Três motivos pelos quais o Brasil pode ter uma virada em 2016, segundo o Deutsche - InfoMoney

http://m.infomoney.com.br/mercados/noticia/3994679/tres-motivos-pelos-quais-brasil-pode-ter-uma-virada-2016

Três motivos pelos quais o Brasil pode ter uma virada em 2016, segundo o Deutsche

O ministro da Fazenda, Joaquim Levy, enfatizou em Nova York a perspectiva de longo prazo para o País, com os gastos de infraestrutura aumentando e com a gigante da Petrobras saindo das dificuldades.

E, conforme o site Barron's, em relatório especial sobre a economia do Brasil na semana passada, o Deutsche Bank destacou que há riscos da economia no curto prazo. Porém, há três razões que possam levar a um "turn around" (virada) em 2016.

De acordo com o economista do Deutsche José Carlos Faria, a desaceleração econômica este ano tem sido mais intensa do que o esperado, já que os dados mais recentes mostram um forte declínio na confiança de consumidores e empresários, nova desaceleração da produção industrial, queda nas vendas de varejo e aumento significativo do desemprego. Com isso, o Deutsche reduziu a previsão de crescimento do PIB de 2015 de queda de 0,7% para contração de 1,4%.

"Esperamos que o PIB caia acentuadamente no primeiro semestre de 2015, estabilize no segundo semestre de 2015 e volte a crescer no primeiro trimestre de 2016", afirma o economista.

De acordo com o economista, a avaliação mais positiva para o ano que vem se dá uma vez que a economia está passando por ajustes importantes que são necessários para sustentar a confiança e abrir o caminho para um futuro de recuperação.

Em primeiro lugar, está um plano de austeridade fiscal que visa aumentar o superávit primário, com o objetivo de evitar que as agências de classificação tirem o grau de investimento do Brasil.

Em segundo lugar, está o ajuste de preços relativos, em que os preços de energia refletem agora uma maior precisão e as reais condições de demanda. Em terceiro lugar, está a depreciação cambial que ocorreu e vai ajudar a restaurar a competitividade da indústria local e reduzir déficit em conta corrente do Brasil.

Porém, há um fator de preocupação, que é o risco político. "Continuamos preocupados com o risco político. A presidente Dilma Rousseff permanece vulnerável devido à perspectiva econômica negativa e da forte queda de seus índices de aprovação. A probabilidade de impeachment de Dilma continua muito baixa, [mas] nós continuamos preocupados com a determinação do governo para apoiar as políticas favoráveis ??ao mercado patrocinadas por Levy conforme o tempo passa, e especialmente se a atividade econômica não melhorar no segundo semestre de 2015", destaca o economista.

Avalie essa notícia:

------

Paul Smith

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2015/04/brazil-to-offer-ambitious-climate-plan-with-more-renewables??cmpid=WNL-Friday-April17-2015

Brazil to Offer Ambitious Climate Plan With More Renewables

In its proposal to the United Nations climate conference in Paris this year, Latin America's largest nation will propose ambitious new targets to reduce destruction of the Amazon rainforest, boost reforestation and increase solar, hydro and wind energy. To do so, it will require more foreign capital and technology, Teixeira said in her office in Brasilia.

Over the past decade Brazil has been one of the world's protagonists in combating climate change, slashing its greenhouse emissions by 41 percent between 2005 and 2012, according to official data. Making further cuts may be more difficult. Emissions from energy generation during the same period rose 36 percent, while the reduction of Amazon deforestation, a major source of carbon emissions, is slowing.

"Brazil won't be the last country to submit its proposal and it will be ambitious," Teixeira said on Tuesday. "You will be surprised."

UN Conference

Mexico last month became the first developing country to present its proposal for the December United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, pledging to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 22 percent its target for emissions by 2030. The U.S. pledged to pare emissions 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. The Paris conference will bring together 190 nations to seek a deal to reduce global warming.

The first proposals to the UN aren't necessarily the best, Teixeira said, adding that the country's proposal would be based on consultations and would carefully weigh the costs of introducing new production methods.

In its plan, Brazil will deliver a target number to reduce illegal deforestation, primarily from cattle ranchers who slash and burn trees to breed livestock.

