Brazil and the Paris Agreement: REDD+ as an instrument of Brazil’s Nationally Determined Contribution compliance

  • P. GalloEmail author
  • E. Albrecht
Original Paper


The Paris Agreement on climate change recognises the central role of forests in achieving the well-below 2 °C goal through mitigation options covered by the REDD+ mechanism. Moreover, the actions that a country intends to take to address climate change under the new treaty are translated through the implementation of its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). In this context, Brazil included REDD+ in its NDC submitted to the UNFCCC. Here, an overview of Brazil’s NDC is provided; focusing on its relation to the forest scope. Likewise, a discussion on the implications for the REDD+ governance framework in supporting the NDC compliance process is presented. Ultimately, it is argued that the goals announced in the country’s NDC can be considered unpretentious, and a paradox to the conservation approach. Brazil is not keeping up the momentum of accepting the importance of the driving role of forests along with other sectors for the accomplishment of its NDC. For instance, this can be clearly noticed by the flexibilisation of the forest national legislation adopted in 2012. On the other hand, the country has the potential to contribute more than the announced targets in the attempt to limit expected global warming. However, even to achieve the current established targets, the government must better engage in public policies to leverage and change the country’s course of development, which is still characterised by the dichotomy ‘development versus environmental conservation’.


REDD+ Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) Brazil Forest governance Compliance 



This paper is part of first author’s Ph.D. research. The research was financed by CAPES—Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Ministry of Education, Brazil. We also appreciate the reviewers and the editor for their careful review and constructive suggestions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aamodt, S. (2018). The ability to influence: A comparative analysis of the role of advocacy coalitions in Brazilian climate politics. Review of Policy Research, 35(03), 372–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ABC Observatory. (2015). Análise dos Recursos do Programa ABC Foco na Amazônia Legal: Potencial de redução de GEE e estudo de caso sobre o Programa ABC em Paragominas. Online available at: Accessed 5 Feb 2017.
  3. Abranches, S. (2014). The political economy of deforestation in Brazil and payment-for-performance finance. Center for Global Development. CGD Climate and Forest Paper Series, 10, 1–52.Google Scholar
  4. Aguiar, A., Vieira, I., Assis, T., Dalla-Nora, E., Toledo, P., Santos-Júnior, R., et al. (2016). Land Use Change Emission Scenarios: Anticipating a forest transition process in the Brazilian Amazon. Global Change Biology, 22(21), 821–840.Google Scholar
  5. Albrecht, E. (2017). Planned obsolescence: Economically reasonable product or intentional damage contrary to public policy? In J. Hoffmann (Ed.), 15 Jahre Zentrum für Rechts-und Verwaltungswissenschaften and der Brandenburgischen Technischen Universität (Vol. 103, pp. 124–126).Google Scholar
  6. Albrecht, E., Egute, T., & Wanki, E. (2016). Paris Agreement. In E. Albrecht, T. Egute & E. Wanki (Eds.), International Environmental Law (IEL), agreements and introduction (5th ed., pp. 142–151). BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg.Google Scholar
  7. Alves, E. M. (2014). Brazilian environmental public policies analysis. World Academy of science, engineering and technology. International Journal of Social, Management, Economics and Business Engineering, 08(04), 990–994.Google Scholar
  8. Alves-Pinto, H., Latawiek, A., Oliveira-Filho, F., Duchelle, A., Wunder, S., Strassburg, B. et al. (2016). From REDD+ to Brazilian ENREDD+: A way forward? Forests, 07, 1–19. (in press).Google Scholar
  9. Assunção, J., & Chiavari, J. (2015). Towards efficient land use in Brazil. In The New Climate Economy, pp 1–28.Google Scholar
  10. Assunção, J., Gandour, C., & Rocha, R. (2012). Deforestation slowdown in the legal Amazon: Prices or policies. Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) Working Paper: Pontífica Universidade Católica (PUC), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Google Scholar
