Agriculture and environment: there and here

Society pays for a good provided by farmers. Nothing more just.

Here, this week the Federal Supreme Court judges Direct Unconstitutionality Actions (ADIs), filed by members of the Public Ministry, PSOL, PV and NGOs, against some articles of the Brazilian Forest Code. Here, certain promoters, political parties and NGOs consider themselves to be the harbingers of protecting the environment. Will they really be? The fact is that the Forest Code, approved by an immense majority after exhaustive public debates, was recognized internationally at the Climate Conference in Paris, including by some international NGOs. The Rural Environmental Registry and the Environmental Regularization Programs, offspring of the Code, have been fundamental tools in controlling and expanding environmental preservation. So who are these “contrarians” against? Against the Brazilian agribusiness that keeps this country on its feet? The invalidation of the Forest Code as current will once again bring legal uncertainty to the countryside, in addition to encouraging new waves of deforestation.

There, the value that farmers receive for conserving one hectare of vegetation is greater than the profit from raising sheep. And, note, sheep farming is a traditional activity there. It's more or less like this, producing wheat is good, followed by environmental preservation and then raising sheep. You can make a living from it. Hence the great concern: who will bear this cost. 

Here, rural producers maintain more than 20% of the national territory preserved on private properties. What do they get for it? The sin of deforesters. The government is responsible for 13% of the national territory in preserved areas, and spends billions on this. In other words, Brazilian society pays, through taxes, for the conservation of 13% of the territory. It's worth remembering that public administration is inefficient, man. If we already pay for the 13%, why not pay for the 20% that is on private properties? This area has a very high market value and, in addition, preservation has costs. If it were in production, these lands would be generating income, providing money to small cities, generating jobs and taxes. Isn't it unfair for rural producers to pay this bill alone? Is the rest of the world wrong?

Here, the protection and improvement of the Forest Code (already foreseen) is essential, but the study and implementation of payment for environmental services is also essential. It's good for nature, it's good for the population and, above all, it's fair.