Farmers and land owners in Brazil can legally extract a limited amount of forest. According to the new plan, any remaining legal deforestation will be compensated by planting of primarily native forest, Teixeira said. The government's funding for forest police hasn't been affected by Brazil's spending cuts designed to reduce a budget deficit, she said.

Zero Deforestation

Amazon deforestation plummeted to 4,571 square kilometers in 2012 from 27,772 square kilometers in 2004. It rose the following year and fell again to 4,848 square kilometers in 2014, according to data on the National Space Research Institute's website.

"Brazil today has no obligation to reduce emissions," said Teixeira. "Even so, we adopted a national climate change policy in 2010." Forest destruction accounts for 15 percent of Brazil's greenhouse gas emissions, down from 58 percent a decade ago.

Preliminary studies show that it is economically feasible to increase the share of renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydro in Brazil's energy matrix, reversing the rise of emissions from energy, Teixeira said.

The extent to which Brazil can adopt more solar will depend in part on technology transfers and investments provided by manufacturers of panels.

While wind plants have increased from zero to 6 gigawatts since 2009, they still represent less than 5 percent of the country's energy matrix. Fossil fuels account for 20 percent and hydroelectricity for 68 percent.

Facing a record drought that has reduced hydroelectric output, the country has been forced to increase the use of thermoelectric plants.

No-Till Farming

In November, Brazil awarded its first contracts in three years for coal and natural gas power plants. The government has signaled it will add more thermoelectric capacity in the next energy auctions.

Even so, the share of renewable energy would increase, Teixeira said, playing down the impact of Brazil's thermoelectric emissions, which she said account for less than 0.1 percent of global emissions.

Agriculture represents the biggest challenge, representing one-third of the country's total emissions, she said. The government has increased financing to promote low-carbon agriculture such as no-till farming.

Such technologies suggest cost increases for Brazilian farmers that other producers would have a hard time implementing.

Modest Role

Brazil has been shy in the climate change negotiations, according to Marcio Sztutman, Brazil manager at The Nature Conservancy.

"We could promote our leadership by having ambitious and transparent goals, announced prior to the meeting in Paris later this year," said Sztutman, by e-mail.

Brazil, like other developing nations, argues that rich nations must be more ambitions in climate proposals because of their track record of large emissions.

"I am tired of developed countries coming to developing ones saying what we have to change -- at the same time they don't change anything," Teixeira said.

Teixeira said Brazil would live up to its leadership role in the group it formed with China and India that has been representing the underdeveloped countries in the negotiations.

"The big discussion in the conference will be how to finance the changes," she said. "Everything has a cost. This conference is not about environment. It is about economics."

Copyright 2015 Bloomberg

Lead image: Ksenia Ragozina. Credit: Shutterstock.

Sent from my iPad

Brazil is the big prize for Shell in BG deal - FT.com

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/dd3f1b4c-ddd0-11e4-8d14-00144feab7de.html?#slide0

Brazil is the big prize for Shell in BG deal

• 
• 
  Ben van Beurden, chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, said the BG deal was an 'incredibly exciting moment' for the Anglo-Dutch major

  ©AFP
• Helge Lund, BG's chief executive, is set to leave the combined company after spending just two months at the helm of the UK group
• The deal will give Shell access to the enormous Queensland Curtis LNG project in Australia, which began production last December
• Brazil, and its pre-salt oil fields, is the key prize. By acquiring BG, Shell will be the leading foreign oil company in the country

Next image

Speculation that Royal Dutch Shell would buy BG Group has been doing the rounds of the oil industry for at least the past 20 years. On Wednesday, it became reality.

Shell unveiled plans to acquire BG for £47bn excluding debt, a 50 per cent premium to its current share price. BG was, said Ben van Beurden, Shell's chief executive, a "terrific fit" for the Anglo-Dutch major. "It is bold and strategic moves that shape our industry," he added.

And there is no arguing that Shell's move is bold. By acquiring its smaller rival, it will become the largest foreign oil company in Brazil, one of the world's most highly-prized oil provinces, and cement its position as the global leader in liquefied natural gas, the increasingly popular clean-burning fuel.

Analysts at Jefferies said by 2018, the combined company of Shell and BG will produce more oil and gas than ExxonMobil, currently the world's biggest non-state oil group.

