December 1, 2022

The State of Connectivity in Latin America: from Mobile Phones to Tablets

Ten years ago, issues like e-health, e-education and e-government were more products of wishful thinking than ideas with a real possibility of being implemented in most Latin American countries. Conversely, the present moment has become a turning point for the region in terms of connectivity. Government policies, markets and non-profit initiatives are contributing to improve the overall connectivity in the region.

By 2012 98% of the population in the region had access to a mobile cell signal and 84% of households subscribe to some type of mobile service, according to a World Bank report. This rather quick expansion of ICTs in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) caught many intellectual property and access to knowledge scholars and practitioners unprepared. While they were still considering hypothetical models for deploying and using information and communication technologies (ICTs), a significant portion of the region’s population was already putting in practice innovative uses to newly available technology, and going beyond expectations in terms of self-organization and empowerment.
[Read more…]

Brazil is the only BRIC country standing ground on Internet Freedom. Here is why.

A few weeks ago, the New York Times published a piece covering a new report launched by OECD calling member-countries to “promote and protect the global free flow of information”. The article lists three BRIC-members, China, India and Russia, as examples of countries taking actions harmful to online freedom. One BRIC member is missing from the list: Brazil. Despite hiccups, Brazil has been taking a strong position for protecting freedom and other civil rights online. Why is that?

One reason is that Brazil is a rather young democracy. From 1964 to 1985 the country was governed by a military regime, which imposed strict censorship rules. Major artists, newspapers, and tv networks had to submit their activities to prior approval by a censorship board. When democracy was reestablished in 1986, censorship was eliminated, but the trauma of 20 years of repression had been painfully imprinted in the Brazilian society. This trauma has made Brazil very sensitive to new threats of censorship, in its many forms.

Another landmark was a decision taken by the country’s Supreme Court in 2009. The court struck down the Press Law, adopted in 1967 by the military government (the same law that had established censorship). When the country was re-democratized, the censorship articles were revoked. Nonetheless, other parts regulating libel, defamation and the “right of reply” survived. The court decided to strike everything down (in spite of a heated debate claiming that the remaining articles were reasonable), stating the law was incompatible with the freedom of expression clause of the Brazilian constitution.

Another factor is that president Dilma Rousseff has been taking a public stance in favor of freedom of expression. It makes sense. In the 1960s, she was imprisoned and tortured during the military regime for participating in a dissident group. Unswervingly, she declared at a recent human rights conference that she “prefers the noise of the press to the silence of the dictatorship”.

Moreover, Brazil has a vigorous civil society, which emerged especially with the country’s new democratic constitution in 1988. Many civil society organizations are concerned with online freedom issues, including consumer associations, artists groups, newspapers and journalists associations, NGOs for education, free and open source software organizations, the academia, lawyers and judges associations, to name a few. Their claims have been taken into account by the political system. Government and Congress in Brazil remain permeable to the civil society. Even if lobbying and special interests do exist and exercise strong influence, it is rather difficult for politicians to save face for policies flagrantly against the public interest.

The strength of civil society reinforced Brazil’s commitment to internet freedom and also led to concrete policy-making. One example is the Marco Civil (“Civil Rights Framework for the Internet”), a draft bill seeking to protect civil rights online, such as freedom of expression and privacy, and to create balanced rules for the liability of internet intermediaries.

The bill is the result of a two-year online debate open to the public at-large. The process was put together by the Ministry of Justice and the Center for Technology & Society, a research center in Rio de Janeiro (full disclosure – I am the director of the Center for Technology & Society, and was involved in the Marco Civil process). The bill was sent to Congress by the Federal government in 2011, with co-sponsorship of five Ministries. Marco Civil has become a well-known issue in the Brazilian public sphere, and it has gathered strong public support. Approval is expected sometime in 2012.

Internationally, some view Marco Civil as an alternative approach to SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), the bill currently in discussion in Congress in the US, under strong criticism. While SOPA tilts the balance of the law in the direction of expedite enforcement, by-passing the judiciary in favor of a private notice-and-takedown system, Marco Civil supports a more balanced approach. It seeks to translate the principles established by the Brazilian Constitution into online practices, paying especial attention to due process, freedom of expression, and the protection of an environment favorable to innovation. Because of that, some also view Marco Civil as a counterpoint to ACTA, the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, criticized for potentially harming fundamental rights.

