Search

This paper estimates the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Brazil from 1970 to 2010 as an alternative indicator to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). After a growing disparity between these two indicators in the 1980s, when Brazil's per capita GPI featured a 35% decline, there was a relative catch-up in per capita GPI, but not one sufficiently strong enough to reduce the historical GPI–GDP gap. The recent trend of rapidly increasing environmental and social costs, along with the decline in unpaid labour and infrastructure services, poses concerns about the sustainability of an increasing GPI for Brazil into the future. Policies aimed at reducing environmental costs are necessary if Brazil is to enjoy a sustainable pattern of non-declining economic welfare. Brazil must pursue a higher rate of productivity in material and energy consumption in order to keep environmental pressures to a minimum level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) have become a popular instrument in the last decades and this growing trend is also clearly evident in Brazil. However, challenges related to implementation of these schemes are often underestimated. Any guarantee that a payment will secure or provide such a service is subject not only to underlying ecological uncertainties but also to those entailed by the kinds of social interaction that are inherent to policy implementation. It is argued that the objectives proposed with these instruments can only be attained by ensuring a wide participation of land users. This article advances this topic reporting and discussing evidence on farmer's reasons to participate in three PES-water schemes in Brazil using a combination of qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Results indicate that the diverging opinions regarding how ecosystem services are generated or secured, decentralized governance structures and the involvement of representative bodies in scheme design and implementation are important factors to consider. Furthermore, access to information and general environmental concern were found to be important variables to explain the propensity of farmers to participate. This generates serious policy implications for developing consistent communication and consultation strategies with scheme beneficiaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]