BG may have been on Shell's radar screen for decades, but was long seen as too expensive a target. That all changed when the oil price started to slide last year, dragging down the valuations of all the world's energy companies, including BG.

But even before that, a string of operational disappointments, profit warnings and management upheaval had knocked the company's share price off the highs reached in early 2012.

So it was that Mr van Beurden called up BG's chairman Andrew Gould, the former chief executive of oil services company Schlumberger, on Sunday, March 15 to propose a deal. Within weeks they had engineered one of the largest oil and gas transactions in history.

Mr van Beurden stressed the oil price effect in a call with reporters. The idea of a tie-up with BG had always made sense, but "in the last months it has also become a compelling deal from a value perspective", he said.

Some investors expressed concern that the Shell offer was too generous, and that the company was making too big a bet that oil prices will recover from their present lows. Shell's B shares closed down more than 8 per cent in London at £20.20 on Wednesday.

But Mr van Beurden denied Shell was overpaying. A premium of 50 per cent was "quite acceptable and normal" in oil M&A deals, he said.

Some investors agreed. The oil majors have to grow, and these days the easiest route to growth is by buying rivals. "Given the industry's lack of exploration success over the last 2 [to] 3 years, inorganic reserve replacement is absolutely crucial to sustaining these companies going forward," said Charles Whall, who manages Investec Asset Management's global energy fund.

The deal is transformational for Shell. Its reserves will increase by about a quarter and its production rise 20 per cent. It will gain access to BG's big gas discoveries off the coast of Tanzania, and also its enormous Queensland Curtis LNG project in Australia.

But Brazil is the key prize for Shell with the BG deal. Mr van Beurden said the enlarged group's output from Brazil would be 550,000 barrels a day by the end of the decade — four times more than their current production. Wood Mackenzie, the energy consultancy, estimated that by 2025 Brazil will be the biggest single country position in the Shell-BG portfolio.

The deal will also cement Shell's dominance of the business of producing, exporting and trading LNG. By 2018, Shell-BG will control sales of 45m tonnes per annum of LNG, making it easily the largest seller of the fuel in the world.

Shell was at pains to stress the financial strengths of the combined company. There would be savings of $2.5bn a year by 2018, and the enlarged group would divest assets worth $30bn between 2016 and 2018.

But for Shell shareholders, said Jason Gammel of Jefferies, there is a downside. He highlighted that the transaction will be dilutive in terms of earnings per share in 2016 and 2017, and that Shell's net debt position will grow to about $61bn after the deal.

There was some concern among shareholders that the deal would strain Shell's balance sheet and potentially put its dividend at risk.

Another potential hazard: antitrust issues. Mr van Beurden acknowledged that Shell would face competition questions in Australia, Brazil, China and Brussels, though the company had so far not identified any "insurmountable" problems.

But despite the risks, most investors saw the logic of the tie-up, and expressed admiration for Mr van Beurden's boldness. "Any of the majors who don't make such a move in this environment will regret it," said Mr Whall. "Exxon really missed out here."

Additional reporting by David Oakley

Sent from my iPad

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2015/04/in-the-face-of-extreme-drought-australia-and-possibly-texas-undoes-best-strategy-for-water-conservation-clean-energy?cmpid=WNL-Friday-April10-2015

Facing Extreme Drought, Australia (And Possibly Texas) Undoes Best Strategy for Water Conservation: Clean Energy

Cowboys, frontier grit, accented English, and wild, wide open spaces are just a few of the similarities shared by Texas and Australia. Both places also have an energy-water problem. But, the good news for Texas is that it's not too late for us to learn from Australia's mistakes — and a few successes, too.

In July 2014, Australia abandoned its carbon price, which gave Australia, a country with one of the highest per capita emissions of any developed country in the world and uses even more coal than the United States, the largest carbon-price system in the world outside of the European Union. (That is, until California's program took effect in January 2013—California has the first-ever economy-wide carbon market in North America, potentially linking to other sub-national, national and regional markets around the world.) Since then, the Australian government has been in talks to significantly scale back its renewable energy target (RET), and the months-long squabbling without resolution is threatening the country's renewable energy sector.