Of course the situation in Brazil is not all roses. The Brazilian Ministry of Culture has changed its policies in the beginning of 2011. Under the guidance of the new Minister Ana de Hollanda (claimed to have close ties to the controversial copyright collecting society in Brazil – ECAD – which is currently under investigation for fraud by by a special Congressional Inquiry Commission) has been trying to introduce legislation in Congress for creating a private systems for removing online content, inspired in part by the DMCA. This effort and other actions of the Ministry have raised vast waves of criticism, both by civil society and also by many sectors in the government´s party.

These hiccups, nevertheless, do not change the fact that, for now, Brazil seems to be committed to protect internet freedom against all odds. That is a good way of taking the recommendation of the OECD seriously, and also of setting a good example for the BRIC colleagues.

Decrees and Buses: How the Open Government Partnership Translates into Action in Brazil

The U.S. and Brazil teamed up to form an important global initiative, the Open Government Partnership (OGP). The project was launched by President Obama and President Dilma Rousseff right before the General Assembly of the United Nations this year (which by the way, was opened for the first time by a woman, President Rousseff).

The initiative outlines four key commitments to be undertaken by participating governments: a) increase the availability of information about government activities; b) support civic participation; c) implement the highest standards of professional integrity; d) increase access to new technologies for openness and accountability. Until September 20 the OGP declaration had been endorsed by Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, UK, US, and Brazil.

It is doubtless a great initiative, which has been supported by many NGO’s and other civil society organizations worldwide. However, a question remains about how the initiative will be translated into concrete action at each participating country. One criticism often heard in Brazil is that the initiative has not be so broadly publicized internally as it has been publicized internationally.

A few reasons might help explain that. One is the OGP´s commitment that requires governments to “increase the availability of information about government activities”. Brazil still does not have a “freedom of information act”. Citizens seeking for government information have to navigate through several different pieces of legislation, none of them providing a comprehensive and satisfactory solution. The very few avenues that exist for access to information include class action laws (“ação civil pública” and “ação popular”), and the traditional writ of mandamus. Neither of them is really practical, nor accessible to the common citizen.

In the meantime, congress has been discussing since April 2010 a draft bill that would truly enact an effective freedom of information law in the country. Named “PLC 41/2010”, it quickly proved itself a controversial proposal. Members of Senate, most notably Senator Fernando Collor, resorted to procedural speed bumps in order to slow down the project discussion, to the point that it has been currently halted at the Senate. Senator Collor also proposed a substitute version to the text, which would make the law basically toothless.

One of the reasons for the controversy is that it would grant access to documents from the military government, which ruled Brazil from 1964 until 1985. The substitute version presented by Senator Collor includes exceptions in the law that would virtually create “eternal confidentiality” for certain documents. That proposal has been harshly criticized by both civil society and the press, but to no avail. The substitute version still has to be voted, and the “eternal confidentiality” can actually end up being incorporated in the text. The final vote might take months, or even years to happen. And Brazil will remain without a freedom of information law until them, in spite of its commitments under the OGP.

That is not, however, the end of the story. Fully aware that Congress might take time to enact the law, President Rousseff was quick enough to issue a federal decree establishing an array of provisions in support to open government. The Decree was enacted in September 15th, 2011, right in time for the UN General Assembly and the launch of the OGP. The president exercised her powers granted under Article 84 of the Brazilian Constitution, whereby the president has the authority to provide for the “organization and structure of federal administration, in the cases where there is neither increase of expenses nor creation or extinction of public agencies.”

The Decree establishes a set of principles to promote of open government, and creates an inter-ministerial committee (called GICA), with the mandate to propose and coordinate open government initiatives inside the federal government. The Decree does get to the point of creating concrete steps or goals that must be implemented, but it certainly creates a framework in which these concrete steps might (or not) emerge.

