Backspace

Some insist on turning the world backward, as if Brazilian society has learned nothing in recent years, if not decades, of legal insecurity. The countryside, in particular, has been the victim of countless atrocities, such as land invasions by the MST (Landless Workers' Movement). Rural entrepreneurs lived in terror, and some still do, due to indigenous invasions in various parts of the country.

The memory of the MST's violent occupations is still fresh. It was the sad reality of an arbitrary landscape that necessarily needed to be changed. Instead of conflict, negotiation and mediation were urgently needed.

It must be acknowledged that there has been significant progress. In recent years, priority has been given to improving existing agrarian reform settlements, paving the way for their emancipation. Pronaf (National Program for Strengthening Family Farming) funds have been allocated, and a significant concern for workforce training has become government policy. Expropriation is pointless if it results in the formation of slums. Agrarian reform settlers must effectively become family farmers geared towards a market economy. Settlements must be productive.

It therefore surprises me that, amidst the debate on government programs in the presidential race, an outdated discussion about productivity indices is resurfacing. There is no unproductive land in Brazil, except marginally, and it does not constitute any significant problem. The Brazilian countryside has modernized and, in this sense, has undergone a revolution on its own, a revolution that only representatives of the past stubbornly refuse to acknowledge.

The issue of productivity has simply disappeared from the political agenda, with agribusiness becoming the main engine of the economy. Where legal certainty has replaced insecurity, rural entrepreneurs are able to dedicate themselves fully to their work. And with great success!

If this discussion resurfaces, conflicts will be inevitable. And it makes no sense to threaten a sector that performs so well economically and socially—and in its relationship with the environment.

Should such arbitrary actions come to pass, we would be facing a huge setback. Revising the productivity indices would give the green light for further arbitrary invasions.

Moreover, some questions arise: why isn't this type of demand made regarding other sectors of the economy? If the issue is productivity, why not apply the criterion to all economic sectors? No one is unproductive by choice. Reaching maximum productivity limits is not just a choice. It involves credit, guarantees, the market, technologies, costs, skilled labor, and management capacity.

The country can no longer tolerate this type of demagogic proposal, whose sole purpose is to bring insecurity to the Brazilian countryside. We must look to the future, not propose to govern the country by looking in the rearview mirror.

Modern Brazil has, in its agricultural sector, an example of its competence and efficiency, supplying not only the national market but also the global one. On a global scale, when people think of Brazil, they think of the strength of its agribusiness. Recent figures show that, in addition to agricultural exports guaranteeing a positive trade balance, it is now the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of agribusiness that sustains the national GDP in the black.

It suffices to see that the agricultural GDP closed the first half of the year accumulating a 1,9% increase compared to the same period in 2013. Meanwhile, the sum of all wealth produced in Brazil, comparing the first half of this year with the same period of the previous year, grew by only 0,5%. There is no doubt that, removing agriculture from this calculation, the result would be negative.

Reintroducing the discussion of productivity indices is nothing more than creating obstacles to becoming more competitive. We don't need any tutelage. Much less this absurd tutelage of productivity indices.