Texas, whose drought started in October 2010, is now in its worst drought on record. And some Texas leaders are taking a similar, short-sighted path as Australia when it comes to rolling back successful clean energy initiatives — ones that could also save scarce water supplies. Currently in the midst of its biennial legislative session, Texas is considering bills that would scrap the state's successful wind renewable portfolio standard and prevent the state from complying with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP), which establishes the nation's first-ever limits on carbon pollution.

Energy efficiency and clean energy are critical to preserving health and economic stability, especially in the face of a changing climate, because they require little to no water. Without environmental regulations and clean energy goals in place, Australia and Texas are due to experience a surge in both carbon emissions and water use.

Connection Between Energy and Water

As in Texas, Australia's energy makeup is heavily dominated by fossil fuels: 75 percent of electricity generation comes from coal, 16 percent from gas, and 7 percent renewables (mainly hydropower and wind). Of all these, coal is the most water-intensive, meaning it requires the greatest amount of water to produce electricity. Although some power generation in Australia uses seawater for cooling, 90 percent of its coal power is the most inefficient, polluting, water-intensive kind. Water intensity poses significant risk for grid reliability and investment, especially during times of drought.

Demonstrating policy can drive innovation, the RET has incentivized Australia to be creative in thinking about how to combine energy and water use. For example, a project off the coast of Western Australia uses wave energy to both desalinate water for and power a naval base. This project and others like it advance clean energy technologies and knowledge. Texas could expect the same level of innovation and benefits, if it rolls up its sleeves and crafts a framework for the CPP that takes into account Texas' abundance of carbon-free, zero-water clean energy.

Texas is still coming to terms with its dwindling water supplies, but the current State Water Plan does not connect the dots between clean energy and water savings. That simple connection could be a powerful weapon in the arsenal to protect the state's critical resources.

Conservation and Human Behavior

Australia's nine-year drought — aptly called the Big Dry — led to policy changes, including water reuse systems and strong urban water restrictions, which, in turn, led to a cultural shift in the way people use water. Changing water-use patterns is absolutely necessary, and evidence shows the water conservation culture has since become the norm in Australia.

Due to some impressive behavioral changes, the entire country of Australia now averages 54 gallons of water per person per day (gpcd) — almost half what it once was. Some areas like Victoria (the state that contains Melbourne) are even as low as 40 gpcd. Compare that to drought-ridden California, where average statewide usage is 125 gpcd, or Texas, which averages a whopping 153 gpcd statewide. Clearly, there is a lot we can still do to encourage a culture of conserving water in the Lone Star State.

Loss of Economic Development

Aside from the water implications, scrapping the carbon price and potentially rolling back the RET has been bad news for Australia's economy. By the end of 2014 investment in renewables was at a 13-year low, dropping the country from 11thto 39th place in global standings and resulting in jobs and investment dollars going elsewhere. Some areas, like the financial hub of Melbourne, have already seen a nine percent drop in renewable energy jobs due to the uncertain future of the RET.

Texas clean energy proponents are therefore understandably concerned that pulling back on renewable energy goals could threaten the 100,000 jobs that have been created in the state so far. Further, many state policymakers are resisting compliance with the CPP, which would incentivize energy efficiency and renewable energy over polluting coal power plants.

Instead, we should be looking to the success of Australia's RET, which built up the country's solar and wind industry — requiring negligible amounts of water — at relatively low cost and even exceeded the 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources target by eight percentage points.

Politicians should not be so short-sighted to undo successful efforts to protect their citizens and critical resources for the sake of a dying, polluting industry. The people down under in Australia and deep in the heart of Texas deserve better.

This article was originally published on EDF and was republished with permission.

Sent from my iPad

The Tyranny of the Minimum Viable Product — Medium

https://medium.com/@jonhpittman/the-tyranny-of-the-minimum-viable-product-fb25e2e57e6e

The Tyranny of the Minimum Viable Product

I am the victim of Minimum Viable Product mentality. Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is a product development methodology popular with start-ups to focus a product on the minimum viable feature that will appeal to a customer. Unfortunately, engineering and business culture often focus on minimum features and forgets the viability part. This results in products that are unstable, unusable, and just plain unacceptable.

