The post Top 20 Latin American Telecommunication Companies: Mixed economic landscape during 2024 appeared first on Latin Trade.

In the rolling hills of California, a quiet revolution in conservation finance has been unfolding for decades. Since the 1980s, habitat banking—a market-based approach to preserving biodiversity—has steadily evolved. What began as a tool to protect wetlands under the Clean Water Act has now expanded globally, offering a promising solution to one of the most pressing challenges of our time: the global biodiversity crisis (Environmental Law Institute, 2002).

Today, this innovative financial mechanism is gaining traction. From the United States to Australia, Colombia to the United Kingdom, habitat banks are emerging as powerful means to channel private capital into large-scale ecosystem restoration and protection. As the world grapples with the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, these banks represent more than just a conservation strategy—they are the foundation of a new asset class that could help bridge the substantial biodiversity financing gap (Paulson Institute, 2020).

The Scale of the Crisis

The numbers are staggering. According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), around 1 million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, many within the next few decades. The rate of species loss is tens to hundreds of times higher than the average over the past 10 million years (IPBES, 2019).

This is not just an environmental tragedy—it’s an economic time bomb. The World Economic Forum estimates that $44 trillion of global GDP, more than half the world’s total economic output, is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services (World Economic Forum, 2020). Key areas at risk include:

• $235-577 billion in annual global crop value threatened due to pollinator loss (IPBES, 2016).
• 60% of global coffee varieties are facing extinction due to climate change and disease (Davis et al., 2019).
• $2.5 trillion per year in ecosystem services provided by the world’s oceans (OECD, 2016).

The economic impacts are already being felt. Swiss Re Institute’s Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Index found that 20% of countries worldwide are at risk of ecosystem collapse due to biodiversity decline and related services (Swiss Re Institute, 2020).

The Financing Gap

Addressing this crisis requires massive investment. The Paulson Institute estimates that between $722-967 billion is needed annually to reverse biodiversity decline by 2030. Current investments fall woefully short, as global biodiversity finance amounts to just $78-91 billion per year, leaving a funding gap of $598-824 billion (Paulson Institute, 2020). Private sector finance, which currently accounts for just 14% of global conservation investments, must be mobilized at scale (Deutz et al., 2020).

Habitat Banks: A New Asset Class for Nature

Habitat banks are market-based mechanisms that pool multiple conservation projects to preserve, restore, and enhance ecosystems at a landscape level. They generate biodiversity credits—quantifiable units representing positive environmental outcomes—which can be sold to developers or companies to offset their unavoidable impacts on nature (OECD, 2016).

This concept is gaining traction globally:

• In the United States, conservation banking has been used since the 1990s under the Endangered Species Act. As of 2017, there were 137 approved conservation banks in the U.S., protecting over 153,000 acres of habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2019).
• Australia has implemented biodiversity offset schemes at the state level, such as the BushBroker program in Victoria (Victorian Government, 2021).
• Colombia introduced habitat banking regulations in 2017 and now has 14 registered habitat banks (Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Colombia, 2023).
• The United Kingdom is developing habitat banks as part of its Biodiversity Net Gain policy, set to be fully implemented in 2024 (UK Government, 2023).

Applying Infrastructure Finance Models to Nature

The key to scaling habitat banks lies in applying proven infrastructure finance models to biodiversity conservation. Public-private partnerships (PPPs), which have successfully financed roads, power plants, and hospitals, can be adapted for ecosystem restoration (Terrasos, 2024).

Several PPP models show promise for habitat banking:

1. Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT): This model is particularly effective for large-scale ecosystem restoration projects with clear milestones and a defined transfer point. For example, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation in Australia uses a BOT-like approach for coral reef restoration. Private investors fund and manage restoration efforts, generating reef credits over a 25-30 year period, after which restored reef sections are transferred to public management (Great Barrier Reef Foundation, 2022).
2. Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO): Suitable for complex, long-term conservation projects on public lands. The Baviaanskloof Hartland Conservancy in South Africa exemplifies this approach, with a private consortium designing and implementing restoration strategies, financed through ecotourism revenues and payments for ecosystem services (Baviaans.net, 2023).
3. Concession Agreements: Work well for established protected areas needing private sector efficiency and additional investment. Costa Rica’s national park management model grants 20-year concessions to private operators to manage visitor services and conservation activities, sharing revenues with the government (UNDP, 2021).
4. Joint Ventures: Public-private entities form new companies to manage conservation projects. The Seychelles’ blue bond initiative created a partnership between the government and The Nature Conservancy to manage marine protected areas, funded by blue bonds and fishing license revenues (World Bank, 2022).

To further incentivize private sector participation, governments can offer:

• Revenue guarantees: Ensuring minimum biodiversity credit prices or offtake agreements.
• Tax incentives: Offering deductions or credits for habitat bank investments.
• Regulatory fast-tracking: Streamlining approvals for investors in priority conservation areas.
• Risk-sharing mechanisms: Providing insurance or first-loss guarantees to mitigate investor risk.

An emerging model that shows particular promise for habitat banks is the Public-Private-Philanthropic Partnership (4P). This approach brings together government agencies, private companies, NGOs, and philanthropic foundations to leverage their strengths (Levine, 2022).

Key success factors for 4P habitat banks include multi-stakeholder engagement, blended finance structures, robust governance, and technology integration. Tools like remote sensing, eDNA analysis, and blockchain can enhance monitoring and verification of biodiversity outcomes (World Economic Forum, 2020).

Specialized Biodiversity Functions as Investment Opportunities

Different industries are drawn to specific ecosystem services, aligning with their core business needs, here some conceptual illustrations:

• Pollinator Pro Banks: Restore pollinator habitats, supporting agriculture, food production, and cosmetics reliant on pollinator-dependent plants, boosting crop yields and strengthening food security (The Nature Conservancy, 2021).
• Water Shield Banks: Promote wetland conservation, appealing to water-intensive industries such as textiles and beverages, securing water resources and enhancing sustainable water use practices (Terrasos, 2023).
• Carbon+ Forest Banks: Generate both carbon and biodiversity credits, appealing to industries targeting emissions reduction and ecosystem restoration, such as energy and manufacturing, while contributing to biodiversity conservation (World Bank, 2022).
• Coastal Resilience Banks: Conserve coastal ecosystems (e.g., mangroves, coral reefs) to protect coastal infrastructure and support fisheries, benefiting tourism and real estate industries by reducing climate risks (UNDP, 2021).
• Soil Health and Agroforestry Banks: Improve soil fertility through sustainable land management, supporting agricultural productivity and agroforestry initiatives, ensuring fertile soil and diversifying revenue streams through agroforestry products (OECD, 2016).
• Urban Green Banks: Restore urban green spaces to improve air quality, reduce heat, and enhance urban biodiversity, benefiting real estate developers by increasing property values and achieving sustainability certifications (World Economic Forum, 2020).