  11. Atela, J., Quinn, C., Minang, P., Duguma, L., & Houdet, J. (2016). Implementing REDD+ at the National Level: Stakeholder engagement and policy coherences between REDD+ rules and Kenya’s sectoral policies. Forest Policy and Economics, 65, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Azevedo, A., Alencar, A., Moutinho, P., Ribeiro, V., Reis, T., Stabile, M., et al. (2016). Panorama sobre o Desmatamento na Amazônia em 2016. IPAM. Online available at: Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  13. Azevedo, A., Rajão, R., Costa, M., Stabile, M., Macedo, M., Reis, T., et al. (2017). Limits of Brazil’s Forest Code as a means to end illegal deforestation. PNAS, 114(29), 7653–7658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Azevedo-Ramos, C., & Moutinho, P. (2018). No man’s land in the Brazilian Amazon: Could undesignated public forests slow Amazon deforestation? Land Use Policy, 73, 125–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Balch, J. K., Nepstad, D. C., Brando, P. M., & Alencar, A. (2010). Comment on “The incidence of fire in Amazonian forests with implications for REDD”. Science, 330(6011), 1627. Scholar
  16. Berenguer, E., Ferreira, J., Gardner, T., Aragão, L., De Camargo, P., Cerri, C., et al. (2014). A large-scale field assessment of carbon stocks in human-modified tropical forests. Global Change Biology, 20, 3713–3726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bessa, L., Oliveira, M., Abers, R., & Salomão, C. (2005). The Green Governance in Brazilian Cerrado. Green Governance, Green Peace: A Program of International Exchange in Environmental Governance, Community Resource Management, and Conflict Resolution. Online available at: Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
  18. Boyd, E. (2008). Navigating Amazonia under uncertainty: Past, present and future environmental governance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 1911–1916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cenamo, M., & Lima, L. (2014). Estratégia Nacional de REDD+: Falta diálogo entre Governo Federal e estados. Informativo IDESAM Website. Online available at: Accessed 6 Oct 2017.
  20. Cenamo, M., Soares, P., & Karst, J. (2014). Contributions to the National REDD+ strategy: A proposal for allocation between States and the Union. Manaus, AM: GCF—Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force.Google Scholar
  21. CGIAR—Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research. (2013). Going from Red to Green: The landscape approach. Online available at: Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
  22. Chiavari, J., & Lopes, C. (2015). Brazil’s New Forest Code: How to navigate the complexity. Climate policy initiative. Online available at: Accessed 24 Feb 2018.
  23. Chomitz, K., Buys, P., De Luca, G., Thomas, T., & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. (2006). At loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. Washington, DC: World Bank Policy Research Report.Google Scholar
  24. Conservation International. (2011). Sustainable landscape approach. Crystal Drive Arlington, VA: Conservation International.Google Scholar
  25. Corfee-Morlot, J., Kamal-Chaoui, L., Donovan, M., Cochran, I., Robert, A., & Teasdale, P. (2009). Cities, climate change and multilevel governance. Page OECD Environment Working Papers.Google Scholar
  26. Costa, R. (2016). Insecure land rights in Brazil: Consequences for rural areas and challenges for improvement. Climate Policy Initiative Report, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Google Scholar
  27. Denier, L., Scherr, S., Shames, S., Chatterton, P., Hovani, L., & Stam, N. (2015). The little sustainable landscapes book. Oxford: Global Canopy Programme.Google Scholar
  28. DeShazo, J., Lal Pandey, C., & Smith, Z. (2016). Why REDD will fail. Studies in Environmental Policy. Published by Routledge Focus, Taylor and Francis Group, London, UK and New York, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Di Gregorio, M., Fatorelli, L., Pramova, E., May, P., Locatelli, B., & Brockhaus, M. (2016). Integrating mitigation and adaptation in climate and land use policies in Brazil: A policy document analysis. Sustainability Research Institute Paper, 94, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper n. 257, University of Leeds, UK.Google Scholar
  30. Dutschke, M., & Manfrinato, W. (2016). REDD Plus—Good bye to private sector conservation? JIQ, Magazine on Climate and Sustainability, 22(01), 10–12.Google Scholar
  31. EDF—Environmental Defense Fund. (2016). Cost-effective emissions reductions beyond Brazil’s international target: Estimation and valuation of Brazil’s potential climate asset. Pedro Piris-Cabezas, Ruben Lubowski, Steve Schwartzman, Alexander Golub and Nathaniel Keohane. Online available at: Accessed 6 Oct 2017.