Much to my wife's dismay, I am an early adopter of a number of Internet of Things products. At last count, I had a dozen separate systems in my house, my car, my body, and even on my dog to track, monitor, and control all kinds of things. The problem is that many of these systems do not work — they are not really viable. I waste huge amounts of time trying to get them installed, connected, and working as advertised. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. Here are just a few examples:

Smart Home Hub — randomly forgets timers and events, went offline when the network failed.

Smart home hub. I have a popular "smart home" system to control lights, monitor doors, and generally keep an eye on things. A central function of the system is to turn lights on and off at specified times or at events such as sunset and sunrise. The system randomly misses times and events. And, when my network fails, so does the hub.

Fitness Scale — forgot my wifi settings when I changed batteries.

— forFitness scale. I have a bathroom scale that wirelessly ties into my online fitness app. After a year or so, the scale required a change of batteries. When I changed the batteries, the scale "forgot" my wi-fi network settings. I had to spend a frustrating 30 minutes using a variety of computers and mobile devices to get the wifi connection working again.

Internet Thermometer — needs 4 AAA batteries every week

Thermometer batteries. I have a popular internet-connected thermometer with a temperature sensor in the garage. The batteries in the garage sensor need to be changed at least weekly, if not more frequently. Other components have never needed a battery change.

Internet of Things Security Device that trashed my network

IOT Security device. I discovered a device that was all the rage at a recent trade-show. It purports to protect your entire collection of internet of things devices from malware. All of the reviews were glowing, so I purchased and tried to install. The setup seemed really straightforward but, of course, things did not go as depicted in the instructions. I could not get the device to work. When I contacted tech support, there were several additional steps that I needed to take that were nowhere specified in the instructions. When I got it running, it turns out that my TIVOs could not download their program data. Seriously, this device does not work with TIVOs? Aren't TIVOs pretty common? The device company promised that a fix was in the works and would be automatically pushed to my device. A couple of nights ago, a bunch of my lights would not turn off. I got up and diagnosed it and it turned out my network was completely inoperable (thus taking my smart home hub — which controls the lights — offline). When I traced the problem back, it started at precisely the same time as the fix had been pushed to my security device. When I disabled the security device, the network was once again functioning. To top it all off, one of my security cameras died. When I called tech support for the security company, they determined that the camera went offline at precisely the time of the pushed fix. The camera was damaged and had to be replaced.

Why so many product failures? One could speculate that these are all early stage products, built by struggling entrepreneurs on the ragged edge of failure. Possibly. But some of these products are developed or backed by large, well-funded, and experienced companies. I think something else is going on — the tyranny the Minimum Viable Product.

The Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is all the rage in the startup community. The idea is laudable, to focus on core elements of a product that will appeal to early adopters, then build from there as customer needs are uncovered and customers developed. The intent behind the MVP idea is to minimize wasted effort and risk — to focus the product on only the key elements that will capture the imagination of early customers, let them understand the vision and direction, and see the product as an early demonstration of that vision.

The concept is a good one, but its implementation is often flawed because of this unbalanced view:

Minimum Viable Product as Practiced

Deeply embedded in product development culture is the notion of a "feature" — often taken to be an atomic unit of functionality. Development culture (and product management culture, for that matter) seems obsessed with features. We prioritize them, count them, and try to optimize the number of features we implement. But the very notion of a feature is incomplete. It focuses only on what is to be done, not how it is to be done. It screams functionality, and only whispers viability.

The canonic 70s book of philosophical fiction about how to achieve quality

In his 1974 classic of philosophical fiction, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig describes two kinds of quality

1. Classic quality — based on rational analysis, decomposition into parts and their relationships, concerned with details, inner workings, and mechanics.
2. Romantic quality — understanding the overall gestalt or feel, looking at the whole rather than the parts, relating to context, emotion, and being in the moment.

Although this is a gross over-generalization, engineers and business people tend to be educated to think about classic quality and classic quality is the mental model they apply to their work. Designers and artists tend to live more in the realm of romantic quality and that is the mental model they apply to their work. What we often refer to as the "user experience" is the intersection of classic and romantic quality. If we overweight classic quality at the expense of romantic quality, we end up with a poor user experience.

Mapping these two kinds of quality to the way MVP is practiced shows us that this imbalance is what results in products that don't work as advertised, are overly complicated; don't play well with their contexts, and just outright fail. Developers put too much emphasis on features and functions (classic quality) and not enough emphasis on the whole and its context — i.e. viability (romantic quality).