While still an emerging asset class, biodiversity credits have the potential to mobilize capital at a scale similar to or even surpassing the $2 billion voluntary carbon market (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2021). Unlike carbon credits, biodiversity credits represent localized, tangible improvements to ecosystems.

The market is in its infancy, but early indicators are promising. In Colombia, biodiversity credits are trading at $10-15 per unit, with prices expected to rise as demand increases (Terrasos, 2023). Major corporations like Kering, Nestlé, and Holcim have already committed to investing in biodiversity credits (World Economic Forum, 2023).

Despite their promise, habitat banks and biodiversity credits face challenges such as standardization, additionality, leakage, and long-term sustainability (IUCN, 2021). Initiatives like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) are working to create standardized frameworks for measuring and reporting biodiversity impacts (TNFD, 2023).

A Call to Action for Latin America

Latin American countries, home to some of the world’s most biodiverse ecosystems, are uniquely positioned to lead this financial innovation. The region hosts 6 of the world’s 17 megadiverse countries and contains 40% of Earth’s biodiversity (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2021).

Colombia’s pioneering efforts in habitat banking offer valuable lessons. Since introducing regulations in 2017, the country has seen rapid growth in biodiversity credits, with 14 habitat banks registered as of 2023 (Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Colombia, 2023).

The Road Ahead

The biodiversity crisis demands urgent, bold action from all sectors of society. Habitat banks offer a promising avenue to channel private capital into large-scale conservation efforts. By leveraging proven financial models and aligning economic incentives with ecological preservation, we can build a nature-positive economy that sustains both business and biodiversity.

As we approach critical meetings like the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Cali, Colombia, in 2024, the spotlight will be on innovative solutions like habitat banks (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 2023). With the right policies, investments, and collaborations, we can turn the tide on biodiversity loss and create a sustainable future for generations to come.

The question is no longer whether we can afford to invest in nature—it’s whether we can afford not to.

*Victoria Galeano is founder and CEO of consultancy Prissma. It supports clients with strategy consulting, capital raising, investment opportunities, and origination services for projects that contribute to sustainable development.a

The post Habitat Banks: Nature’s New Asset Class to Bridge the $800 Billion Biodiversity Finance Gap. A column by Victoria Galeano appeared first on Latin Trade.

In boardrooms from New York to São Paulo, a new conversation is unfolding—a dialogue that bridges the gap between corporate profits and the planet’s most precious resources. Biodiversity credits, once a niche concept reserved for environmentalists, are now at the forefront of corporate strategy, driving a renaissance in how businesses engage with the natural world.

Gone are the days when biodiversity was merely a checkbox in a company’s Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) report. Today, it’s a cornerstone of sustainability strategies, with biodiversity credits emerging as a powerful tool to offset environmental impacts, support local communities, and enhance corporate reputations.

Tackling the Tangibles: The Challenges of Biodiversity Credits

The road to widespread adoption of biodiversity credits isn’t without its bumps. Like any transformative idea, it faces hurdles—particularly when it comes to measurement, market demand, and regulation. But for those willing to lead the charge, the rewards are substantial.

• Complexity in Measurement and Verification: Measuring biodiversity isn’t as straightforward as tracking carbon emissions. It’s a mosaic of species richness, ecosystem health, and countless other variables. The International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits is tackling these complexities head-on, crafting rigorous frameworks that ensure every credit purchased reflects genuine environmental gains. The Taskforce on Nature Markets is also in the mix, pushing for standardized metrics that can be applied across the globe.

Consider the Willamette Partnership in the U.S., which has pioneered standardized tools for measuring water quality and habitat restoration. Or look at British Petroleum (BP), which has taken the plunge into biodiversity credits by investing in seagrass restoration off Florida’s coast. These initiatives aren’t just about meeting metrics; they’re about making tangible environmental impacts that resonate with consumers and stakeholders alike.

• Market Demand and Pricing: Creating a robust market for biodiversity credits requires more than good intentions—it demands real, sustained demand. Organizations like NatureFinance are working to create transparent, accessible markets that incentivize companies to get involved. The Nature Conservancy, meanwhile, is forging partnerships with corporations, integrating biodiversity credits into broader sustainability strategies.

BBVA is a prime example of how financial giants are getting in on the action. The bank’s investment in projects that protect tropical rainforests and mangroves isn’t just about ticking a box; it’s about aligning their portfolio with the growing demand for green investments. Similarly, Volkswagen is investing in biodiversity credits to offset the environmental impact of it operations in Latin America, particularly in the Brazilian Cerrado—a move that’s as strategic as it is environmentally conscious.

• Regulatory and Legal Frameworks: Without clear, harmonized regulations, biodiversity credits can’t reach their full potential. That’s where the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and UNEP FI come in, advocating for the development of international standards that ensure biodiversity credits are recognized and valued globally.

Companies like Glencore are navigating these regulatory waters with finesse. Facing stringent biodiversity offset requirements in countries like Australia and Canada, Glencore has turned to biodiversity credits to comply with regulations and safeguard endangered species. It’s a strategy that highlights the importance of robust legal frameworks in driving corporate investment in biodiversity.

• Standardized Metrics and Reporting: The need for globally accepted standards is critical. It’s not just about what you do—it’s about how you report it. The Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) is guiding companies like HSBC to adopt standardized reporting practices, ensuring that biodiversity projects are transparent, credible, and aligned with global goals.

Nestlé, for instance, has taken this to heart in its Alto Mayo Forest project in Peru. By adhering to international benchmarks, Nestlé not only enhances its sustainability profile but also builds trust among consumers and stakeholders who demand more than just lip service when it comes to environmental commitments.

