The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) has occupied a prominent place in the global agricultural scene for decades. Its trajectory is directly linked to the extraordinary transformation of Brazilian agriculture, which has gone from a condition of productive inefficiency and food insecurity to becoming a global powerhouse in the production and export of food, fibers and renewable energy.
But this often celebrated success story seems to be on a collision course with the company’s current reality. In recent weeks, Embrapa has been back in the news and on social media, not because of its innovations, but because of concerns about its budgetary shortfall, loss of prominence and signs of institutional crisis. And, as on other occasions, proposals for “salvation” have reappeared with a worrying tone: financing with private resources and linking research activities to the direct demands of companies and the private sector.
This discussion is not new. In 2012 (“The Embrapa tram”, The State of S. Paul, 17/04/2012), given the fact that Embrapa was losing relevance in the seed markets and losing ground in agricultural research, we used the authority of former minister Delfim Netto (“Embrapa”, FSP, 11/04/2012) to clarify that Embrapa had been created “to innovate, create and transmit knowledge, using private companies as an instrument to disseminate it”, and not to be relevant in markets occupied by private companies. And we warned that the real risk of the company losing its relevance was losing the ability to anticipate trends and lead strategic agendas. In 2018, we returned to the topic with the article “The crisis and the future of Embrapa”, drawing attention to the institutional fraying and the challenges of redefining its role in a changing world.
Today, we must insist: the shortest path to Embrapa's irrelevance is to transform it into a service provider to meet specific demands from companies and the private sector, which would undoubtedly occur if its solvency were linked to the contribution of private resources.
Let no one be mistaken: the articulation between public research and the private sector is desirable and healthy. Dialogue with the productive sector, active listening to demands and collaboration to develop practical solutions are fundamental parts of the function of applied research. But confusing this articulation with “solutions” that can lead to subordination would be a serious mistake.
Public research institutions exist to serve society as a whole – and not just specific segments, especially those that have the capacity to seek answers in the market. Their commitment is to the long term, to the production of knowledge that does not necessarily generate immediate profits, but which is essential to guarantee food security, environmental sustainability, climate resilience and social innovation. I never tire of recalling that, in the 1970s, when young researchers sent to qualify abroad, under the visionary guidance of Dr. Eliseu Alves and former minister Alysson Paulineli, returned to Brazil and began working at Embrapa, it was common to hear criticism that their research did not meet the needs of the sector, did not respond to social problems, and so on. And it was this research, “disconnected” from reality, that generated the knowledge and part of the technologies that would become key to the success of agriculture in later years.
Embrapa's current crisis cannot be resolved simply by providing private funds and redirecting its efforts to private demands. This would be tantamount to cutting off its ability to think about the future, to act in areas neglected by the market, and to lead national missions of strategic interest. Institutions such as Embrapa, public universities, the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz) and the National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES), to name a few, were designed for this purpose: to occupy the space that the market does not enter, but that society cannot abandon.
Brazilian agriculture faces monumental challenges. The pressure for greater productivity coexists with the urgency of sustainability. The climate crisis imposes new technological and institutional demands. Regional inequality and the structural duality of the countryside remain open wounds.
These problems require a coordinated, continuous and visionary effort – something that will hardly be led by private agents, whose logic is, by definition, more immediate and oriented towards financial returns. And there is nothing wrong with this: on the contrary, only in this way can the private sector play a fundamental role in the country's economic and social development. What is at stake is Brazil's ability to maintain an innovative, more inclusive and radically responsible agriculture from an environmental point of view. And only public research has the conditions to articulate this medium and long-term agenda, with legitimacy and autonomy. Embrapa should be the epicenter of this effort, together with the other public and private institutions that participate – albeit disjointedly – in the National Agricultural Innovation System.
It is true that Embrapa faces serious internal problems. Excessive bureaucracy, the loss of experienced staff, the lack of a clear policy for organizational innovation and the difficulty in communicating with society are real obstacles. Among the improvements is undoubtedly the search for new sources of resources to finance research, but none of these issues can be resolved simply by the injection of resources from the private sector and the disguised privatization of part of its research agenda.
It is undeniable that the pressure exerted on Embrapa to obtain extra-budgetary resources results, in practice, in the transfer of responsibility for financing agricultural research from the federal government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA), to Embrapa itself. In other words, the discourse that attributes to Embrapa the need to “seek resources” insinuates that the lack of investment is not due to a failure of the government, but to an alleged inaction of the company. Such a narrative, from a political point of view, has the effect of devaluing Embrapa’s image, while at the same time exempting Mapa from its responsibility. accountability regarding adequate financial support for research activities. This lack of recognition does not mean accepting that Embrapa is doing its homework adequately, including “seeking resources” that contribute to its sustainability and autonomy as a public institution.
The Brazilian government has invested significant scarce resources in building Embrapa, and what we need is an institutional renewal that preserves – and does not eliminate – its public mission. It is necessary to rebuild the company's budget, ensure predictable financing and promote a serious strategic review, with the involvement of the scientific community, the productive sector and civil society.
In other words: it is not about defending Embrapa as it is, but about defending what it should continue to be. This implies recognizing its mistakes and limitations, but above all reaffirming its importance as an instrument of the Brazilian State to build a future project for agriculture.
Who benefits from weakening Embrapa? This is a question that needs to be asked. The depletion of Embrapa is not just an administrative problem: it is a political choice. A society that reduces investment in science and technology chooses dependence, loss of sovereignty and backwardness. A society that transforms public institutions into appendages of private interests gives up the collective interest.
It is possible – and necessary – to discuss new forms of management, improve partnership mechanisms with the private sector, introduce performance metrics and ensure greater transparency. But all of this must be subject to a non-negotiable commitment: Embrapa is a strategic asset of the Brazilian State and must continue to be a space for the production of public knowledge, guided by the common good.
Embrapa is not an end in itself. It is an instrument of a larger project: the sustainable, sovereign and inclusive development of Brazilian agriculture. Disfiguring this instrument in the name of short-term solutions would be not only a technical error, but also historically irresponsible.
Brazil needs Embrapa – and it needs a strong, autonomous, public Embrapa that is focused on the challenges of the future. We cannot allow the current crisis to be used as a pretext to dismantle a heritage built with decades of public investment, scientific dedication and social commitment.
It is time to reaffirm, with clarity and courage, that the public interest is non-negotiable.
This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Unicamp.
Antonio Márcio Buainain is a professor at the Institute of Economics at Unicamp