Minimum Viable Product Meets Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

So what is the solution? Obviously, it is to take a more balanced approach — to think about both minimum feature set and product viability in tandem and to give each equal weight.

A more balanced view of MVP

If we did this, we'd be concerned as much about how the whole product "works" in the design sense — meaning that it implements its functions, but does so in a way that the user can understand the functions, they work within their context (i.e. the other devices and system around), and they actually do the job they are intended to do — flawlessly and painlessly.
There has been a lot of attention to design in product development lately. That is good in that it is bringing romantic quality back to product development. Much of it is, however, superficial — it is about the form of the object. We need a deeper design — one that exercises the entire gamut of romantic quality. We need design that balances classic and romantic quality.

Video Doorbell — a minimum viable product that is actually viable

Given limited time and resources, that might mean doing even fewer features. But it will mean doing them exceedingly well. This is possible. I gave a number of examples of failed consumer Internet of Things products above, but one that I recently acquired actually accomplishes this — it is a connected video doorbell. Although it has several "features", it really does only one thing — it is a doorbell with a video camera that can be viewed from a smartphone app. But it does that one thing exceedingly well. The app was easy to use and straightforward. The product was easy to install (including very clear instructions), it connected quickly to my wi-fi network and my existing doorbell, it was visually appealing, and it even included a tool kit that was all that was necessary for installation. It took me about 15 minutes to install and it just worked — the first time — no fuss, no muss. My wife even liked it!

What struck me about this product is that it is probably more minimal than many other products developed under an MVP mindset — yet at the same time it was more functional and more useful than most. By ensuring that it did only one job but did that job exceedingly well, the product is extremely satisfying.

The Minimum Viable Product is a great idea. It focuses teams on what is important. I feel, however, that it has been misused because of too much focus on minimal and too little focus on viable. It is ironic that this is an issue with consumer-based Internet of Things products — after all, the Internet of Things is all about context, connectivity, and networks. The overall gestalt of the networked experience is far more important than each individual thing. Releasing products that aren't viable just begs them to be tried and discarded. App developers for mobile devices know this. They know that an app must be totally usable the first time out, or people will delete it after 10 seconds.

For MVP to truly help develop products that work for the Internet of Things, developers need to focus on romantic quality — viability and user experience as much as or even more than classic quality — features and functions. Bringing viability onto an equal footing with features is what is needed to use the MVP mindset to truly make products people want and love.

Sent from my iPad

How the greatest startup program in Brazil is being killed by politics

How the greatest startup program in Brazil is being killed by politics

 

It took two years to build the best startup and innovation program Brazil has ever seen, and just a couple of months to kill it.

 

If you still haven't heard about it, San Pedro Valley is a community of entrepreneurs, universities, accelerators, and investors in the city of Belo Horizonte, state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Despite of the obvious reference, we're not trying to replicate Silicon Valley in Brazil — we're 200+ restless and hungry founders trying to make it happen in a developing country, and the community name was simply a joke that got traction.

Nevertheless, we must be doing something right. San Pedro Valley, or SPV as we call it, is notoriously the most developed startup ecosystem in Brazil and a key hub in Latin America. This is not our saying: the praise comes fromThe Economist, Forbes and many other respected sources.

While we were impressed with the quality of entrepreneurs and startups in all three cities we visited [São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Belo Horizonte], unquestionably, it was in Belo Horizonte that we sensed the highest level of community." Roi Carthy, TechCrunch, May 2012

It was early 2012 when I went to SPV's first happy hour, San Pedro Cerva — "cerva" is a slang for beer. That's where I had the chance to meet an incredible group of people trying to accomplish the very same things I were. I went home amazed, and really excited about it.

A group of SPV entrepreneurs receiving the prize of Best Startup Ecosystem in Brazil, Microsoft's Spark Awards 2014.

Today there are more than 200 startups in the community and some of them are thriving on their markets and becoming leaders in Brazil and Latin America, including Samba Tech, Rock Content, Sympla, Hotmart, Dito andMeliuz — just to name a few. For more information about SPV, there's an article from Anna Heim for The Next Web from december 2011 that is worth reading.