• Digital Platforms and Multi-Stakeholder Governance: In the age of digital transparency, blockchain technology is proving to be a game-changer. Microsoft is leading the charge, using blockchain to ensure every biodiversity credit transaction is traceable and trustworthy. This isn’t just about tech for tech’s sake; it’s about building the trust that’s essential for these markets to thrive.

Meanwhile, TotalEnergies is taking a different approach, emphasizing the importance of multistakeholder governance in its projects. By involving local communities and NGOs in its forest conservation efforts in Africa, TotalEnergies ensures that the benefits of biodiversity credits are shared equitably—a model that others would do well to follow.

Government as a Catalyst: Incentivizing Biodiversity Credits

Governments are the linchpin in creating environments where biodiversity credits can thrive. Through tax incentives, regulatory mandates, and public-private partnerships, they have the power to accelerate the adoption of these vital tools.

• Tax Incentives and Subsidies: Financial incentives are a powerful motivator, and governments

are using them to encourage corporate investment in biodiversity credits.

o Brazilian Government: By offering tax incentives for investments in the Amazon’s biodiversity credits, Brazil is promoting reforestation and the protection of endangered species, turning conservation into a lucrative venture.

o European Union: Through subsidies tied to the EU Green Deal, the European Union is encouraging companies to purchase biodiversity credits as part of its broader goal to restore degraded ecosystems across member states.

• Regulatory Mandates: Mandates are an effective way to ensure companies take responsibility for their environmental impacts, particularly in sectors like mining and agriculture.

o Australia: Australia’s biodiversity credit mandates for the mining sector are a model for how regulations can drive corporate responsibility, ensuring that companies offset their environmental impacts by investing in the protection of native species and habitats.

o South Africa: In South Africa, biodiversity credit mandates for agricultural companies are helping to preserve the country’s rich biodiversity, setting a precedent for how regulatory frameworks can support sustainable land use.

• Public-Private Partnerships: Collaboration between the public and private sectors is essential for scaling the impact of biodiversity credits. These partnerships are the backbone of successful conservation efforts.

o United States: The USDA’s partnerships with private companies to fund biodiversity credits for wetland restoration and wildlife conservation are a testament to the power of public-private collaboration.

o China: China’s government is working with international corporations to fund biodiversity credits aimed at restoring wetlands and forests—ecosystems critical to global biodiversity.

Biodiversity Credits: A New Chapter in Sustainable Development

Biodiversity credits are not just a financial instrument—they’re a lifeline for ecosystems that provide essential services and a catalyst for inclusive growth.

• Support for Ecosystem Services: Biodiversity credits are funding the restoration of ecosystems that deliver vital services like clean water and climate regulation, linking conservation directly to sustainable development goals.

o World Bank: The World Bank’s financing of biodiversity credits in developing countries is a strategic move that ties ecosystem restoration to broader sustainable development initiatives, ensuring that the benefits of conservation are felt across the globe.

o UNDP: Through its Global Environment Facility (GEF), the UNDP is integrating

biodiversity credits into projects that enhance ecosystem services in vulnerable regions, making conservation a cornerstone of development.

• Promotion of Inclusive Growth: By ensuring that local communities benefit from biodiversity credits, these markets contribute to social equity and poverty reduction, key components of sustainable development.

o The World Bank: In its poverty reduction programs, the World Bank is using

biodiversity credits to ensure that communities dependent on natural resources are the primary beneficiaries of conservation efforts.

o UNESCO: By promoting biodiversity credits in World Heritage Sites, UNESCO is

ensuring that local communities receive economic benefits from the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage.

Navigating the Risks: Ensuring the Integrity of Biodiversity Credits

Biodiversity credits are not without risks—greenwashing, market volatility, and equity concerns are all challenges that must be managed to maintain market integrity.

• Greenwashing: The threat of companies using biodiversity credits to appear more sustainable than they are is real, but organizations like the ISO are setting standards to prevent it.

o ISO: The ISO’s development of standards for biodiversity credits ensures that these instruments meet strict environmental and social criteria, safeguarding against greenwashing.

o Taskforce on Nature Markets: By establishing robust governance frameworks, the Taskforce on Nature Markets is working to ensure that biodiversity credits represent real, additional conservation efforts.

• Market Volatility: Biodiversity credit markets are still evolving, and their growth is

accompanied by fluctuations that could deter investors. Financial instruments from organizations like the IFC are key to stabilizing these markets.

o IFC: Through the creation of financial products designed to mitigate the risks associated with biodiversity credits, the IFC is encouraging investment and ensuring that these markets can mature.

o NatureFinance: Advocating for a stronger market infrastructure, NatureFinance is working to reduce volatility in biodiversity credit markets, providing a stable foundation for long-term investment.

• Equity Concerns: Ensuring that the benefits of biodiversity credits are equitably distributed is essential. Organizations like the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits and the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) are leading the way in promoting fair benefit-sharing.

o RRI: The Rights and Resources Initiative is ensuring that Indigenous Peoples are

included in the governance of biodiversity credits, integrating their knowledge into conservation strategies and safeguarding their rights.

o IUCN: The IUCN’s advocacy for equitable benefit-sharing ensures that local

communities are fairly compensated for their conservation efforts, making biodiversity credits a tool for both environmental and social justice.

Corporate Trailblazers: The Role of Companies in Biodiversity Credits

In today’s business environment, the companies that lead are those that understand the value of biodiversity—not just as a moral imperative, but as a strategic asset. The integration of biodiversity credits into Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainability strategies is no longer optional; it’s essential.

• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Forward-thinking companies like Nestlé, Chevron, Unilever, IKEA, Apple, and Volkswagen have already integrated biodiversity credits into their sustainability playbooks. These credits aren’t just about doing good—they’re about doing well by doing good.

o Nestlé: In Peru’s Alto Mayo Forest, Nestlé isn’t just restoring degraded lands; it’s investing in the future of sustainable sourcing. By purchasing biodiversity credits, Nestlé supports local communities, ensuring that conservation and commerce go hand in hand.

o Chevron: In Zambia’s Tondwa Game Management Area, Chevron is funding habitat restoration and anti-poaching initiatives. This isn’t just charity—it’s a calculated investment in the ecological health of a region that’s crucial to Chevron’s long-term success.

o Unilever: In the world of palm oil production, Unilever is setting a new standard by integrating biodiversity credits into its sourcing strategies. The result? Sustainable agricultural practices that protect biodiversity-rich areas and secure the future of Unilever’s supply chains.

o IKEA: By 2030, IKEA aims to be climate-positive, and biodiversity credits are a big part of that equation. The company’s investment in large-scale reforestation and ecosystem restoration projects doesn’t just enhance its sustainability credentials—it ensures that IKEA remains a leader in the global push for environmental stewardship.

o Apple: In Colombia, Apple is investing in mangrove restoration projects that use biodiversity credits to support climate resilience. It’s a strategy that not only protects coastal communities but also aligns with Apple’s broader environmental goals.

o Volkswagen: Volkswagen’s purchase of biodiversity credits in Latin America,

particularly in the Brazilian Cerrado, is more than just a nod to sustainability. It’s a strategic move that mitigates the environmental impact of its automotive production while supporting the preservation of critical ecosystems.

• Innovation in Products and Services: Companies are innovating by integrating biodiversity credits into their products and services, turning sustainability into a competitive advantage.

o L’Oréal: With a commitment to sustainable beauty, L’Oréal is sourcing ingredients from biodiversity-friendly farms, backed by biodiversity credits that ensure the preservation of natural habitats. It’s a move that resonates with consumers and sets L’Oréal apart in a crowded market.

o Nike: In its quest for sustainable materials, Nike has incorporated biodiversity credits into its supply chain, particularly in leather sourcing. These credits support sustainable grazing practices that protect biodiversity, giving Nike a green edge in the competitive world of athletic wear.

o Apple: Beyond CSR, Apple’s use of biodiversity credits in its product lines—such as sustainably sourced materials—demonstrates how innovation and environmental stewardship can go hand in hand, appealing to a customer base that demands more from the brands they support.

• Leadership and Advocacy: Companies are not just participants—they’re leaders and advocates, setting industry standards and driving the adoption of biodiversity credits across sectors.

o Business for Nature Coalition: This coalition, which includes Unilever and IKEA, is at the forefront of advocating for nature-positive practices, pushing for the mainstream adoption of biodiversity credits across industries.

o HSBC: As a leader in the financial sector, HSBC is driving the conversation on

biodiversity credits, advocating for the integration of biodiversity metrics into ESG reporting standards. It’s a move that’s shaping the future of sustainable finance.

o TotalEnergies: By participating in global conservation initiatives, TotalEnergies is not just following trends—it’s setting them. The company’s advocacy for stronger regulatory frameworks and partnerships is helping to build the foundations of a global biodiversity credit market.

Biodiversity credits are more than just a trend—they’re a transformative tool that can align corporate strategy with the urgent need to protect our planet’s natural heritage. For companies, the integration of biodiversity credits into their sustainability strategies offers a unique opportunity to lead in the new economy, where profitability and purpose are inextricably linked. Governments and financial institutions have a critical role to play in creating the frameworks and incentives that will allow these markets to thrive.

As we move forward, the collaboration between the private sector, governments, and NGOs will be essential. By embracing biodiversity credits, businesses can do more than just mitigate their environmental impacts—they can drive innovation, support local communities, and secure their place in a world where sustainability is not just an option, but a necessity.

* Victoria Galeano is founder and CEO of consultancy Prissma. It supports clients with strategy consulting, capital raising, investment opportunities, and origination services for projects that contribute to sustainable development.

The post Biodiversity Credits Are Transforming Business and Conservation: A Column by Victoria Galeano appeared first on Latin Trade.

It’s been a decade since Brazil’s state-owned oil giant Petrobras was at the center of a massive corporate espionage and corruption scandal, known as “Operation Car Wash” (Operação Lava Jato). Although primarily a corruption investigation, it was revealed that several companies had engaged in illegal activities, including espionage, to secure lucrative contracts with Petrobras. Executives from various construction and engineering firms were found to have exchanged bribes and insider information to win contracts.

In another example from three decades previously, Pfizer on the eve of launching a breakthrough anti-inflammatory drug (Feldene)—a game-changer for the treatment of arthritis—a corporate spy had hijacked the molecule and sold it to an offshore lab that produced a generic version for manufacture at half the cost. This had a huge negative impact on the firm’s operations in Mexico, in particular.

Corporate espionage and corruption go hand in hand, creating massive damage to economies that can least afford it.

Corporate espionage, whether instituted by governments or private sector actors, continues to plague the Western Hemisphere is a significant concern across the region. This type of espionage involves the theft of trade secrets, proprietary information, and other confidential data by rival companies, state actors, or other entities seeking a competitive edge.

The key factors contributing to corporate espionage in Latin America are as follows:

The first is economic growth and foreign investment. As Latin American countries continue to develop, attracting foreign investment, there is an increase in industrial activity and competition. This growth makes the region a target for espionage by both domestic and international actors seeking to gain access to valuable information and technologies.

In many Latin American countries, the legal frameworks for protecting intellectual property (IP) and corporate information are still developing and at times are at loggerheads with emerging country needs. Enforcement of existing laws can also be inconsistent, making it difficult to deter or punish perpetrators effectively. Additionally, there are many cybersecurity challenges, as the rise of digital technologies and the internet have increased the potential for cyber espionage.

In terms of sectors, the mining sector in countries like Chile, Peru, and Brazil has been a target for espionage due to the high value of minerals such as copper, lithium, and gold. Competitors may seek to gain information about extraction techniques, reserve quantities, or strategic plans. Additionally, technology and pharmaceuticals are rife for corporate espionage. As these sectors grow in countries like Brazil and Argentina, there is a heightened risk of espionage targeting research and development efforts, product formulations, and technological innovations.

The geopolitical pressure enveloping the region makes government and corporate espionage converge in some instances, with China becoming the region’s largest investor and pushing a development agenda that does not include Western standards of regulation and corporate probity.

Just how are governments and companies battling corporate espionage in the Americas today?

For one, governments in the region are working to improve intellectual property laws and ensure consistent enforcement to protect businesses from espionage. For instance, Brazil has made significant updates to its data protection laws with the enactment of the General Data Protection Law (LGPD) in 2020, which mirrors the European GDPR. Other countries are also enhancing their IP laws and improving enforcement mechanisms to deter espionage.