  32. Edwards, R. (2016). Linking REDD+ to Support Brazil’s Climate Goals and Implementation of the Forest Code. Forest Trends Public-Private Co-Finance Initiative Report. Google Scholar
  33. Elzen, M., Fekete, H., Admiraal, A., & Forsell, N. (2015). Enhanced policy scenarios for major emitting countries: Analysis of current and planned climate policies and selected enhanced mitigation measures. PBL Policy Brief, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
  34. Faggin, J., & Behagel, J. (2017). Translating sustainable forest management from the global to the domestic sphere: The case of Brazil. Forest Policy and Economics, 85, 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2012). Role of Forests in Climate Change. Online available at: Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
  36. Fatorelli, L., Gebara, M., May, P., Zhang, S., & DiGregorio, M. (2015). The REDD+ governance landscape and the challenge of coordination in Brazil. InfoBrief, 115, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  37. Fearnside, P. (2006). Mitigation of climatic change in the Amazon. In W. F. Laurance & C. A. Peres (Eds.), Emerging Threats to Tropical Forests (Chapter 19, pp. 353–376).Google Scholar
  38. Fraundorfer, M., & Rabitz, F. (2015). Brazil and the Durban platform. Ambitions and expectations. Giga Focus, 08, 1–8.Google Scholar
  39. Galford, G., Soares-Filho, B., & Cerri, C. (2013). Prospects for land-use sustainability on the agricultural frontier of the Brazilian Amazon. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1619), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gebara, M. F. (2015a). Governança de Paisagens Florestais impactos sociais da bricolagem institucional em São Félix do Xingu. Federal Rio de Janeiro University. Human and Social Science Department. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (In Portuguese).Google Scholar
  41. Gebara, M. F. (2015b). Brazil: Spoiler or leader? REDD Monitor. Online available at: Accessed 6 Oct 2017.
  42. Gebara, M. F. (2016). Is Brazil starting to lose the battle against deforestation? Forestless. Online available at: Accessed 6 Oct 2017.
  43. Gebara, M. F., & Agrawal, A. (2017). Beyond rewards and punishments in the Brazilian Amazon: Practical implications of the REDD+ discourse. Forests, 07, 1–26.Google Scholar
  44. Gebara, M. F., Fatorelli, L., May, P., & Zhang, S. (2014). REDD+ policy networks in Brazil: Constraints and opportunities for successful policy making. Ecology and Society, 19(03), 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gebara, M. F., May, P., Sampaio, R., & Thuault, A. (2012). REDD+ initiatives in Brazil—How global climate accords are reflected on the ground? The international society for ecological economics, conferences. Online available at: Accessed 6 Oct 2017.
  46. Gebara, M., & Thuault, A. (2013). GHG mitigation in Brazil’s land use sector: An introduction to the current National Policy landscape. WRI Working Paper, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Gibbs, H., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D., Noojipady, P., et al. (2015). Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science, 347(6220), 377–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gil, J., Garrett, R., & Berger, T. (2016). Determinants of crop-livestock integration in Brazil: Evidence from the household and regional levels. Land Use Policy, 59, 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gil, J., Siebold, M., & Berger, T. (2015). Adoption and development of integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 199, 394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hall, A. (2013). Combating deforestation through REDD+ in the Brazilian Amazon: A new social contract? Sustainability in Debate, Brasília, Brazil, 04(01), 79–98.Google Scholar
  51. Hartmann, H., Daoust, G., & Bigué, B. (2010). Negative or positive effects of plantation and intensive forestry on biodiversity: A matter of scale and perspective. The Forestry Chronicle, 86(03), 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(09), 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. IDDRI—Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations. (2015). Beyond the numbers: Understanding the transformation induced by INDCs, Study n. 05/15, IDDRI—MILES Project Consortium, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  54. Inoue, C. (2012). Governance of global climate change in the Brazilian Amazon: The case of Amazonian municipalities of Brazil. Revista Brasileira De Politica Internacional, 55, 170–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Google Scholar
  56. Junior, M., Chalita, M., Godoy, A., & Silva, C. (2008). Importancia da Inserção de Projetos de Conservação da Floresta Amazonica no Protocolo de Kyoto para Redução do Desmatamento. Informações Econômicas, 38(05), 37–50.Google Scholar
  57. La Rovere, E., Dubeux, C., Pereira, A., Jr., & Wills, W. (2013). Brazil beyond 2020: From deforestation to the energy challenge. Climate Policy, 13(01), 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Larson, A., & Petkova, E. (2011). An introduction to forest governance, people and REDD+ in Latin America: Obstacles and opportunities. Forests, 2, 86–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lima, R., & Antoniazzi, L. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the future of land use in Brazil. AGROÍCONE Policy Brief, INPUT, Iniciativa para o Uso da Terra, Brazil.Google Scholar
  60. Maia, H., Hargrav, J., Gómez, J., & Röper, M. (2011). Avaliação do Plano de Ação para Prevenção e Controle do Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal. Rio de Janeiro: GIZ, IPEA and CEPA.Google Scholar
  61. Malhi, Y., Timmons Roberts, J., Betts, R., Killen, T., Li, W., & Nobre, C. (2008). Climate change, deforestation and the fate of the Amazon. Science Magazine, 319, 169–172.Google Scholar
  62. Marcovitch, J. (2011). A Gestão da Amazônia: Ações empresariais, políticas públicas, estudos e propostas. Edusp—Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. (In Portuguese).Google Scholar
  63. McFarland, B. (2010). Origins, development and potential of the international REDD market, a significant research paper. The American University of Washington, DC, USA. Online Available at: Accessed 2 Mar 2018.
