Exploring the contradictions between Brazil’s role in the global climate change regime and its position in regional environmental governance.

Similar to other developing countries Brazil’s position on climate change emphasises national sovereignty and the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. However, in recent years Brasilia has also announced voluntary reductions in carbon emissions, making Brazil one of the leading emerging countries in its approach to climate change, while enhancing its international reputation and legitimacy. Compared to its neighbours Brazil has older and more developed domestic environmental institutions and movements. Yet, Brazil’s global leadership on climate change does not translate into a similar role in regional environmental governance. In the 2000s Argentina and Uruguay became embroiled in a bitter environmental conflict involving a shared natural resource, the Uruguay River. Brazil not only refused to mediate, but also kept it out of regional forums insisting on the conflict’s bilateral nature. Furthermore, Mercosur’s environmental agenda has progressively become eroded while Brazilian-led Unasur lacks an institutional framework dedicated to environmental concerns. This indicates that environmental concerns are far more important for Brazil’s global image than for its role as a regional leader. It also highlights the limited scope of the climate change negotiations which focus narrowly on reducing carbon emissions, without taking wider concerns over energy generation or environmental and social justice into account. Brazil has promoted hydropower generation, portrayed as “clean” energy. Yet, these projects have sparked strong domestic and regional civil society opposition due to their social and environmental costs which make it difficult for Brazil to claim a regional leadership role on environmental concerns.

Exploring the contribution of workplace learning to an HRD strategy in the Scottish legal profession.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the relevance of human resource development (HRD) for law firms in the UK. It examines how the characteristics of legal professional practice in the UK, including the partnership structure, long established methods of targeting solicitors and the law society, may act as barriers to the implementation of HRD. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses an exploratory case study research approach to investigate characteristics and issues influencing the adoption of HRD in a Scottish legal firm. Primary data are collected via semi-structured interviews with a cross-section of representatives. Findings – Despite recognition of the importance of learning, the characteristic elements of law firms, including the partnership structure; the pervasiveness of time-billed targets in the solicitor community; and HR’s profile and acceptance among the solicitor community, remain as barriers to the applicability of HRD. The research also exposes variability on the level and scope of development opportunities, an emphasis on technical skills development, and a lack of solicitors’ self-managed learning ability. Research limitations/implications – While the research findings provide a useful insight into the barriers to HRD in one legal firm, this does not allow for any generalisations being drawn from the study. Practical implications – The paper explores the suitability of workplace learning to support legal professional development. Originality/value – There is a dearth of research into HRD in legal practices in the UK. The paper contributes to the contextual influences that limit the applicability of HRD to legal professional practices.