Another course of action is to bolster cybersecurity. Companies across Latin America are increasingly investing in advanced cybersecurity measures to protect their data and networks. This includes the use of encryption, multi-factor authentication, intrusion detection systems, and regular security audits.

Governments in the region are increasingly collaborating with international partners to combat corporate espionage. For example, the Organization of American States (OAS) has been instrumental in promoting cybersecurity awareness and facilitating cooperation among its member states in Latin America.

Finally, public-private partnerships are becoming more common in the fight against corporate espionage. Governments are working closely with the private sector to share information on threats and vulnerabilities, conduct joint cybersecurity exercises, and develop strategies to protect critical industries. These partnerships are crucial in building resilience against espionage activities.

In sum, corporate espionage in Latin America is a challenging, complex issue that requires coordinated efforts from both the public and private sectors to mitigate risks and protect economic interests. Fortunately, ongoing efforts by governments and companies are gradually strengthening defenses and reducing vulnerabilities. The region’s increasing focus on cybersecurity, legal reforms, and international cooperation are key steps in combating this issue—steps that will yield benefits for companies, governance and the public at large.

*Frank Holder, founder of Holder Partners, is a veteran investigator who has run some of the largest related consulting firms in the world.  He has published books and articles on business ethics, corruption and geopolitical issues in Latin America and throughout the world. Jerry Haar is a professor of international business at Florida International University. He is also a fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, and the Council on Competitiveness.

The post The Ongoing Plague of Corporate Espionage in Latin America: a column by Frank Holder and Jerry Haar. appeared first on Latin Trade.

The post LT Magazine – VIRTUS 2024 appeared first on Latin Trade.

The post Latin America’s Profit Powerhouses: Top Performers in the Profitability Drivers Index 1Q 2024  appeared first on Latin Trade.

The post Three Mining Companies Top the Financial Strength Index for 1Q2024 appeared first on Latin Trade.

To address these questions, Latin Trade interviewed The Honourable Alexander Brennan, Founder and CEO of Brennan & Partners, a leading London-based strategic advisory firm providing Public Affairs & Communications, Strategy and Business Development services for companies, investors, and governments globally.

What are the most relevant geopolitical challenges facing Latin America in 2024 and beyond?

Before considering the challenges faced by the region in 2024 and beyond, I would like to place Latin America in its proper global context; the region is facing a number of geopolitical challenges but, in relative terms, may reasonably be regarded as stable. This relative stability is notable given the well-publicized live conflicts elsewhere: in Eastern Europe, where a conflict is now well into its third year; in the Middle East, where an almost year-long conflict continues to proliferate; in the South China Sea, where tensions continue to increase; and in the United States, where a potentially divisive election is approaching. All these challenges make for a geopolitically unstable world.

This relative stability that Latin America is enjoying, is something that can and should be leveraged by regional actors to encourage foreign investment.

I also want to re-state a well-known point: Latin America is rich in resources that the global economy is dependent upon for growth, satisfying food security, energy needs, energy transition agendas, critical mineral agendas, and increasingly, supply chain agendas. The latter two are particularly vital components of nearshoring and friendshoring.

I am reminded in this context of Latin America’s geostrategic advantage by President Cardoso of Brazil’s comments when reflecting on the growing U.S.-China tensions in the region. He remarked “I think we have to take advantage of our greatest strategic asset. Brazil is far.” In that simple proposition you may understand what the region’s advantages are.

Returning to the challenges, Latin America faces several in 2024 and beyond. I’ll highlight some of them grouping them into two categories: intraregional and extra-regional.

To the intraregional, political instability and governance issues continue to afflict the region. I am thinking, in particular, of the relative weakness of institutions at the sovereign level and beyond. Many such institutions struggle with governance and rule of law issues; a lack of transparency and challenges with corruption also continue to undermine institutional effectiveness, leading to a lack of public trust in governments and their leaders, which ultimately contributes to political instability. Regional institutions would benefit from strengthening to enable them to deliver closer integration.

The other point I will make on the subject of political stability and governance issues, which is my first risk, is that populism and authoritarianism continue to rear their heads. There are well-publicized and recent examples of this in the region. Indeed, populism and authoritarianism have contributed to political instability, they have eroded democratic norms. In several countries, they have called into question electoral processes, something we have recently seen in one country in particular.

Challenge number two in the region is insecurity driven by organized crime, which introduces significant challenges across a number of countries. Organized crime elements exert substantial influence over local governments and economies and are all too frequently linked to issues of violence and insecurity.

The third challenge I identify is economic inequality and poverty, linked, of course, to crime and political instability. Economic disparities are a real issue, with levels of income inequality across Latin America ranking amongst the highest in the world. This inequality contributes to social unrest, crime, political instability, and increasingly, to migration challenges. One tangible example of the consequences of economic inequality is the growing migration flow through the Darien Gap, which is indicative of the scale of the problem.

Secondly – and in relation to economic inequality and poverty – is the region’s dependence on commodities. Many Latin American countries continue to be understandably but disproportionately reliant on the export of commodities to a handful of key buyers.

When those buyers experience economic downturns, exporting countries suffer a corresponding downturn in demand for their commodities, which leads to economic shocks. The exposure to commodities downturns and global market volatility is a challenge for which the clear solution is increased economic diversification.

Further intraregional challenges include environmental challenges: Latin America is, as all regions are, vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. More frequent and severe natural disasters only exacerbate the issues of poverty, economic inequality, deforestation and general environmental degradation. The Amazon rainforest, in particular, is under severe threat and that has significant implications for global climate change and biodiversity.

Turning our attention now to extra-regional challenges, the greatest is that of geopolitical dynamics and foreign influence, and the often destabilizing manner in which those dynamics are playing themselves out in the region.

There are, of course, the trade plays between the United States and China. In recent decades, Latin America has become an area of significant geostrategic interest for China, and that interest in the region has challenged the United States’ own regional trading footprint. The influence of other states and actors in the region has also been made manifest.

A final subset of geopolitical dynamics and foreign influences is the upcoming U.S. election and what a Trump or Harris administration would mean for Latin America. There are some early indications on what those might be, but it is still too early to make concrete predictions.

