 36(3):7–35Google Scholar
  38. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, pp 215–228Google Scholar
  39. Gelbspan R (1997) The heat is on: the high stakes battle over Earth’s threatened climate. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Goldemberg J (1994) The road to Rio. In: Mintzer IM, Leonard JA (eds) Negotiating climate change: the inside story of the Rio convention. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 175–186Google Scholar
  41. Goulden ML, Munger J, Fan S-M, Daube BC, Wofsy SC (1996) Measurements of carbon sequestration by long-term eddy covariance: methods and a critical evaluation of accuracy. Glob Chang Biol 2:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Grace J, Lloyd J, McIntyre J, Miranda AC, Meir P, Miranda HS, Nobre C, Moncrieff J, Massheder J, Malhi Y, Wright I, Gash J (1995) Carbon dioxide uptake by an undisturbed tropical rain forest in southwest Amazonia, 1992 to 1993. Science 270:778–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Guérin F, Abril G, Junet A, de Bonnet M-P (2008) Anaerobic decomposition of tropical soils and plant material. Appl Geochem 23:2272–2283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Guérin F, Abril G, Richard S, Burban B, Reynouard C, Seyler P, Delmas R (2006) Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from tropical reservoirs: significance of downstream rivers. Geophys Res Lett 33:L21407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Guimarães RP (1991) The ecopolitics of development in the third world: politics and environment in Brazil. Lynne Rienner, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  46. Guimarães RP (2002) The bureaucratic politics of environmental policy formation in Brazil. In: Nagel SS (ed) Environmental policy and developing nations. McFarland, London, pp 227–244Google Scholar
  47. Haas PM (1989) Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. Int Organ 43(3):1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Haas PM (1990) Saving the Mediterranean. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Haas PM (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Organ 46(1):1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hansen B (1998) Is CO2 your friend? Keep burning fossil fuels, group says. Colorado Daily 1:3Google Scholar
  51. Hecht SB, Cockburn A (1989) Fate of the forest: developers, destroyers, and defenders of the Amazon. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Hurrell A (1992) Brazil and Amazonian deforestation. In: Hurrell A, Kingsbury B (eds) The international politics of the environment: actors, interests, and institutions. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 398–429Google Scholar
  53. Hurrell A (2005) The United States and Brazil: comparative reflections. In: Hirst M (ed) The United States and Brazil: a long road of unmet expectations. Routledge, New York, pp 73–107Google Scholar
  54. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2000) Special report on land use, land use change, and forestry. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Jakobsen S (2000) Transnational environmental groups, media science and public sentiment(s) in domestic policy-making on climate change. In: Higgot R, Underhill G, Bieler A (eds) Non-state actors and authority in the global system. Routledge, New York, pp 274–289Google Scholar
  56. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Jasanoff S (2004) The idiom of co-production. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  58. Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  59. Jasanoff S, Wynne B (1998) Science and decision-making. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change, vol 1. Battelle, Columbus, pp 1–87Google Scholar
  60. Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T (eds) (1995) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Jornal do Brasil (2002) Amazonia Elimina Gas que a Selva Produz. 5 August, p A4Google Scholar
  62. Kaiser J (1998) Possibly vast greenhouse gas sponge ignites controversy. Science 282:386–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kingdon JW (1985) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  64. Lahsen M (1999) The detection and attribution of conspiracies: the controversy over Chapter 8. In: Marcus GE (ed) Paranoia within reason: a casebook on conspiracy as explanation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 111–136Google Scholar
  65. Lahsen M (2004) Transnational locals. In: Jasanoff S, Long Martello M (eds) Earthly politics, worldly knowledge: local and global in environmental politics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 151–172Google Scholar