---

About SEED

 

Back in the San Pedro Cerva episode, I met this guy called Luiz Filipe Serravite. He was an entrepeneur that had just come back from the Startup Chile program after a couple of months living in Santiago, Chile. He was amazed by the program and the idea of the government actively supporting startups, so he came up with a way to reach the State Governor and proposed the idea of creating something similar in Brazil.

Luiz was involved in the initial development and design of the program. He has eventually left the initiative to go live in the US, but his ideas and initial contacts became the foundation to the program later created and named as SEED (Startups and Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Development).

This description was taken from the official program web site:

Created by the Government of Minas Gerais, SEED is an accelerator program for passionate people who dream big and make things happen.

Entrepreneurs from all around the world descend upon the state, bringing with them in their dreams, experiences, ideas and their determination to build something innovative.

The mission of SEED is simple: Transform Minas Gerais into the most important birthplace and acceleration hub for tech entrepreneurs in Latin America.

The program benefits included up to US$40,000 dollars per team, an incredible office space, mentorship, training, workshops, and a wide network of entrepreneurs, partners and investors. Equity free.

SEED co-working space entrance in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

And the whole thing was really well executed. All the main stakeholders of the ecosystem were involved in its conception, including the entrepreneurs themselves. Government reps, mentors, investors, and entrepreneurs were all working with the same objective: to promote and develop startups and innovation in the country.

I never participated in the program as an accelerated startup, but I had countless chances to engage with it, starting from being a host for a foreign startup — yes, all the foreign teams were hosted by a local entrepreneur so they had a warm reception and felt like they were home. I even picked up a group at the airport the first time they landed in Belo Horizonte.

And of course it was not just me. I would certainly say that all founders living in Belo Horizonte have visited the space at least once. The office was open to anyone, either to host an event or even use a desk/internet connection for a couple of hours or days, no matter if you were an accelerated startup or not.

The SEED space gradually became the obvious place to go in San Pedro Valley. Suddenly we all had a place for meetings, happy hours, meetups, startup weekends and whatever came to our crazy minds. It was great for early-stage startups that didn't have an office yet, but also good for the ones that already had. It was not just about the space — it was a home for the community.

Group of entrepreneurs in front of SEED after one of the many Startup Weekends.

The program was created in 2013 by Governor Antonio Anastasia, through an institution called Escritório de Prioridades Estratégicas de Minas Gerais (or Minas Gerais Strategic Priorities Office). Personally it was one of the first times I have ever been proud of my country/state government. If you have ever heard about politics in Brazil you know corruption and lack of planning is part of our daily news. But these guys were different, they were inspiring and had a truly desire to create something to make a real impact — plus, the program was based on real legislation, and designed to survive government and even party changes.

A lot of people were involved in the conception of the program, but I really need to specially mention André Barrence, Head of the Minas Gerais Strategic Priorities Office and Chairman of SEED, Jaderson Trindade, the Director responsible for the program's operation, as well as Leandro Lacerda, Rejane Martins and Giuliano Bittencourt. These guys did an incredible job and are considered by the community with really special care.

Part of the program board, from left to right: Professor Ivan Moura Campos (UFMG, the Federal University of Minas Gerais), André Barrence (Head of the State Strategic Office), Governor Antonio Anastasia, Gustavo Caetano (Samba Tech), and the Angel Investor Yuri Gitahy.

More than words, the program generated actual results: operating companies, revenue and jobs.

 

The program was internationally known and considered one of the most important entrepreneurship development initiatives in Brazil.

SEED was responsible for bringing to life 73 companies from 12 different countries that together had R$ 23 million in revenue until the end of 2014, created 145 jobs and raised R$ 10 million from private funds. Plus they influenced the life of 17,000+ people in 55 cities, considering most founders used to mentor and teach kids and young students on low-income communities.

---

SEED and the government politics

 

The program was created by the government, so it's really hard not to relate it to politics of any kind… but it's important to notice that it was never mentioned or marketered as an initiative from a specific politician or party — specially when it came to take decisions about the structure, operations or investments.

SEED was initialy led by Governor Anastasia, one of the leaders of the PSDB party (Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira, or Brazilian Social Democracy Party). PSDB governed the state for the past 12 years, since Senator Aécio Neves was first elected in 2003 and then followed by Antonio Anastasia, now also a Senator.

