Amazon Fund: financing deforestation avoidance

The Amazon Fund, created in 2008 by the Brazilian Federal Government, is managed by Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES). It is a pioneering initiative to fundraise and manage financial resources to cut back deforestation and support sustainable development for 30 million inhabitants in the Amazon Biome. The Amazon Fund has already received more than R$ 1.7 billion in grants (about USD 787 million). This essay analyzes the Amazon Fund's governance and management with focus on its operation and from its stakeholders' perspectives. A combination of research methods includes: documental research, in-depth interviews, and speech analysis. The study offers a comparative analysis of strengths and weaknesses related to its governance. Furthermore, it proposes ways to improve its management towards greater effectiveness. The essay also includes an assessment of the government of Norway, a major donor to the fund. The governments of Norway and Germany, in partnership with Brazil, reveal how important it is to experiment with new means of international cooperation to successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions through rainforest preservation.

Clinical reasoning of medical students in a public university in Brazil

The aim of this research was to understand the reasoning developed by medical students in a public university in Brazil. This research on education included semi-structured interviews and film recordings of interns discussing 10 clinical cases. A sample of 16 interns analyzed cases presented on a notebook computer with a webcam. They were instructed to verbalize all their thoughts on the procedures they would use. The film recordings and transcripts of the interviews were analyzed. Quantitative data was evaluated using Yates' chi-squared test and speech analysis was used to evaluate the transcripts. The theme worked on in the practice of reasoning was: the student's perceptions of their clinical practice. Of the 160 diagnoses, 57% were done with analytical reasoning and 43% with non-analytical reasoning. The hypothetical deductive method was employed by 31% of the interns and the inductive method was employed by 69%. The diagnostic accuracy was 81% correct for easy cases and 85% correct for difficult cases. We observed two empirical categories: the cognitive universe of the student and the patient's context.