Thursday, December 1

Controversy grows over intervention in the cereal trade

The response from one of the entities, Coninagro, was not long in coming. From the official Twitter account, the cooperative entity explained that “Coninagro, together with the Institute for the Promotion of Beef (IPCVA) and the Mesa de las Carnes, worked on financing policies to improve production. Also with the Technical Commission to prepare the Plan. We have offered our cooperatives to facilitate access to this program ”.

Beyond the details about whether or not there was a commitment on the part of the employers, it seems to be clear that once again the countryside and the government are going through a period of estrangement.

The conflict is not centered on meat, but on wheat and corn exports. While Domínguez tries to explain that he will seek to “guarantee a point of equilibrium”, from the agricultural sector they argue that there is nothing better than “freedom of production, marketing and access to markets”, since that is the “key to achieving greater and better production to generate more foreign exchange that enters the country “.

Not only the employers, but also the four production chains timely rejected any intervention in the markets. They all refer to resolution No. 276, which seeks to establish what those “balance points” will be and other details to specify sales abroad. The claim is joint, of the entire production chain, because it is understood that the processing industries need the planted area to grow to be able to access the raw material in a fluid way and on the other hand, if there are interventions, the producer is usually punished with a drop in the price of grain.

Exportable balances

According to Domínguez, the aforementioned resolution does not speak of exportable balances and the data used to prepare it came from reports from the chains themselves. While Domínguez assures over and over again that he does not want political conflicts and emphasizes that he seeks to build trust, reality indicates that the relationship with the sector is tense, although with open dialogue.

The last card was played by the Confederation of Rural Associations of Buenos Aires and La Pampa (CARBAP), an entity that at the national level is enrolled within the Argentine Rural Confederations (CRA). In a statement, the Buenos Aires and Pampas warned that the measures announced by the national authorities are “inexplicable” and that “they only seek to continue intervening in a sector that in itself grows and contributes economically to the country.”

The ruralistas called for the cessation of interference in the sector, since announcements of “crazy and anachronistic measures, unfulfilled promises and already failed projects” generate discomfort, and at the same time warned that it is “on the verge of a new conflict.”