The program began to be questionated and re-evaluated in the beginning of 2015, since the new Governor Fernando Pimentel has been elected. He's part of the PT party (Partido dos Trabalhadores, or Workers Party) — the same party of the re-elected President Dilma Rousseff.

The Secretary of State of Economic Development has denied that the program is in risk to be shut down, and this re-evaluation is part of a broader assessment being done by the new government for all the initiatives and public politics created by the last government.

But that's not really what it looks like. Entrepreneurs were surprised by the fact that the office has been suddenly closed, leaving startups without a place to work — even those who came from outside the country or the state. Plus, the original contacts the SPV community had in the government have been exonerated right before the office.

Photo of SEED's co-working space in Belo Horizonte — byChristophe Trevisani, SPV entrepreneur.

Government says that the closing is temporary, but there are no guarantees that the program will ever come back to life in the same place or the same format. The rental contract of the coworking space itself will be ended by April 1st, and the SEED HQ will not be reinstated there.

Rejane Martins, part of the original SEED staff has posted on the group's official Facebook profile the following statement:

Dear entrepreneurs,

I come to inform you all that, unfortunately, from tomorrow on SEED co-working space will be closed. I'm sorry to let you know on such short notice, but we have been waiting for definitions that by the present moment has not been delivered.

More informations can be taken from Gabriela Costa Xavier, Head of the Secretary of Economic Development, that is also part of this group.

The remaining staff from the original team were also surprised byt the fact that they were let go from their roles in government on Saturday 28th of march. Rejane and the others were informed that the office no longer exists and they will not be incorporated by any other entity within the govern.

Even the program Board members were unaware of the office closing and the future of the program. Yuri Gitahy, one of the most respected angel investors in Brazil and part of our community, has posted a series of tweets in his twitter account saying that he has resigned from his position at the Board, since they were not consulted about any recent program decisions.

Yuri also said it was not a formal resignation, since there's not even an entity or person in charge of the program to inform his decision.

"Today I quit from the board of @SEEDMG. It wasn't a formal act because there isn't even someone in charge to whom I can communicate that."

This article posted today by Estadão, a major newspaper in Brazil, mentioned there might be a dispute between two different government officials for the control of the program, the State Secretariat of Science and Technology of Minas Gerais, Miguel Corrêa (PT) and the State Secretariat for Economic Development, Altamir Rôso (PMDB).

Presently and suddenly, SEED has no funds, no staff and no office.

It's important to notice that the cost of a State Deputy in Brazil — including his salary, massive benefits, budget for 25 cabinet employees — is close to R$ 2M per year. This is pretty close to the cost to of accelerating a batch of 40 startups in the program. Got it? The cost of one Deputy could fund and host an entire SEED batch for six months.

It gets worse. Earlier this year, the government has approved a 40% salary/benefits raise for deputies — obviously, they think it's better to make politicians even richer than investing a tiny fraction of that budget in innovation, i.e. two yearly SEED batches.

From the outside, what we see is a clear party dispute where people discard a huge amount of effort/cash/work so they won't keep initiatives created by the previous administration. They just can't admit that other parties or politicians did a good job. It's not a matter of doing what's good for the country and for the people, but to make sure you can get the proper visibility and political advantages from a perfect program already approved by society — just kill it and rebuild as "yours".

In the end of the day, the country loses.

---

San Pedro Valley remains strong with or without government support

 

Many entrepreneurs have manifested their reactions to SEED's HQ closing. The general consensus is that we will do everything we can to keep the program legacy alive.

San Pedro Valley existed long before SEED, and will keep existing after it's gone — welcoming new friends made through this wonderful program.

Our community will remain strong and promoting entrepreneurship — apart from politics. Our beliefs are solid, and we will keep developing entrepreneurs for the future of Brazil.

---

This article was reviewed by several SPV entrepreneurs. Special thanks to Yuri Gitahy, Luiz Serravite, Matt Montenegro, Pedro Filizzola, Diego Gomes, Roberta Vasconcellos, José de Menezes, Leonardo Conegundes, Mateus Lana, Gustavo Caetano, Bruno Grossi, Christophe Trevisani and André Fonseca.