Being a federal decree, it is binding only to the federal government. However, other state and city governments have been adopting policies consistent with the commitments of the OGP. One example is the city of Sao Paulo that recently enacted a decree mandating that every learning material produced by the city must be licensed and made available under an open license, such as Creative Commons. That is just one example of the growing Open Educational Resources movement in Brazil, and the strength of civil society in pushing for an open government agenda much before OGP took place.

One of my favorite examples, however, is the “Hacker Bus” (“Onibus Hacker”), an initiative by a group of hacktivists called Transparencia Hacker. They had been pushing for the open government agenda for years. Tired of being stood up by state and city government officers, they decided to resort to Catarse, a Brazilian version for Kickstarter. They asked money to buy an old bus that would then travel around Brazil promoting meetings between the vagrant group of hakers and city and state government authorities. They quickly raised R$58,000 (approximately $32,000) and the bus has been acquired. The group is in the final preparations to start their hacker trip, and it is expected to increase visibility to the commitments undertaken by Brazil under the OGP.

In short, the Open Government agenda in Brazil is not a new one, and it certainly sounds like an expected development the fact that Brazil and the U.S. are co-chairing the Open Government Partnership. There will be more speed bumps ahead, either in the way of Congress or in the way of the hacker bus, but at least both seem to be bearing the right direction.

UPDATE: The Brazilian Freedom of Information Law was passed on October 25th, rejecting the “eternal confidentiality” articles and the substitute version prepared by Senator Collor, therefore sticking to the original (and better) text. It now remains to see how the law will be actually implemented, and if access to public information will become an effective tangible right for most citizens.

Universities in Brazil are too closed to the world, and that's bad for innovation

When Brazilian president Dilma Roussef visited China in the beginning of May, she came back with some good news (maybe too good to be entirely true). Among them, the announcement that Foxconn, the largest maker of electronic components, will invest US$12 billion to open a large industrial plant in the country. The goal is to produce iPads and other key electronic components locally.

The announcement was praised, and made it quickly to the headlines of all major newspapers. There is certainly reason for excitement. Brazil lost important waves of economic development, including industrialization (which only really happened in the 1940´s), or the semiconductor wave, an industry that has shown but a few signs of development in the country until now. (continue reading)

The president´s news also included the announcement that Foxconn would hire 100 thousand employees for the new plant, being 20% of them engineers. The numbers raised skepticism, for various reasons. Not only they seem exaggerated, but Brazil simply does not have 20,000 engineers available for hire. In 2008, the number of engineers in the country was 750,000 and the projection is that if growth rates continue at the same level, a deficit deficit in engineers is expected for the next years.

The situation increases the pressure over universities to train engineers and also to cope with the demands of development and innovation. This is a complex debate, but it is worth focusing on one aspect of the Brazilian university system: its isolation from the rest of the world. In short, Brazilian universities, both in terms of students and faculty, are almost entirely made of Brazilians. As an example, at the University of Sao Paulo (USP), the largest and most important university in the country, only 2,8% of a total 56,000 students are international international. In most other universities the number of international students tend to be even smaller. Regarding faculty, the situation is not different. There have been a few recent efforts by some institutions (mostly private) to increase the number of international professors. But there is still a long way to go.

The low degree of internationalization is already causing problems. For instance, it makes it difficult for Brazilian universities to score well on world ranks. By way of example, no Brazilian university has ever been included in the top 200 universities of the Times Higher Education World Ranking, a ranking that pays especial attention to internationalization efforts.

Even if rankings might not be the main issue, the fact that the university system is essentially inward-looking indeed creates problems, making it harder for innovation. For instance, many of Foxconn’s new plant engineers might end up being hired abroad. If some sort of integration is not established with Brazilian universities, that will consist of a missed opportunity for transferring technology or developing local capacity.

The challenges of integrating such a large operation with universities are huge. Even for small scale cooperation, it turns out that the majority of universities in Brazil are unprepared to deal with international visitors, either students or faculty. For an international professor to be formally hired by a local university, she will have in most cases have to validate her degree in Brazil. The validation process can be Kafkian, requiring lots o paperwork (including “sworn translations”) and time, often months or years. This poses a challenge not only for professors seeking to teach in Brazil, but also to Brazilian who obtained a degree abroad and return home. Local boards of education do not recognize international degrees, regardless if they have been awarded by Princeton or the Free University of Berlin. Students return home formally with the same academic credentials they had before obtaining a degree abroad. The market often recognize the value of the international degrees, but the the university system does not.

