Under the administrations of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995–2002) and especially President Lula (2003–), conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes have become adopted as mainstream social policy in Brazil. This follows a marked trend since the 1990s in Latin America towards the setting up of targeted safety nets to alleviate poverty. Lula consolidated and expanded CCTs, firstly under Fome Zero and later Bolsa Família, now the largest such scheme in the world. Its four sub-programmes (educational stipends to boost school attendance, maternal nutrition, food supplements and a domestic gas subsidy) benefit some 30 million of Brazil's poorest people, with a target of 44 million by 2006. Since 2003, spending on Bolsa Família has risen significantly to consume over one-third of the social assistance budget for the poorest sectors and it remained a flagship policy in the run-up to the presidential elections of October 2006. Although coverage of Bolsa Família is impressive, however, systematic evaluation of its social and economic impacts is still lacking. Evidence from other CCT programmes in Latin America suggests that positive results may be achieved in terms of meeting some immediate needs of the poor. However, there have been many implementation problems. These include poor beneficiary targeting, lack of inter-ministerial coordination, inadequate monitoring, clientelism, weak accountability and alleged political bias. Given the heightened profile of cash transfers in Brazil's social policy agenda, key questions need to be asked. These concern, firstly, the extent to which Bolsa Família does indeed contribute to poverty alleviation; and secondly, whether it creates greater dependence of the poor on government hand-outs and political patronage at the expense of long-term social investment for development.

In common with most Latin American countries, as governments embrace safety nets to attack poverty, conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes have become part of mainstream social policy in Brazil. Under president Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995–2002), and especially since Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva took office in 2003, targeted assistance in education, health and nutrition, now united under Bolsa Família, have expanded rapidly to benefit forty‐four million (24 per cent of the total population), absorbing almost two‐fifths of the social assistance budget earmarked for the poorest sectors. Despite its operational problems, Bolsa Família appears to have been effective in providing short‐term relief to some of the most deprived groups in Brazil. Yet it could prove to be a double‐edged sword. There is a risk that, due to its popularity among both the poor and Brazil's politicians, Bolsa Família could greatly increase patronage in the distribution of economic and social benefits and induce a strong dependence on government handouts. There are also early signs that it may be contributing to a reduction in social spending in key sectors such as education, housing and basic sanitation, possibly undermining the country's future social and economic development.

The introduction of payments for environmental services (PES) offers an opportunity for traditional and indigenous populations to be compensated for contributing to carbon sequestration in meeting the challenge of ameliorating global warming. As one mechanism among several for promoting biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, pro-poor PES initiatives could eventually be incorporated into an international post-Koyoto framework to encourage reduced emissions from deforestation. Brazil's Proambiente PES scheme for small farmers in Amazonia has enjoyed some limited success, but it has fallen short of expectations. Its performance has been undermined by the lack of a national legal framework, limited funding, reduced implementation capacity, poor cross-sector collaboration and incompatibility with existing regional development policies. These challenges are being addressed by the federal government in cooperation with civil society with a view to scaling up Proambiente into a national programme.

The Belo Monte hydropower scheme on the River Xingu in Brazilian Amazonia symbolizes the persistent contradictions between industrial modernization and resource conservation in a fragile environment. For over 30 years, local populations have battled with the energy authorities, contesting the top-down planning approach regularly applied in Brazilian infrastructure expansion. Reconfigured over the past decade as ‘neo-developmentist’, the model complements neoliberalism and is based on a strong alliance between the state as financial backer and the private sector as executor of such major schemes as Belo Monte. Following her predecessors, President Dilma continues to employ authoritarian tactics with little apparent regard for dealing comprehensively with its anticipated severe economic, ecological and social impacts, and with minimal consultation of diverse local groups, especially poorer agricultural and indigenous populations. More transparent and democratic planning procedures are necessary for Belo Monte and similar schemes if Brazil’s environmental credentials are not to be seriously compromised.

Developing high quality scientific research will be most effective if research communities with diverse skills and interests are able to share information and knowledge, are aware of the major challenges across disciplines, and can exploit economies of scales to provide robust answers and better inform policy. We evaluate opportunities and challenges facing the development of a more interactive research environment by developing an interdisciplinary synthesis of research on a single geographic region. We focus on the Amazon as a region of global environmental importance, and one that faces a highly uncertain future. To take stock of existing knowledge and provide a framework for analysis we present a set of mini reviews from twelve different areas of research, encompassing taxonomy, biodiversity, biogeography, vegetation dynamics, landscape ecology, earth-atmosphere interactions, ecosystem processes, fire, deforestation dynamics, hydrology, hunting, conservation planning, livelihoods and payments for ecosystem services. Each review highlights the current state of our knowledge and identifies research priorities, including major challenges and opportunities. We show that while substantial progress is being made across many areas of scientific research, our understanding of specific issues is often dependent on knowledge from other disciplines. Accelerating the acquisition of reliable and contextualized knowledge about the fate of complex human-modified ecosystems depends partly on our ability to exploit economies of scale in shared resources and technical expertise, recognise and make explicit interconnections and feedbacks among sub-disciplines, increase the temporal and spatial scale of existing studies, and improve the dissemination of scientific findings to policy makers and society at large. There is enormous scope for improved interaction within the wider research community. Enhanced communication provides an essential foundation for more in-depth coordination of research effort and collaboration between researchers. Enhancing interaction between research efforts is vital if we are to make the most of limited funds and overcome the challenges posed by addressing large-scale interdisciplinary questions that underpin the future of our 3 planet. Bringing together a diverse scientific community with a single geographic focus can help increase awareness of research questions both within and among disciplines, and reveal the opportunities that may exist for advancing acquisition of reliable knowledge. This approach can be useful for a variety of globally important scientific questions.Keywords: learning networks, interdisciplinary research, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Surinam 4 IntroductionThe global research community is incredibly prolific, but the enormous and expanding volume of information that has been accumulated presents a significant challenge to scientists attempting to keep up with the latest developments, and to those responsible for developing s...

International audienceSocial policies in the World Bank have evolved into three conceptually and operationally separate agendas: social welfare, social protection and social development. Welfare services and basic human needs, as well as social protection in the form of safety nets and social safeguards, together form the mainstay of what is generally regarded within the organization as constituting social policy. Social development reflects a broader if more fragmented view of social policy. Bank specialists have recently sought to widen the definition of social policy beyond welfare and protection, building upon longstanding academic discourse in this field. However, in attempting to pursue a more holistic and over-arching vision of social policy for development, they are likely to encounter major internal obstacles. Meeting this challenge will not be facilitated by the Bank reorganization announced in June 2006, which may serve to restrict the independence and remit of environmental and social specialists

No abstract

Compensating natural resource users for the environmental services they supply is becoming an increasingly attractive policy option in a number of countries. Ranging from official carbon trading through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol to more informal arrangements, payments for environmental services (PES) can offer financial incentives for promoting ecologically sound conservation and development practices. PES principles could be applied more widely in Brazilian Amazonia to help curb high rates of deforestation which are gradually undermining the region's capacity to supply key services such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity maintenance and water cycling, and to sustain people's natural resource-dependent livelihoods. This potential could be especially significant if avoided deforestation were eventually to be permitted for acquiring certified emissions offsets under the CDM.