It’s time to take it out

causes quite indignant what the president of France just said, Emmanuel Macronon the postponement of the Mercosur-European Union agreement. Even if, let’s face it, it would be much “warmer” if old Europe implied something more interesting as a market for our region. Without denying that they still have weight, The reality is that the meridian has moved to the Far East, where demand has grown steadily in all areas of interest.

But let’s go back to what Macron said. Once again, a French leader tries to put the foot in the revolving door of history. Now the pretext for supporting agricultural protectionism, which implies the blocking of food imports from Mercosur, is the ecology. He argued that to close the deal we must first look at the environmental impact of production in the southern cone. They wield the issue of environmental threat as an asset to prevent access to their market.

Forty years ago I visited the International Agricultural Show in Paris for the first time. France surprised by its agricultural boom. I remember the surprise when the theme of the stand of the British ICI (Imperial Chemical Inc, which in Argentina was Duperial) was the “Club des 100 Quintaux”. I thought they were referring to corn, where in Argentina there were some leading producers who had 100 quintals per hectare in their sights. Although the national yield was one-third. When I found out it was 100 quintals of wheat, I fell backwards. It seemed impossible. At that time, after the huge leap made with Mexican germplasm (with the unforgettable management of Rogelio Fogante, geneticist in charge of the INTA wheat program), the heads have reached 40 quintals. The national average was 18.

In France, the average return was three times higher. But the avant-garde responded to the call from ICI to create the club for those weighing over 100 quintals. There were by now (1982) a few. A spectacular genetic advance, chemical disease control, abundant fertilization and even the use of growth regulators to prevent tipping. everyone was in that “green revolution” which had placed France, in particular, among the major exporters of wheat.

The model was supported by heavy subsidies to producers, through prices and other support measures. As domestic values ​​were higher than international values, fortunes were spent on subsidizing exports. Consequence: unfair competition with countries that produced competitively (Argentina, Australia, Canada, United States). And that at that time they did not have the European technological paraphernalia. The United States and Canada have gone the extra mile by subsidizing their exports. Caught between two fires, Argentine agriculture could not progress.

Negotiations took place within the GATT, which would later lead to the creation of the WTO (International Trade Organization). The mentioned GATT Uruguay Round was a slight and ephemeral progress, but European protectionism (with the huge farmers’ lobby and the entire agro-industrial network) has prevented the liberalization of agricultural trade. I remember seeing a sign, on subsequent visits to large trade fairs in France, which read “No to GATT, nourrisons l’Afrique”. The cynical argument proposed that instead of halting the inflation of uneconomic agriculture, the surpluses generated should be used to subsidize food in African countries. Those were the times of Biafra and its menacing images of malnourished children.

But at least they noticed they could not continue with the arms race. From that rajacincha fertilization model, they moved on to a more rational one. Driven by environmental claims, they were limiting the use of fertilizers. But they have continued in depth with traditional production systems, leaving conservation initiatives aside. The old tools of soil torture, such as ploughs, disc harrows, PTO tine harrows, motor hoes and other devices still occupy thousands of square meters in the great European engine rooms. In Sima itself in Paris, at the Bologna fair or at the Agritechnica in Hanover.

At the dawn of the industrial revolution and before the discovery of oil, they were done with the forests. After, They’re done with organic matter from soils. Now, They continue to burn billions of liters of diesel a year to keep the earth spinning and avoid “regeneration” which some argue for our systems.

The answer that Macron and his acolytes should receive is this in South America, and particularly in the southern cone, agriculture is becoming the most environmentally friendly in the world. Non-tillage, combined with biotechnology, balanced and rational crop nutrition, the use of efficient harvesting machinery and a flexible storage system (silobag) are not only attributes of a better economy when it comes to produce. They constitute, above all, a contribution to humanity for its favorable carbon footprint. The same goes for advances in biotechnology. Bioceres’ partner in the HB4 water stress tolerance event in wheat is Florimond Desprez, a French seed company which was unable to continue this development in its home country. Here’s how steady they are: between 1950 and 1990 they had gone from 15 to 70 quintals. Since then they have remained still. They were relegated as grain exporters.

We already had a big win when Brussels had to admit that Argentine biodiesel met all the requirementsbeing produced with certified “sustainable soy” and with a replacement of more than 70% of the carbon emitted by diesel of fossil origin.

It’s time to take it out. Despite our tribulations, our agenda changed daily by the nonsense of bad politics, It’s time to get on the table and reclaim the environmental footprint of our agricultural products.