The challenges are visible also at the very practical level. Most of universities do not have an office in charge of foreign admissions or international faculty or students. Many professors who venture into the Brazilian university system will go through the process without formal support, counting on the efforts and enthusiasm of local peer professors who undertake the work of dealing with the details of the visit (obtaining a Visa, work permit, or the long bureaucratic steps to get the visitor’s salary actually being paid).

The lack of internationalization is bad innovation. As pointed out by Princeton’s computer science professor Kai Li during a recent conference on technology cooperation between the US and China organized by the Center for Information Technology Policy, the presence of international students and faculty in US universities has been crucial for innovation. Kai emphasizes the importance of maintaining an ecosystem for innovation, which not only attracts the best students to local universities, but help retain them after graduation. Many will work on research, create start-ups or get jobs in the tech industry. The same point was made recently by Lawrence Lessig at his recent G8 talk in France, where he claimed that a great deal of innovation in the US was made by “outsiders”.

Another important aspect of the lack of internationalization in Brazil is the lack of institutional support. Government funding organizations, such as CAPES, CNPQ, Fapesp and others, play an important role. But Brazil still lacks both public and private institutions aimed specifically at promoting integration, Brazilian culture and international exchange (along the lines of Fulbright, the Humboldt Foundation, or institutes like Cervantes, Goethe or the British Council).

As mentioned by Volker Grassmuck, a German media studies professor who spent 18 months as a researcher at the University of Sao Paulo: “The Brazilian funding institutions do have grants for visiting researchers, but the application has to be sent locally by the institution. In the end of my year in Sao Paulo I applied to FAPESP, the research funding age of the Sao Paulo state, but it did not work out, since my research group did not have a research project formalized there”.

He compares the situation with German universities, saying that “when I started teaching at Paderborn University which is a young (funded in 1972) mid-sized (15.000 students) university in a small town, the first time I walked across campus, I heard Indian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic, Turkish and Spanish. At USP during the entire year I never heard anything but Portuguese”. (see Volker’s full interview below)

Of course any internationalization process at this point has to be very well planned. In Brazil, 25% of the universities are public and 75% private. There is still a huge deficit of places for local students, even with the university population growing quite fast in the past 6 years. In 2004 Brazil had 4,1 milllion university students. In 2010, the number reached 6,5 million. However, only 20% of young students in Brazil find a place at the university system, different from the 43% in Chile or 61% in Argentina. The country still struggles to provide access to its own students at universities. But at the same time, the effort of internationalization should not be understood as competing with expanding access. The challenge for Brazil is actually to do both things at the same time: expanding access to local students, and promoting internationalization. If Brazil wants to play a role as an important emerging economy, that´s the way to go (no one said it would be easy!). One thing should not exclude the other.

In this sense, João Victor Issler, an economics professor at EPGE (the Graduate School of Economics at Fundação Getulio Vargas), has a pragmatic view about the issue. He says: “inasmuch as Brazil develops economically, it will inexorably increase the openness of the university system. I am not saying that there should not be specific initiatives to increase internationalization, but an isolated process will be limited. More important than the internationalization of students and faculty is opening the economy to commerce and finance, a process that will directly affect long-term economic development and all its variables: education, innovation and the work force”. João Victor´s point is important. If internationalization follows development, there is already some catch up to do. The country has developed significantly in the past 16 years, but that has not corresponded to any significant improvement in the internationalization of universities.