  64. MCTI—Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Secretariat of Policies and Programs of Research and Development, and General Coordination of Global Climate Change. (2013). Estimativas Anuais de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa no Brasil, Brasília, Brazil. Google Scholar
  65. MCTI—Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Secretariat of Policies and Programs of Research and Development, and General Coordination of Global Climate Change. (2016). Third National Communication of Brazil to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Volume III. Brasília, Brazil. Google Scholar
  66. MMA—Ministry of Environment. (2008). Plano Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima. Online available at: Accessed 5 Jan 2017.
  67. MMA—Ministry of Environment. (2015a). NDC do Brasil. Online available at: Accessed 18 Dec 2018. (In Portuguese).
  68. MMA—Ministry of Environment. (2015b). ENREDD+ - National Strategy on REDD+. Online available at: Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
  69. MMA—Ministry of Environment. (2016). REDD+ as a means of implementation of Brazil’s NDC. Online available at: Accessed 6 Oct 2017.
  70. Moutinho, P., Cristovam, M., & Mesquita, I. (2014). Comentários sobre a Estratégia Brasileira de REDD+. Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia—IPAM. Documento interno, Brasília, Brazil. (In Portuguese).Google Scholar
  71. Nepstad D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C., Alencar, A., Azevedo, A., Swette, B., et al. (2014). Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science, 344(618), 1118–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Paquette, A., Hawryshyn, J., Senikas, A., & Potvin, C. (2009). Enrichment planting in secondary forests: A promising clean development mechanism to increase terrestrial carbon sinks. Ecology and Society, 14(01), 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pawson, S., Brin, E., Brockerhoff, D. Lamb, T., Payn, W., Paquette, A., et al. (2013). Plantation forests, climate change and biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22, 1203–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pham, T., Moeliono, M., Brockhaus, M., Le, N., & Katila, P. (2017). REDD+ and Green Growth: Synergies or discord in Vietnam and Indonesia. International Forest Review, 19, 1–13.Google Scholar
  75. Pires, M., & Ortega, V. (2013). O Cadastro Ambiental Rural na Amazônia. Brasília: Conservação Internacional, Brasília, Brazil.Google Scholar
  76. PRODES. (2016). Estimativa da Taxa de Desmatamento da Amazônia em 2015–2016. Brasília, Brazil: Ministério da Ciencia e Tecnologia.Google Scholar
  77. PRODES. (2018). Estimativa da Taxa de Desmatamento da Amazônia em 2017–2018. Brasília, Brazil: Ministério da Ciencia e Tecnologia.Google Scholar
  78. Ravikumar, A., Larson, A., Myers, R., & Trench, T. (2018). Inter-sectoral and multilevel coordination alone do not reduce deforestation and advance environmental justice: Why bold contestation works when collaboration fails. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(08), 1437–1457.Google Scholar
  79. Reis, T., Bortolotto, F., Lopes, G., & Braga, L. (2017). Challenges and Opportunities Strengthen the National Contributions in the Agricultural and Forestry Sector in Latin America: The Case of Brazil. Plataforma Climática Latinoamericana, Amazon Environmental Research Institute—IPAM, Brazil.Google Scholar
  80. Reis, T., Moutinho, P., & Azevedo, A. (2015). Mudanças Climáticas: Panorama para a COP20 em Lima-Peru. Belém: Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia—IPAM.Google Scholar
  81. Ribeiro, S. (2013). Can REDD+ be a conservation strategy for Cerrado? Enciclopédia Biosfera, 09(17), 478–490.Google Scholar
  82. Romeiro, V., & Biderman, R. (2015). A closer look at Brazil’s New Climate Plan (INDC). World Resources Institute. Online available at: Accessed 23 Jan 2017.