Returning to my introductory remarks and concluding on a positive note, Latin America offers solutions to many of the challenges the world is facing at the moment in the areas of food security, energy security, and demand for critical minerals, and the region can also be a voice on the global stage in advocating for the environment.

Are there any new opportunities for Latin American companies that can be leveraged in probable future scenarios?

I believe nearshoring and friendshoring will together continue to represent an opportunity for Latin American countries, and particularly Mexico, which has been the primary beneficiary of the increasing geopolitical tensions between U.S. and China. Mexico recently overtook China as the U.S.’s largest trading partner, and with U.S.-China tensions continuing to increase unabated, this trend is likely to continue.

Mexico offers a skilled labor force and relevant infrastructure, geographical proximity and membership in the USMCA which make it an attractive partner for the United States, though a Trump versus Harris presidency may alter this calculus. This is something we will continue to monitor. In summary, nearshoring, the benefits of which are already extending to other countries in the region, is one opportunity for Latin American companies.

The second opportunity for Latin America, perhaps less well defined, is the fact that in 2024 many tens of countries and hundreds of millions of people went to the polls and voted-in new governments in countries all over the world. By the end of 2024, we will find a world in which a large number of countries, including key players, are under new leadership.

This is significant, as it offers an opportunity for Latin American governments and companies to engage with countries that are under new or reelected leadership, particularly those that are taking a new attitude to trade and investment with Latin America, are looking to renew their emphasis on it, or are looking to, for example, relax trade barriers.

Of course, political change in 2024 is a double-edged sword with the potential to result in challenging bilateral relations, in light of the resource-rich nature of the region.

Another opportunity that Latin American companies have, is to take advantage of the strengthening global response to climate change. It’s highly probable that in the coming years, we will see the continued intensification of global efforts to meet or surpass Paris climate initiative pledges. This would represent an opportunity for Latin American companies to establish themselves as global bellwethers and engage in thought leadership in the race to net zero. In a region with such a rich range of delicate ecosystems and biodiversity to behave responsibly should, on the face of it, be great for Latin American companies, and the example they can set for companies elsewhere would be notable. Many companies across the region are actively well placed or can actively benefit from this trend too.

With the energy transition ramping up globally, and the increased investment governments have committed to making in renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, we can expect to see a necessary increase in extractives, and in particular, certain commodities like lithium, by some orders of magnitude. Companies that capitalize by investing in renewable energy opportunities could then also participate in carbon trading markets. That would be the second opportunity for them.

The third opportunity I would like to discuss has already been seen in other areas globally: the continued rise of ecommerce and the expansion of digital payment platforms. This trend will be especially beneficial for small businesses and households, given the currently high level of informality in the economies of Latin America which has historically made it more difficult for large segments of the population to engage with financial institutions. The ongoing formalization of Latin American economies comes at an opportune time, as regional governments should be looking to capitalize on their demographic dividends and integrate younger members into the workforce.

A final opportunity for the region lies in the area of infrastructure. Major infrastructure projects in Latin America represent an opportunity for regional companies. There has been a marked uptick in planning and building major infrastructure projects across the region seen in Mexico in the Tren Maya and the Interoceanic Corridor; the Chancay deep-water port in Peru; the Panama Canal’s new water reservoir; and the proposed Bi-oceanic Corridors both in Central and South America, which would be significant undertakings. As other powers across the world like China continue to see Latin America as a region of greater strategic importance and as the U.S. seeks to maintain its position of influence in the region, it is reasonable to assume that the number of large projects such as these will continue to increase.

Latin American nations face many risks, including the increasing probability of climate-change-induced natural disasters, harsher verbal confrontations among political leaders, and slower GDP growth stemming from low productivity and lower commodity prices. Based on your experience, what best practices should countries and companies in the region adopt to better manage these and other material risks?

I believe there is no silver bullet for nations and companies seeking to navigate the very distinct and complex risks within the region. However, something made evident by the pandemic was the enormous importance of developing contingency plans for destabilizing events, whether these are economic shocks, natural disasters or security issues, and the failure of countries to have such plans prepared. Having a plan in place and the necessary actors primed to coordinate a response can materially mitigate the negative effects of these shocks.

When developing specific policies to combat risks that countries have more direct control over, it is crucial that risks are approached as multifaceted and complex, not oversimplified, and that there is a joint, coordinated approach between the public and private sector, or within the public sector if it is leading the response to a given risk. Climate change is a good example of this. It may not be something an individual state can control, but the devastating effects of it could be mitigated by implementing successful policy in areas such as agriculture and logging. An illustration of this, and a major factor behind emigration from and destabilization in Central America, is the failure of regional crop yields, due to droughts that have been exacerbated by poor small-share agricultural practices. Those practices could be improved with more effective policy and strategic investment.

Effective policy, of course, requires the absence of corruption, the implementation of transparent processes, the elimination of unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, and above all, a strict adherence to the rule of law which must underpin everything.

These are prerequisites for the effective functioning of the modern state and the management of risk.

Countries and companies stand the best chance of succeeding in mitigating against these risks when they act in concert with other states through existing regional fora, and when they work to strengthen those regional fora further.  At the same time, governments should engage with the private sector on both a national and regional level to ensure that the public and private sector approach to known risks is joined up. Furthermore, countries should also ensure that companies have the opportunity to convene and act in greater harmony and coordination through national or regional Chambers of Commerce, or business groupings.

Greater regional integration at the public sector level is certainly a way of mitigating against those risks, and engagement with the private sector is crucial. This requires attitudinal changes in terms of the solutions that need to be achieved, but these are examples of ways in which the risks mentioned earlier can be mitigated.

Should the role of the corporate head of government affairs increasingly include that of Chief Geopolitical Officer? Or should risk and opportunity analysis be conducted by experts positioned elsewhere, such as closer to the Board of Directors or the CFO?  

Only recently I was reading an article in a publication, which had carried out a survey of a few hundred institutional investors. All of them cited geopolitical risk as their number one concern. Other polls, as a PwC poll, and the Saïd Oxford Business School-GlobeScan poll, suggest that geopolitical risk is ranked top amongst C-Suite leaders in Europe and beyond.

There’s an enormous amount of evidence for the fact that geopolitics is now a concern for corporate leaders.

There isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach, with different businesses of different sizes operating across different sectors, but almost all companies need to be mindful of geopolitical risk in 2024, and take relevant advice.

Since 2020, established political and economic norms have been upended, and there’s been an encouraging recognition within business of the equal importance of geopolitical challenges and opportunity analysis in this new landscape. I think corporate decision makers are increasingly recognizing that this new geopolitical settlement is remote from the multilateral and rules-based order that arguably characterized global relationships for the circa 30 years following the end of the Cold War. Obviously, today’s geopolitical settlement represents a sharp departure from that, and decision makers are increasingly assessing geopolitical risk alongside their traditional evaluations of risk which may include economic and climate risk. It is an imperative that they also consider the interconnected nature of these risks.

How companies resource the requirement for that geopolitical advice will depend on their perceived exposure to such risks and accompanying budgets for purpose. For example, I would expect a multinational corporation in Latin America with a global supply chain to have permanent in-house capability, but to outsource as required to sectoral and/or regional experts. This function should report to the Board

I think that given the impact of security, financial, healthcare, climate or cyber risks, and that these could be existential for companies, their scrutiny is required at the highest level of corporate decision-making.

Smaller companies, with lesser geographical footprints might choose, for budgetary reasons, to rely more heavily on outside advice rather than having in-house capability with the fixed cost that that would imply for their budgets.

Given the absence of meaningful budgets for purpose within MSMEs, these firms may be required to adopt a more reactive than proactive approach: mitigation after the event rather than pre-empting crises before they arise.

Even acknowledging the unavailability of budgets for purpose, such firms may wish to avail themselves of access to platforms which monitor such risks, and which can provide companies with information in real time, or at least on a constant basis, so that they have a steady stream of information relating to geopolitical risk and therefore at least a general awareness of what risks could arise for their business.

As a general remark, cyber risk, especially in the age of AI, is a top concern for businesses and governments alike. We recently saw this quite dramatically with an outage that impacted financial markets, travel, logistics, payments – all the functions which we global citizens rely on day-to-day to carry out our activities. I think it is incumbent on all businesses, large and small, and on state actors to have appropriate protections and contingency planning in place for cyber risk, including cyber AI risk. This should come in recognition of the online world that many or all of us live and work in, and the increasing threats to it from hackers and AI-powered cyber-attacks.

The post How to Manage Geopolitical Risks in Latin America. Challenges and Opportunities: An Interview with The Honourable Alexander Brennan, Brennan & Partners. appeared first on Latin Trade.

Every few years, the digital transformation of our times ushers in an emergent piece of technology as the next steppingstone in human progress: The Internet, cloud computing, blockchain, and now artificial intelligence (AI). Some of the praise is grounded in truth, and some of it is hype. Still, each wave presents the developing world with an opportunity for social and economic progress.

The impact of groundbreaking technologies can be framed in two ways. First, their use can solve societal challenges and bring about efficiency gains in productivity. Second, with enough demand, technology brings forth an ecosystem of socioeconomic value that comprises the activities of its upstream supply chain.

This is best illustrated by AI’s momentum currently and the potential of the wide ecosystem that supports it. AI’s ecosystem includes materials, such as natural resources and infrastructure (e.g., data centers, compute); data, including its processes of production (e.g., data mining) and sources (e.g., copyrighted material, census data, Internet of Things); and human labor, such as developers, data annotators, data scientists, and AI researchers.  Moreover, labor extends to context- and domain-specific experts needed to develop and maintain products in specific fields (e.g., agriculture, healthcare, finance, language, justice) because AI is a general-purpose technology.

There are many reasons why Latin-American countries should actively explore these opportunities. This includes the chance to generate socioeconomic value and improve quality of life, empower citizens to address their societal problems and self-determine the progress of technology, and to safeguard digital sovereignty.

First, there is permanent socioeconomic value to be created from the ecosystem that supports technology. Indeed, opportunities lie not only on the outcomes of AI use cases. A study by Acemoglu shows that the productivity gains stemming from AI over the next 10 years in the US economy are currently overstated. Parallel to that, each component of the described ecosystem can function as a node for better living standards across AI’s value-chain. However, these nodes can only support quality of life if developed with fairness and due regard for negative externalities, such as fair labor practices (e.g., formal jobs) and green infrastructure.

In fact, Latin America holds comparative advantages on some of the requirements of AI, among which renewable energy is most prominent. The International Energy Agency’s Outlook for Latin America reports that renewables generate 60% of electricity in the region – twice the global average. Moreover, this is foreseen to increase to 80% by 2050. At a time when humanity is quickly depleting its climate allowance, renewables are critical for expanding AI, a technology that is increasingly energy-intensive as it scales.

The rationale of leveraging AI ecosystems – as opposed to only solutions – to improve living standards is shared with other parts of the Global Majority. In November 2023, African thought leaders met in Nairobi for a workshop on the implications of Generative AI for the future of work in Africa. They agreed that “AI in Africa should support the substantial informal sector, emphasizing empowerment, entrepreneurship, and job creation rather than mere efficiency” (p.30). In March 2023, multisectoral specialists from Latin America similarly came together to issue the Montevideo Declaration on Artificial Intelligence, which underscored: “Improving quality of life, working, economic, health, and general wellbeing conditions must be our priority.”

Second, ecosystem-level progress empowers locals to steer the development of technology towards it being fit-for-purpose to their socioeconomic needs. At minimum, it enables adaptation of technology developed in and for foreign settings to one’s own context. For example, increased computational power is directly correlated with better AI capabilities, and access to compute is a hurdle for AI development everywhere. The Oxford Internet Institute shows that only three companies (Amazon, Microsoft, and Google) hold approximately 70% of the global infrastructure for cloud computing. Besides, there is a contrast between its presence in the developed and the developing world, including Latin America.

(Source: TeleGeography, 2024)

AI can only solve Latin-American problems if developed by those who face them. It can best serve Latin-American users if designed pursuant to their socioeconomic needs. Currently, access of local “problem-owners,” such as researchers and developers, to computational power is an unmet precondition for the region to start developing AI that solves Latin-American problems. Thus, the region’s public and private sectors should prioritize expanding access to computational power.