A few strategies might help achieving more openness on the part of Brazilian universities, without necessarily competing with the goal of expanding access to local students. One of them is the use ICT´s for international collaboration. Another is providing support to what is already working. But there is more that could be done to improve internationalization. Here is a short list:

a) Development organizations such as the World Bank or the Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) can play an important role. Once the internationalization goal is defined, they could provide the necessary support, in partnership with local institutions.

b) Pay attention to the basics: creating specific departments to centralize support for international students and faculty. They should be responsible for the strategy, but also help with practical matters, such as Visa, travel, and coping with the local bureaucracy.

c) The majority of Brazilian universities´ websites are only in Portuguese. Even the webpage of the International Cooperation Commission at the University of Sao Paulo is mostly in Portuguese, and many of the English links are broken.

d) Increase the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT´s) as a tool for cooperation and for integrating students and faculty with international projects. Increasing distance learning programs and cooperation mediated by ICT´s is a no-brainer.

e) Create a prize system for internationalization projects, to be awarded every few years to the educational institution that best advanced that goal.

f) Consider a policy-effective tax break to the private sector (which might include private universities), in exchange for developing successful research centers that include an international component.

g) Brazilian organizations funding research should seek to increase support to international researchers and professors who would like to develop projects in Brazil.

h) Regional integration is the low-hanging fruit. Attracting the best students from other Latin American countries is an opportunity to kickstart international cooperation

i) Map what is already in place, identifying what is working in terms of internationalization and supporting its expansion.

j) Brazil needs an innovation research lab. Large investment packages, such as the government support to Foxconn´s new plant should include integration with universities and the creation of a public/private research center, focused on innovation.

Below are the the complete interviews with Volker Grassmuck and João Victor Issler, with their perspectives on the issue.

Interview with Volker Grassmuck

Volker is currently a lecturer at Paderborn University. He spent 18 months in Brazil as a visiting researcher affiliated with the University of Sao Paulo. His visit contributed significantly to the Brazilian copyright reform debate. He partnered with local researchers and law professors (as well as artists and NGO’s) to develop an innovative compensation system for artists, which has become part of the copyright reform debate.

1) How do you think the Brazilian Universities are prepared to receive students and professors/researchers from abroad?

I did not experience any special provisions for foreigners at USP. The inviting professor has to navigate university bureaucracy for the visiting researcher just as for any Brazilian researcher. I did experience a number of bizarre situations, but these were not specific to me, but the same for all in our research group.

E.g.: In order to receive my grant I was forced to open an account with the only bank that has an office on the USP Leste campus. The money from Ford Foundation was already there, and it was exactly the same amount that was supposed to be made over to my account at the same day of the month. But every single month had to remind the person in our group in charge of administrative issues that the money had not arrived. She would then go to the university administration to pick up a check that physically had to be carried to the bank to deposit it there. If the single person in the administration in charge was ill this would be delayed until that person came back.

Another path a foreigner can pursue is to apply for a professorship at a Brazilian university. I looked into this while I was there and got advice from a few people who had actually done this. Prerequisite would be a “revalidating” my German Ph.D. This is a long procedure, requiring originals and copies of diploma, grades etc. authenticated by the Brazilian Consulate, a copy of the dissertation, maybe even a translation into Portuguese, an examination similar to the original Ph.D. examination plus some extras (e.g. “didactics”) that you don’t have at a German university and a fee, in the case of USP, of R$ 1,530.00. In other words, Brazilian academy does not trust Free University of Berlin to issue valid Ph.Ds and requires me to essentially go through the whole Ph.D. procedure all over again. And then I would be able to take a “public competition”, which is yet another procedure unlike anything required by a German university.

2) What is the situation in the German universities? Are they prepared and/or do receive foreign students and professors/researcher?

Being German I have not experienced being a foreign student or researcher here. But here are some impressions: When I started teaching at Paderborn University which is a young (funded in 1972) mid-sized (15.000 students) university in a small town, the first time I walked across campus, I heard Indian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic, Turkish and Spanish. At USP during the entire year I never heard anything but Portuguese, except in the language course where there were people from other Latin American countries, two women from Spain and one visiting researcher from the US. Staff at Paderborn is less international, but once or twice a week there is a presentation by a guest speaker from a university in Europe or beyond.

This is anecdotal, of course. I’m sure objective numbers would show a different picture. The Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung (CHE) does a regular ranking of German universities. It includes their international orientation. This year’s result: the business faculties at universities of applied science are leading with 50%. Only 35% of universities got ranked as being internationally oriented, with sociology and political sciences being the weakest.