  83. Rutishauser, E., Hérault, B., Baraloto, C., Blanc, L., Descroix, L., Sotta, E., et al. (2015). Rapid tree carbon stock recovery in managed Amazonian forests. Current Biology Magazine, 25, 775–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Salvini, G., Herold, M., De Sy, V., Kissinger, G., Brockhaus, M., & Skutsch, M. (2014). How countries link REDD+ interventions to drivers in their readiness plans: Implications for monitoring systems. Environmental Research Letters, 9, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sano, H. (2011). Governance in environmental policy: Advances and challenges to develop a Brazilian Green Economy. Paper presented at the UNRISD conference Green Economy and Sustainable Development: Bringing Back the Social Dimension. Draft version pdf. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  86. SECOM—Secretariat for Social Communication Presidency of the Federative Republic of Brazil. (2011). Climate Change in Brazil—Key, facts and figures. COP17/CMP7, Brasília, Brazil.Google Scholar
  87. SFB—Brazilian Forest Service. (2013). Brazilian Forests at a glance 2013: Data from 2007 to 2012. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente, MMA.Google Scholar
  88. Soares-Filho, B., Rajão, R., Macedo, M., Carneiro, A., Costa, W., Coe, M., et al. (2014). Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science, 344(6182), 363–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Soares-Filho B., Silvestrini, R., Nepstad, D., Brando, P., Rodrigues, H., Alencar, A., et al. (2012). Forest fragmentation, climate change and understory fire regimes on the Amazonian landscapes of the Xingu headwaters. Landscape Ecology, 27(04), 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Souza, C. (2013). Development of the Brazilian REDD strategy: The simplification of the debate which prioritizes the Amazon Biome. Ambiente and Sociedade, 16(01), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sparovek, G., Barreto, A., Klug, I., Papp, L., & Lino, J. (2010). A Revisão do Código Florestal Brasileiro. Novos Estudos, CEBRAP, 88, 181–205.Google Scholar
  92. Spera, S., Galford, G., Coe, M., Macedo, M., & Mustard, J. (2016). Land–use change affects water recycling in Brazil’s last agricultural frontier. Global Change Biology, 22(10), 3405–3413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. UNFCCC—United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2014). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013. FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1 .Google Scholar
  94. Valberg, A. (2011). Brazil’s Role in Environmental Governance. Analysis of Possibilities for Increased Brazil–Norway Cooperation. FNI Report 08/2011, Fridtjof Nansen Institute. Report for the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. Google Scholar
  95. van der Hoff, R., Rajão, R., & Leroy, P. (2018). Clashing interpretations of REDD+ “results” in the Amazon fund. Climatic Change, 150, 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. van der Hoff, R., Rajão, R., Leroy, P., & Boezeman, D. (2015). The parallel materialization of REDD+ implementation discourses in Brazil. Forest Policy and Economics, 55, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Vatn, A., Marostica, S., Viana, V., & Salviati, V. (2017). Management regimes for REDD+: An analysis of the regime in the RDS Rio Negro REDD+ pilot. NORAGRIC Report n. 82. Norwegian University of Life Sciences Faculty of Landscape and Society Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norway.Google Scholar
  98. Viola, E. (2010). A Política Climática Global e o Brasil: 2005–2010. Revista Tempo do Mundo, 02(02), 81–117.Google Scholar
  99. Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Work Bank (2017). Overview Brazil. Online available at: Accessed 1 Mar 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Public Law with References to the Law of Europe and the EnvironmentBrandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-SenftenbergCottbusGermany
  2. 2.Chair for Civil and Public Law with References to the Law of Europe and the EnvironmentBrandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-SenftenbergCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations