The orange juice supply chain is an index of the development dilemma in Brazil 
&nbsp; 
For many years now, giant <a href="http://think-global.org.uk/supply-chainge-press-release-orange-juice/">orange juice producers</a> Cutrale, Citrosuco and Louis Dreyfus have been engaged in heated, costly legal battles with Brazil’s Public Prosecutor’s Office. Their confrontation is a prime example of the dilemmas Brazilian society experiences today. It also serves as a memento of how thorny an equation emerging democratic countries have to face: they need to develop the country and protect social rights and the environment, while remaining highly competitive on a global scale. Finding the best way to solve this puzzle is one of the main challenges for Brazil. 
The first piece of the puzzle is the new socio-political climate of Brazil. Since the return to democratic rule in the country and the enactment of the new 1988 constitution, a much more politically conscious population has increased its demands for effective legal entitlement. In this context, human rights and the right to a healthy environment have become particularly prominent. In tandem with such demands, government institutions such as the Labour Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPT in Portuguese) have been given extensive powers of investigation to hold both public officials and private actors accountable for offences in these areas. 
The active role MPT has played in overseeing the labour conditions in three major orange juice companies is characteristic of this new mindset and the value Brazilians place in making rights count. Since 2000, MPT has started around 200 proceedings against Cutrale, 43 against Louis Dreyfus and 126 against Citrosuco. Together, these companies have recently been sentenced to a fine of R$ 455 million (around US$ 120 million) for violation of labour laws. More procedures are said to be forthcoming. MPT’s efforts have considerable popular support and signal a widespread desire to set clear rules for corporate activities, making sure that workers and the environment are protected. 
The second piece of the puzzle is economic. The task of combining macroeconomic stability with social-environmental fairness only grows more difficult when economic activity slows down. This is especially true if agribusiness is staple to the economy as a whole, and indeed is the case Brazil faces today. 
Agroindustry accounted for 23.3 per cent of Brazil’s GDP in 2014 and for 43 per cent of the country’s total exports. Orange juice is a key component in this sector. When MPT and producers come to the negotiation table, everybody is aware that the labour and ecological concerns of regulation have to find a way to co-exist with the economic rationale of business. Given the dire economic situation of the country, the Brazilian administration is wary of seriously antagonising some of its largest exporters. 
This is understandable. After a decade of impressive economic and social gains, which catapulted Brazil to the fore of world attention, the country is witnessing a fast-paced deterioration of its socio-economic forecast. GDP is expected to drop by 2.7 per cent in 2015 with an inflation of over 9 per cent. Unemployment has reached 8.3 per cent in the third quarter, the highest rate since 2012. 
To make things even more difficult, <a href="http://www.the-platform.org.uk/2014/11/13/brazils-re-elections-chicken-pastries-and-beagle-boys/">President Dilma Rousseff</a> has seen her popularity plummet. A recent poll has shown that only 10 per cent of Brazilians approve of <a href="http://www.the-platform.org.uk/2015/05/08/brazilian-teachers-enemies-of-the-state/">Dilma’s administration</a> while 69 per cent consider it to be “bad or very bad” for the country. This is the lowest approval rate ever recorded in Brazil and has considerably hindered her ability to implement policies and face opponents. 
It also makes the president more dependent on tax money for keeping inclusion programs afloat – a must if recent social gains are not to be corroded – and, thus, she is potentially more sensitive to the needs of those, such as the agroindustry, still capable of generating cash in a time of crisis. 
On the eve of the of the United Nations <a href="http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cop21/">conference on climate change</a> in Paris <a href="http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/">(COP21)</a>, Brazil is a much less optimistic country than it was in May 2012 when, at the end of the United Nations <a href="http://www.uncsd2012.org/about.html">conference on sustainable development</a> (Rio+20), the prospects of a bright, ecologically sustainable future seemed well within reach. 
However, there may be unseen benefits, and not negligible ones, in the present hardship. Too often the country has embarked in hyperbolic Manichean readings of its future, which was to be either of “absolute success” or “absolute failure” as dictated by the moment. Decades of democratic rule have contributed to the emergence of more nuanced approaches. 
More and more, it is recognised that Brazil is facing formidable problems including corruption and poverty, but also that it has the institutions and capacity to deal with them. Part of this is its independent judiciary, sentencing even high profile politicians to jail, demonstrating that popular commitment to greater social inclusion is still strong and freedom of speech is protected. 
A more mature approach to the country has also led to a rejection of a crude, shallow-minded opposition to both socio-ecological responsibility and economic growth. The firm response Brazilian institutions have been giving to accusations of foul play in the orange juice supply chain – as well as the political negotiations to end corruption, while respecting commercial concerns – bespeak this new understanding that the road to sustainable, inclusive development is long and bumpy. It also shows that Brazilians have made a commitment to follow it, even in hard times.
<pre>Image from: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/03/05/orange-juice-wakes-up-to-brazils-drought/</pre>