I wonder how Brazilian universities would rank by the same standards.

c) Do you think there is a connection between innovation and foreign students at local universities?

No doubt about it. I did see an international orientation is two forms: 1. People read the international literature in the fields I’m interested in in. But without having actual people to enter into a dialogue with this often remains a reproduction or at best an application of innovations to Brazil. 2. People travel and study abroad. A few students and professors travel extensively. Some students from our group went to Bolivia, Mozambique, France during my year there. So there is a certain internationalization „from Brazil” but my overwhelming impression was that there is very little academic internationalization „of Brazil.”

Interview with João Victor Issler

Joao Victor Issler is an economics professor at the Fundacao Getulio Vargas Graduate School of Economics, who has been been closely following the recent internationalization efforts. His full bio here.

a) How do you see the presence of international students and faculty at the Brazilian universities?

The presence of of both is quite rare. There are a few isolated efforts here and there by a few groups. For example, in Economics, we have PUC-Rio (Pontifical Catholic University at Rio) in Economics and IMPA (National Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics) who have at their masters and Ph.D. level students from Argentina, Chile, Peru etc. Our school, EPGE (FGV Graduate Scool of Economics) hires professors outside Brazil, but we do not have specific incentives for international students. Beyond Economics, I know that the University of Sao Paulo is seeking to attract international students, but it is hard to tell at what schools and how many

b) Foxcoon announced it will open a new plant in Brazil, and will hire 20,000 engineers for that. We clearly don´t have that many engineers. Do you think that the internationalization of universities could help the country to build better capacity for developing its tech-industry?

These numbers announced cannot be trusted. In any way, the general perception is that there is a deficit of engineers in Brazil. The tech-market, however, is an endogenous variable, correlated to our GDP per capita, the level of education of the working force, number of houses with access to drinkable water, infrastructure, etc. Inasmuch as Brazil develops economically, it will inexorably increase the openness of the university system. I am not saying that there should not be specific initiatives to increase internationalization, but an isolated process will be limited. More important than the internationalization of students and faculty is opening the economy to commerce and finance, a process that will directly affect long-term economic development and all its variables: education, innovation and the work force.

c) In other countries, there are institutions such as the Goethe Institute, or the Humboldt Foundation in Germany, that end up attracting international talents. The same goes for the US, with the Fulbright program. Why not in Brazil?

Germany and other European countries face problems due to the shape of their age demographic pyramid, whose base is small compared to the top. They have a better capacity to offer places in the university, that go beyond German students. Thus, it is possible to attract international students, in order to fill the present capacity. It is hard to say how this structure will evolve. They might reduce the installed capacity, or increase the search for international students. And they are looking for Brazilian students, for instance, especially engineers. Generally, developed countries tend to attract good students (and wealthier) than the developing countries, what explains this movement towards Germany, the US or Canada. To me, the US are the most important model regarding the higher education industry. In the beginning of the 20th Century, there were already many Japanes and Chinese students at universities in the US and Europe. With the development of Japan, this movement decreased in the end of the Century. Brazil today (for instance, the University of Sao Paulo) attrachs a few good students from Latin America. And it could attract more if we develop faster than the rest of the region. In Brazil, CAPES (for which I was an advisor until recently) plays a similar role than the institutions you mentioned. They are engaged in several bilateral agreements for students and professors. This openness is certainly positive. For students and professors, it is important to consider the hierarchy and quality: the best students tend to go to the US and Europe. We end up with the midle, and others go to countries where the development level is lower. As I mentioned, I don’t believe it is possible to change this pattern unilaterally, unless we want to apply huge public resources on that. In my view, it is not a priority, given the current levels of subsidies already applied to higher education in comparison with fundamental education in Brazil.

d) In your opinion, and considering the experience of EPGE, what are the advantages or disadvantages of increasing interationalization at Brazilian universities? Would that reduce space for Brazilians?

Increasing the universe of choice always improves the final results. Therefore, I see only advantages and I don’t see how we can be against internationalization. However, as I mentioned, I believe that an unilateral process will be limited to change higher education in Brazil (and also its impact on innovation and technology). Openning universities might not reduce the places for Brazilians, provided it is an organized and planned movement, correlated to our development level. If it is unilateral, then there can be indeed a loss for Brazilian students and professors.

e) Finally, do you see a relation between innovation and the internationalization of universities?

Yes, I do think the relation is positive between the two variables, but I don’t think it is possible to take any of them as isolated variables.

A Legacy at Risk: How the new Ministry of Culture in Brazil reversed its digital agenda

Former Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has become a prominent figure in the political world. When he completed his second and last term last December, 87% of Brazilians approved his government, an unprecedented high rate. So it is not surprising that his successor Dilma Roussef, the first woman elected president in Brazil, took office with his strong support and the promise of continuity.

However, disappointment about that promise is growing, at least in regard to one of Lula’s landmark policies: his support to the so-called “digital culture” policies. “Digital Culture” is the expression Brazilians use to refer to a broad agenda. It derives from the principle that technology is a crucial tool for cultural policies, especially because it allows the democratization of access, and the production and dissemination of cultural artifacts. It includes also the reform of copyright, especially because the Brazilian copyright has become notoriously restrictive, preventing consumers from uploading their CD´s into an iPod, a library from digitizing an old book for preservation, or a professor from using excerpts of a film in classroom. Finally, the digital culture agenda also includes the support to open licensing models, such as free software or Creative Commons.

These policies were successfully deployed by Gilberto Gil, a popular musician appointed Minister of Culture in 2003. He was profiled as early as 2004 by Wired Magazine as a champion of free culture and free software. Mr. Gil became such a popular politician in the country that some started calling him “the Lula of Lula”, in reference to his high popularity and progressive policies, within an already popular and progressive government.

Mr. Gil’s policies were continued by his successor (and former chief of staff) Juca Ferreira, who was appointed Minister of Culture in 2008 after Gil resigned to devote more time to his music career. One of the most successful policies implemented by Gil/Juca was the creation of the so-called “cultural hotspots”. The program provides resources to grassroots cultural initiatives and organizations to acquire multimedia production equipment and broadband Internet. More than 4,000 hotspots were created, spread over more than 1,000 cities in the country. Many of them in poor areas, rural communities, or favelas (shanty towns).

Mr. Gil described the idea of the hotspots as an “anthropological tao-in”, in reference to the Chinese therapeutic massage that when applied to the right spots of the body, awakens its internal energy. According to his view, with the right incentives, it was possible to energize and foster cultural practices in places often neglected. His view was that every citizen should be considered a producer, and not only a consumer of culture. The hotspots should provide the tools necessary for access, production, and dissemination of local culture, especially for those coming from poor or peripheral areas.

Information technology and the hacker ethic was an integral part of that vision, including incentives for the adoption of free software and Creative Commons, what eventually led to a national discussion about the impact of copyright over cultural production, spurring the the ongoing copyright reform process.

As Mr. Gil put it in his own words in 2005, at a speech he delivered at NYU:

I, Gilberto Gil, Brazilian citizen and citizen of the World, Minister of Culture of Brazil, work with music, at the Ministry, and in all dimensions of my life under the inspiration of the hacker ethic – and concerned with the issues of my world and my time present me, such as the issue of digital inclusion, the issue of free software and the issue of regulation and development of the production and dissemination of audiovisual content by any means, for any purpose.

I want indeed for the Ministry of Culture of Brazil to be a laboratory for new ideas, capable of inventing new procedures for the world’s creative industries, and capable of proposing suggestions aimed at overcoming the present dead ends – I did indeed think that my country should dare and not wait for solutions to come from outside, from societies that would tell us Brazilians which path should be followed for our development, as if our future could only be our becoming a nation such as the ones that exist here or in Europe.