  66. Lahsen M (2005a) Seductive simulations: observations of efforts to box earth epistemological quandaries and anthropological observations of efforts to box earth. Soc Stud Sci 35:895–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lahsen M (2005b) Technocracy, democracy and U.S. climate science politics: the need for demarcations. Sci Technol Human Values 30(1):137–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lahsen M (2007) Distrust and participation in international science and environmental decision making: knowledge gaps to overcome. In: Pettinger M (ed) The social construction of climate change. Ashgate, Surrey, pp 173–196Google Scholar
  69. Lahsen M (2008) Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: a cultural analysis of a physicist ‘trio’ supporting the conservative backlash against global warming. Glob Environ Change 18:204–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lahsen M, Nobre CA (2007) The challenge of connecting international science and local level sustainability: the case of the LBA. Environ Sci Policy 10(1):62–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lahsen M, Öberg G (2006) The role of unstated mistrust and disparities in scientific capacity. Report published by The Swedish Institute for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköbing University, Sweden, 2006. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2565-2006.19.pdf
  72. Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B (eds) (1996) Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  73. Laurance WF, Cochrane MA, Bergen S, Fearnside PM, Delamônica P, Barber C, D’Angelo S et al (2001) The future of the Brazilian Amazon. Science 291(5503):438–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. LBA Science Planning Group (1996) The large-scale biosphere-atmosphere experiment in Amazonia (LBA): concise experimental planGoogle Scholar
  75. Litfin KT (1994) Ozone discourses: science and politics in global environmental cooperation. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. Lorenzi R (2005) Plants may not mitigate global warming. Discovery channel on-line. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050829/co2.html. Accessed 17 February 2006
  77. MacDonald GJ, Nielson DL, Stern MA (1997) Latin American environmental policy in international perspective. Westview, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  78. Malhi Y, Phillips O (2004) Tropical forests and global atmospheric change: a synthesis. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:309–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Malhi Y, Nobre AD, Grace J, Kruijt B, Pereira MGP, Culf A, Scott S (1998) Carbon dioxide transfer over a Central Amazonian rain forest. J Geophys Res Atmos 103:31593–31612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Martins Filho J, Zirker D (2000) Nationalism, national security and Amazônia: military perceptions and attitudes in contemporary Brazil. Armed Forces Soc 27(1):105–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. McNie E (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 10(1):17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Menezes A (2006) Brasil Pode Lucrar Com o Seqüestro de Carbono. A Crítica. http://www.amazonia.org.br/negocios/index.cfm?fuseaction=noticia&id=194790. Accessed 30 January 2006
  83. Miller SD, Goulden ML, Menton MC, Rocha HRd, Freitas HCd, Michela A et al (2004) Biometric and micrometeorological measurements of tropical forest carbon balance. Ecol Appl 14(4):S114–S126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Mooney C (2005) Mann hunt. In: Prospect, 5 June. Retrieved from http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9932
  85. Mumme SP, Korzetz E (1997) Democratization, politics, and environmental reform. In: MacDonald et al (eds) Latin American environmental policy in international perspective. Westview, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  86. Nemani RR, Keeling CD, Hashimoto H, Jolly WM, Piper SC, Tucker CJ, Myneni RB, Running SW (2003) Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300:1560–1563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Nobre CA (2003) Florestas Tropicais e o Protocolo de Quioto. O Estado de São Paulo. http://www.amazonia.org.br/compradores/opiniao/print.cfm?id=73180. Accessed 20 January 2005
  88. O Liberal (1999) LBA Reúne Cientistas em Belém. 25 May, 11Google Scholar
  89. Ometto JPHB, Nobre AD, Rocha HR, Artaxo P, Martinelli LA (2005) Amazonia and the modern carbon cycle: lessons learned. Oecologia 143(4):483–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Persson M, Azar C (2004) Brazil beyond Kyoto: prospects and problems in handling tropical deforestation in a second commitment period. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/dokument/press/2004/juni/postkyoto/brazil1.pdf. Chalmers University of Technology
  91. Potter C, Genovese VB, Klooster S, Bobo M, Torregrosa A (2001) Biomass burning losses of carbon estimated from ecosystem modeling and satellite data analysis for the Brazilian Amazon Region. Atmos Environ 35:1773–1781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Província de Belém (1999) Projeto vai orientar decisões sobre a floresta. http://lba.cptec.inpe.br/lba/img/jornal_3.gif, 25 May. Accessed 18 February 2006
  93. Rede Globo (2002) Pesquisadores Do Mundo Inteiro Discutem o Papel Da Floresta Amazônica Nas Mudanças Do Clima. Globo News Network (Globo Rede). http://www-eosdis.ornl.gov/lba_cptec/lba/port/documentos/materias/20020708.html. Accessed 31 January 2006
  94. Román M, Carson M (2009) Sea change: US climate policy prospects under the Obama Administration. The Commission on Sustainable Development, Stockholm. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/12/39/02/abbc3b90.pdf
  95. Saleska SR, Miller S, Matross D, Goulden M, Wofsy S, da Rocha H, de Camargo P, Crill P, Daube B, de Freitas H, Hutyra L, Keller M, Kirchhoff V, Menton M, Munger J, Pyle E, Rice A, Silva H (2003) Carbon in Amazon forests: unexpected seasonal fluxes and disturbance-induced losses. Science 302(5650):5154–1557. On-line supplement accessible at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5650/1554/DC1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Santilli M (2005) Tropical deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol. Clim Change 71(3):267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Santilli M, Moutinho P, Schwartzman S, Nepstad D, Curran L, Nobre C (2003) Tropical deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol. Proposal presented at the ninth meeting of the conference of the parties in Milan, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  98. Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7:385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schmink M, Wood CH (1992) Contested frontiers in Amazonia. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  100. Schneider SH (2000) Is the “citizen-scientist” an oxymoron? In: Kleinman D (ed) Beyond the science wars: science, technology and democracy. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 103–120Google Scholar
  101. Silveira V (2002a) Pesquisa Comprova Ajuda da Floresta Contra Efeito Estufa. Gazeta Mercantil, 2 July, p C6Google Scholar
  102. Silveira V (2002b) Pesquisas Para Medir Quanto as Florestas Absorbem de Carbono. Gazeta Mercantil, 30 Oct, p C4Google Scholar
  103. Skolnikoff E (1993) The elusive transformation: science, technology, and the evolution of international relations. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  104. Sloan JW (1984) Public policy in Latin America. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  105. Steel B, List P, Lach D, Shindler B (2004) The role of scientists in the environmental policy process: a case study from the American West. Environ Sci Policy 7:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Steel B, Lach D, List P, Shindler B (2001) The role of scientists in the natural resource and environmental policy process: a comparison of Canadian and American publics. J Environ Syst 28(2):113–155Google Scholar
  107. Steinberg PF (2001) Environmental leadership in developing countries: transnational relations and biodiversity policy in Costa Rica and Bolivia. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  108. Tabak I (2005) Um Conflito Amazônico. Jornal Do Brasil, 27 February, A3Google Scholar
  109. Vianna Rodrigues RL (2004) Análise Dos Fatores Determinantes Do Desflorestamento Na Amazônia Legal, Doctoral Dissertation, Coordenação Dos Programas De Pós-Graduação De Engenharia (COPPE), Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  110. Wiarda HJ (1990) The democratic revolution in Latin America: history, politics, and U.S. Policy. Holmes & Meier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  111. Wiarda HJ, Kline HF (2000) Latin American politics and development. Westview, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  112. Viola E (2004a) Brazil in the politics of global governance and climate change, 1989–2003. Working Paper Number CBS-56-04, Centre for Brazilian Studies, Oxford University. http://www.brazil.ox.ac.uk/workingpapers/Eduardo%20Viola%2056.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2004
  113. Viola E (2004b) A evolução do papel do Brasil no regime internacional de mudança climática e na governabilidade global. Cena Internacional 6(1)Google Scholar
  114. Wilkening KE (2004) Localizing universal science: acid rain science and policy. In: Harrison NE, Bryner GC (eds) Science and politics in the international environment. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, pp 209–240Google Scholar
  115. Wood CH, Schmink M (1993) The military and the environment in the Brazilian Amazon. J Polit Mil Soc 21(1):81–105Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Earth System ScienceThe National Institute for Space Research (INPE)São PaoloBrazil

Personalised recommendations