Third, a mature ecosystem is critical not only to advance AI, but also to equip affected communities with self-determination in steering the field’s scientific progress. As expressed by Chijioke Okorie and Vukosi Marivate, the Global South is not a monolithic entity. Even within each country, there is a variety of communities with different interests and views on AI development. In Natural Language Processing (NLP), a subfield of AI that studies the understanding and generation of human language by computers, Okorie and Marivate explain that these communities may include “owners of (…) traditional knowledge, data scientists and AI developers working on data collection, collation, curation, and annotation; linguists (…); and users” that supply language data.

In the same vein, whether in Africa or Latin America, a strong ecosystem empowers those creating technology to embody it with their cultural values. When it comes to AI, a technology that attempts to model reality from training data, this is key to mitigate risks associated with its capabilities. Local communities live the harms felt by their societies. If there is racism, they feel it in their skin. If there is pollution, they feel it in their lungs. This allows them to prevent AI from contributing to or automating existing harms.

Fourth, on a national purview, a built-up ecosystem safeguards digital sovereignty in two ways. One, the design of digital technologies embeds the values of its creators and regulates the behavior of those subject to its effects. This means AI can be designed with the values of one country and regulate the citizens and circumstances of another when deployed elsewhere. Locals can develop AI with data, models and purposes that are in-tune and can be discussed with basis on their cultural values, rather than relying on systems modelled after other societies, such as China, Europe, or North America (p.27). Moreover, locals are equipped with the skills to scrutinize and adjust foreign technology to be aligned with their cultural values.

Additionally, digital sovereignty is a game of calibrating interdependencies vis-à-vis other countries. The many nodes of an AI ecosystem require a balancing act. Some of them can be created nationally, some may be cheaper or better if foreign, but most require a mix of national and foreign (e.g., cloud computing infrastructure). As digital technology becomes increasingly essential to modern life, governments have to strategize a variety of sources to supply the ecosystem that underpins their digital space. Building up the local ecosystem also decreases Latin America’s dependencies on other regions and may even support further integration across a shared goal of leveraging technology for permanent and sustainable socioeconomic transformation.

*Gustavo Fonseca Ribeiro is a Brazilian lawyer with a Master of Public Policy in Digital Technologies from Sciences Po, Specialist Consultant for Digital Transformation and Artificial Intelligence at UNESCO, and Youth Ambassador for the Internet Society. The views herein reflected are the opinion of the author in his personal capacity and do not represent in any way the position of the organizations to which he is related.

The post Beyond the Hype: Leveraging AI Ecosystems for Lasting Impact in Latin America. A Column appeared first on Latin Trade.

The origin of corruption in Venezuela is deeply rooted in its political and economic history, dating back to the early 20th century when the country began to exploit its vast oil reserves. The discovery of oil in the 1920s transformed Venezuela from an agricultural society into one of the world’s largest oil producers, leading to rapid economic growth. However, this wealth also fostered a culture of corruption as the state became increasingly involved in the economy, managing vast oil revenues without strong institutional checks and balances.

When the dictatorship of Marcos Jiménez was overthrown in 1958, Venezuela’s three main political parties (Acción Democrática, COPEI, and Unión Republicana Democrática) formalized an agreement known as the Puntofijo Pact. The pact entailed the acceptance of the 1958 presidential elections and the preservation of the new democratic system. Over time, COPEI and AD became increasingly reliant on the shared oil revenues to secure their power over Venezuelan politics through a system of patronage and clientelism. Large swaths of the public, fed up with this corrupt duopoly, gave rise to support for coup plotter Hugo Chávez who has imprisoned, freed and elected president in 2000.

Since Maduro’s ascension to power following the death of Hugo Chávez, the former bus driver has taken corruption to greater heights (or rather lower depths).

To begin with, it is indisputable that corruption has had a profound and crippling impact on the Venezuelan economy. The state oil company, PDVSA, which was once the backbone of the Venezuelan economy, has been severely affected by corruption. According to some estimates, between $300 billion and $500 billion has been lost due to corruption, mismanagement, and the decline in production over the past two decades. This figure includes embezzlement, fraudulent contracts, and other forms of corruption within the company. The Petrocaribe program, which provided Venezuelan oil to Caribbean nations on favorable terms, has also been marred by corruption allegations.

Beyond the oil sector, as Venezuela’s economic crisis deepened, corruption in the distribution of food and medicine became rampant. The government’s CLAP program, intended to provide subsidized food to the poor, has been criticized for corruption, with reports of officials skimming profits, diverting supplies, and selling food at inflated prices.

While exact figures are difficult to pinpoint, the cumulative cost of corruption in Venezuela likely amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars over the past two decades. In terms of estimated costs, the mismanagement and corruption within the government and state-owned enterprises have contributed significantly to hyperinflation, which reached millions of percent at its peak. In fact, the economic contraction, exacerbated by corruption, has led to a cumulative GDP decline of over 75% between 2014 and 2020, making it one of the worst economic collapses in history.

As for capital flight, corruption and the resulting economic instability have led to massive capital flight. Between 2000 and 2018, it is estimated that over $150 billion left Venezuela as businesses and individuals moved their money abroad to avoid expropriation, inflation, and other risks associated with the corrupt environment.

One should also note that foreign nations such as Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran have contributed to the persistence of corruption in Venezuela through their economic, military, and intelligence support. Their involvement has bolstered the Venezuelan regime, allowing it to continue its corrupt practices with impunity. The lack of transparency in their dealings with Venezuela, combined with the support they provide to the government’s repressive apparatus, has helped shield corrupt officials from accountability and maintain the status quo.

In a nutshell, the oil boom, political patronage and weak institutions collectively catalyzed the bonfire of corruption that has engulfed Venezuela for over the last 60 years. To do its part to support democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela and to combat corruption, the U.S. needs to step up to the plate and do a lot more. This includes expanding sanctions, enhancing anti-money laundering efforts, supporting pro-democracy movements, providing humanitarian aid, assisting with legal reforms, and raising public awareness. By combining diplomatic, financial, and legal tools, the U.S. can increase pressure on the Maduro regime while supporting the Venezuelan people in their struggle for a more democratic and transparent government.

*Jerry Haar is a professor of international business at Florida International University. He is also a fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, and the Council on Competitiveness.

The post The Sad Legacy of Corruption in Venezuela: A Column by Jerry Haar appeared first on Latin Trade.