Gil´s speech seems now almost lost in a distant time. The reason is that the newly appointed Ministry of Culture, Mrs. Ana de Hollanda, has taken advantage of her first weeks in office to reverse much of what was built in the past 8 years. By way of example, one of her first actions was to remove the Creative Commons license from the Ministry’s website, without any prior note. The license had been used for the past 6 years, and the Ministry of Culture was actually the pioneer in its adoption at the government level. It is worth noting that the CC licenses continue to be used at other government branches, including the official weblog of president Dilma Roussef. Ironically, at the same day the licenses were taken down by the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Planning issued a normative instruction fostering the adoption of open licenses, and expressly mentioning Creative Commons.

This contradiction led prominent politicians in Brazil, including Congress member Paulo Teixeira, to claim that the Ministry of Culture has engaged in policies that conflict with the overall direction of the Federal Government. Mr. Teixeira reminds that during the presidential campaign, president Dilma Roussef met with Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons, during an important campaign act. She also publicly committed to go ahead with the copyright reform and the digital culture agenda. Before that, in 2009, both president Lula and Dilma (then his Secretary of State) attended together the International Free Software Forum (FISL 10), one of the largest free software global events, which takes place in the city of Porto Alegre. There, Lula’s speech focused on his support to digital culture, Internet freedom and free software.

Other source of criticism is the proximity of the new Minister of Culture with the copyright collecting societies. By way of example, in her first weeks in office, the Minister agreed to meet with Hildebrando Pontes, a lawyer that works for the collecting societies who has become notorious for arguing that copyright should last forever. At the same time, the Ministry declined to meet with representatives of civil society, including those from the “cultural hotspots” program. She then fired the chief copyright officer who led the reform process for the past 6 years, and appointed Mrs. Marcia Regina Barbosa, a lawyer who worked with Hildebrando Pontes.

Collecting societies are a controversial institution in Brazil. They face strong discontentment from rights holders, who claim they are not paid properly. They also face discontentment from their paying “customers”, who claim their criteria for setting royalty prices are simply obscure. They have also been declared by congress inquiry committees as lacking transparency and clear accounting. One of the goals of the copyright reform initiated by Mr. Gilberto Gil was precisely to implement a minimum set of regulation over the collecting societies. By law they have the monopoly over their business, but unlike other countries, no regulation applies to their activities, which remain excused from any sort of independent assessment. Regulation is also supported by many prominent Brazilian musicians, who have recently become vocal about the issue.

The Ministry of Culture change of policy has drawn the attention of both national and international organizations. Even before the Minister´s inauguration, an open letter subscribed by more that 1,500 representatives of civil society organizations in Brazil was posted online expressing concern with the possible change of direction. Folha de São Paulo, the largest newspaper in the country, wrote a piece about the letter. The Minister, however, declined to provide any comments to the journalist. To this date, the letter has not been replied or even acknowledged by the Minister or her staff.

The Minister´s actions, together with the absence of clear statements justifying her decisions, have generated considerable uproar. A public campaign called Sou MinCC (“I am MinCC”) emerged (MinC is the acronym for Ministry of Culture – MinCC is the result of MinC + CC, in reference to the Creative Commons licenses). Besides that, the Commons Strategies Group, an international NGO, prepared an open letter (led by Silke Helfrich at the World Social Forum in Dakar) to President Dilma, also expressing concern about the new policies. The letter was released on February, 21st, and gathered the support of organizations such as Creative Commons, the Free Knowledge Institute (Netherlands), La Quadrature du Net (France), among others.

This is an important moment for the history of cultural policies in Brazil. There is a shared feeling that much of what was built in the past 8 years is at risk. A heated debate took over the Brazilian public sphere, with articles being published by all the major newspapers. The collecting societies and their members have taken the stand to argue in favor of the Minister, claiming that the decisions taken so far are a “sovereign act”, and that the collecting societies should indeed be exempt of any external supervision, and the copyright reform should be halted for good.

But the place where the debate is really developing on a daily basis is the Internet. Bloggers, twittterers and social network members have engaged fiercely in the discussion of the current situation. Many of them were too young to even acknowledge the appointment of Gilberto when he took office. It is a new generation that has risen for the first time to debate the future of culture and technology policies in Brazil. Inadvertently, the new Minister Ana de Hollanda is contributing to the emergence of new generation of voices online. One now can only hope that she will eventually listen to them.