Brazil: The Other Half of the Orange

The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest">Amazon forest</a> is not only amongst the globe’s most biodiverse sites. These days, it is also centre stage to a fierce, if quiet, battle over which model of development Brazil should embrace. Given the global reach of its potential consequences, this is a fight whose interest should not be confined to Brazilians alone. 
Brazil’s recent rise to prominence has come as the result of a combination of political stability, sensible economic policies and favourable market positions. The consolidation of a stable democracy in the country &#8211; after the peaceful overthrow of a military dictatorship &#8211; and with regular, peaceful and transparent elections being held since 1986, has allowed for a number of major economic reforms in the 1990s. Together, these changes slashed inflation from a mind-boggling 993.3% (1987) to 5.91% (2010), while sound economic and social policies allowed for the reduction of poverty levels. More importantly, democracy translated into the lessening of the (still enormous) gap between the richest and the poorest strata of society. In recent years, the government has been able to expand its social policies and enhance its financial position thanks to an intense inflow of capital due both to the crisis in traditional Western markets, and to a gargantuan Chinese appetite for commodities. 
Too much of a good thing however, can do harm. In order to translate the present bonanza into long-term sustainable growth, Brazil has to make some tough choices. Amongst the biggest forks in the road involves a choice on environmental policy. In spite of the lofty speeches and their mandatory lip service giving importance to preserving our natural resources and guaranteeing a better world for future generations, recent political decisions send mixed messages on how much the government is willing to slow down this growth, in the name of a much burdened environment. This is perhaps understandable – which is not to say acceptable – in political terms. Politicians know only too well that being responsible for something not happening – say, deforestation – usually brings fewer votes than making some things happen – say, a growth in commodities exports.  And governments, left and right, cannot afford to lose votes. In politics, rather paradoxically, those who avoid disasters are often less celebrated than those who make the decisions, which will ultimately make them inevitable. 
In Brazil, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12103312">President Dilma Roussef</a> is facing exactly this dilemma with regards to the Amazon and the place of preservation in the country’s development project. So far, the scales seem to be tipping in favour of rapid business expansion – not long-term environmental protection. Two cases involving the Amazon are emblematic of this trend: the construction of the <a href="http://www.brazil.org.uk/environment/belomonte.html">Belo Monte plant</a>, and the approval by the Senate of the new <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2011/170811/full/476259a.html">Forest Code</a>. 
Belo Monte is a controversial project to build a hydroelectric power station on the Xingu River, an Amazon River tributary, in the heart of the forest. The arguments for and against the construction, all but summarise the main political trends in contemporary Brazilian political discourse on development. 
Those in favor argue that, if it wants to grow any further, Brazil needs more power &#8211; something few deny &#8211; and that it should take advantage of its astounding natural resources accordingly. If the Xingu River can give us 11,200 MW, why not use it? Hydroelectric energy is clean, after all, and this power station will be entirely controlled by the Brazilian government – as opposed to Itaipu, the giant plant in the south which is shared with Paraguay. A little sacrifice on environmental preservation will make it possible to create more jobs, speed up development and, ultimately, better the lives of everyone – especially the poor. 
Those who <a href="http://amazonwatch.org/take-action/stop-the-belo-monte-monster-dam">oppose Belo Monte</a> see it as an icon of the deep-felt disdain economic rationales have for immaterial values. They argue that construction will <a href="http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52021">flood large areas</a> of the forest (a generally accepted likelihood), disrupt the lives of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/03/amazon-tribe-kayapo-people-bel-monte-dam">tribes in the region</a>, and create a climate imbalance that may lead to an exodus from other regions of the Amazon. Besides this, Belo Monte is quite far from the main energy hungry industrial centers, with São Paulo almost 3,000 km from the site. The long-term gains of preserving the Amazon, critics claim, far outweigh any short-term advantage the power station may bring. 
The government’s adoption of a pro-business line has seen it push forward with public bidding, to contract the building of the plant after a predictably lengthy and difficult judicial battle. The NESA group (North Energy S.A.) – a consortium which includes state-owned companies &#8211; won the contract and has promised to complete the work by 2015. Some political groups still intend to fight this in court, but it seems unlikely that they will be able to prevent construction, however much they stall it. 
The same logic presides over the debates around the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13544000">New Forest Code</a>. Controversial from the very start, it contains provisions which will arguably pave the way for deforestation. State governments will be allowed some leeway to regularise deforested areas. Here again, environmentalist groups – and a large portion of Brazilian society – cried foul and accused the government of jeopardising the future for the sake of a quick buck. In an unprecedented show of unity, three former Environmental Ministers – each from different regions of the political spectrum – issued a joint document demanding changes in the bill. As with the Belo Monte debate, their arguments deserved a polite response from the administration; after saying it would take suggestions and thoughtful consideration, it of course decided to push ahead with the project. There are still some procedural hurdles to be overcome in Congress, but it seems increasingly likely that here, too, business considerations will prevail over environmental ones. 
Brazil has undeniably come a long way. The largest direct democracy in the world, with around 95 million Brazilians voting for the President in 2010, its social indicators are improving, its political culture is maturing, and the economy is growing steadily. Its celebrated <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8620178.stm">BRIC</a> status is a testimony to the country’s rising importance in the international arena. If Brazil wants to be something more than one more powerful country however, if it wants to represent a new kind of power, it must now be extremely careful with the path it chooses. 
History has shown that disregarding apparently minor social and environmental losses often proves tragic, not to mention costly. The brutal effects of pollution associated with the industrial era still haunt us today. Millions, in big cities and the countryside, have suffered the consequences of governments taking these questions far too lightly. Brazil still has a chance to do differently. It still has the opportunity to set an example of not diving headlong, never-mind-the-costs, into the competition for world markets. It can decide that it seeks things other than short-term financial success. Taking this path is not easy, given the obvious pressures to do exactly the opposite. But it is the way we respond to these pressures that will ultimately reveal whether there is something genuinely new in this emerging power.

José Garcez Ghirardi