Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil: debates regarding the role of multilateral development agencies

A Avaliação Ambiental Estratégica (AAE) surge como uma ferramenta que fornece oportunidades para a formulação de políticas, planos e programas mais sensíveis às questões ambientais; facilita a integração e coordenação entre vários atores institucionais; e aumenta e fortalece a participação pública. As agências multilaterais de desenvolvimento, como o Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento e o Banco Mundial, vêm estimulando a adoção da AAE nos países em desenvolvimento como recomendação ou requisito para aprovação de investimentos e, ainda, por meio de eventos e atividades de capacitação. O presente trabalho discutiu a situação atual da AAE no Brasil, e o papel que essas agências estão desempenhando na sua implementação, a fim de identificar possíveis melhoras práticas e limitações. Defende-se que a prática da AAE no Brasil seja resultado de um modelo autônomo, baseado nas características e demandas internas.Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has emerged as a tool that provides opportunities for making policies, plans and programs more sensitive to environmental issues. It can also assist integration and coordination between various institutional actors, and the increasing and strengthening of public participation. Multilateral development agencies such as the Interamerican Development Bank and the World Bank have been encouraging the adoption of SEA in developing countries as a recommendation or requirement for investments approval. This paper presents and discusses the role Multilateral Agencies are actually playing in SEA application in Brazil in order to identify possible best practices and constraints. It is argued that SEA in Brazil should be developed as an autonomous instrument, based on Brazilian institutional context, specific characteristics and internal demands

A list of land plants of Parque Nacional do Caparaó, Brazil, highlights the presence of sampling gaps within this protected area

Brazilian protected areas are essential for plant conservation in the Atlantic Forest domain, one of the 36 global biodiversity hotspots. A major challenge for improving conservation actions is to know the plant richness, protected by these areas. Online databases offer an accessible way to build plant species lists and to provide relevant information about biodiversity. A list of land plants of “Parque Nacional do Caparaó” (PNC) was previously built using online databases and published on the website "Catálogo de Plantas das Unidades de Conservação do Brasil." Here, we provide and discuss additional information about plant species richness, endemism and conservation in the PNC that could not be included in the List. We documented 1,791 species of land plants as occurring in PNC, of which 63 are cited as threatened (CR, EN or VU) by the Brazilian National Red List, seven as data deficient (DD) and five as priorities for conservation. Fifity-one species were possible new ocurrences for ES and MG states

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

The contribution of economic ecological zoning on the environment impact assessment: basis and conceptual proposals.

O estudo de impacto ambiental (EIA), diante da concepção de avaliação de impacto ambiental (AIA), determina, em seus objetivos, a necessidade de se demonstrar a viabilidade ambiental não só de projetos, mas também de políticas, planos e programas (PPP). Considerado atualmente como instrumento ambiental essencial a qualquer processo decisório, conceitualmente distingue-se por necessidades e respostas diferentes para PPP, daquelas previstas para projetos. No Brasil, a prática associada somente a projetos e desvinculada das decisões que ponderem as alternativas locacionais, tem demonstrado distorções de uso do instrumento EIA no que se refere a respostas e também à sua credibilidade. Esta prática se refletirá no estabelecimento de responsabilidades distintas quanto à geração e disponibilidade das informações, no entendimento do conceito de EIA, como também no universo de exigências a serem requeridas. No que se refere à articulação com outros instrumentos da PNMA, cabe ao zoneamento ecológico econômico (ZEE) um grande papel, qual seja, o de articulador ambiental das diferentes escalas da AIA e gerador do diagnóstico ambiental com cenários e possibilidades de prognóstico. Conceitualmente o ZEE indica, ambientalmente e de maneira prévia, todas as alternativas de localização, ao contemplar os fatores ambientais diante da capacidade de suporte do meio em relação a uma determinada atividade, além de ser mais adequado para delimitar a área de influência e/ou os conflitos. Portanto, o estabelecimento de universos mais claros para cada escala de abordagem do instrumento AIA e a possibilidade de articulação com o ZEE desobrigarão o EIA de respostas e compromissos de implicações relacionadas a políticas públicas ao subsidiar os empreendimentos públicos e privados. O presente trabalho avalia o instrumento AIA e a possibilidade de aproveitar a implementação do ZEE para melhorar o alcance e eficiência do EIA, e se configurar como mais um instrumento de contribuição à sustentabilidade ambientalThe environment impact statement (EIS), facing the concept environment impact assessment (EIA), settles, in its objectives, the need to demonstrate not only the environment viability of projects, but also of policies, plans and programs (PPP). Currently considered as essential environment instrument to any decision making process, conceptually EIA marks presence for necessities and different answers for PPP. In Brazil, the practice associated only to projects and out of the decisions that ponder the localization alternatives, has demonstrated distortions in the use of the EIS instrument in relation of its answers and also to its credibility. This practice will be reflected on the establishment of distinct responsibilities considering the generation and availability of information, in the agreement of the EIS concept, and also in the universe of requirements to be met. In relation to the joint action with other instruments of the PNMA, it gives to the economic ecological zoning (ZEE) an important role, which is, being the environmental articulator of different scales of the EIA and generator of environmental diagnosis with scenes and possibilities of prognostic. Conceptually the ZEE indicates, environmentally and previously way, all environmental factors facing localization alternatives, when contemplating the carrying capacity in relation to a determined activity, besides being more adjusted to delimit the area of influence and/or the conflicts. Therefore, the establishment of clearer universes for each scale of approaching the instrument EIA and the possibility of joint action with the ZEE will liberate the EIS from giving answers and commitments of related implications to public policies and subsidizing the enterprises. The present work evaluates the EIA instrument and the possibility and advantage of the implementation of the ZEE to enlarge the range and to improve the EIS efficiency, and to configure it as an additional contribution instrument to environmental sustainabilit