Government promises agroecology in Pronaf, but supports livestock farming, which deforests the Amazon

Originally posted by Reporter Brazil here:

Despite the new agroecological lines, a survey shows that most of the rural credit for family farming under the Safra Plan financed a sector with a high environmental impact over the last 30 years.

The Lula administration (Workers’ Party) enthusiastically launched the new Family Farming Harvest Plan on Monday (30). Presented as a landmark commitment to the environment and the fight against hunger, the plan provides for reduced interest rates and new lines focused on agroecology, with a record value of R$89 billion.

The speech, however, contrasts with the history of Pronaf (National Program for Strengthening Family Farming) in the Legal Amazon: in the last 30 years, almost 65% of this rural credit line was allocated to livestock farming.

The information is the result of an unprecedented survey by WRI (World Resources Institute), a global research organization, led by senior economist Rafael Feltran-Barbieri. He points to a contradiction between the program’s objective and the actual allocation of resources. « It’s striking how, in the Amazon, more than in the rest of Brazil, Pronaf financed a lot of livestock farming, » he states.

Livestock farming is harmful to the Amazon for several reasons: it is the main cause of devastation, responsible for over 90% of the biome’s deforestation to clear pastures, according to MapBiomas ; it contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions , such as methane, released during the animals’ digestion process; and it is linked to land grabbing .

The economist considers it problematic to allocate so many resources from family farming to livestock farming, as extensive livestock farming generates few jobs and has limited profitability. « Family farming is the opposite of this. It allows development in small areas, with low environmental impact and greater income generation, » he argues.

Pronaf is the main program of the Family Farming Harvest Plan, with R$78.2 billion available, which corresponds to 88% of the resources announced for the 2025/2026 harvest. 

One of the new programs this year is Pronaf B Agroecologia, which offers microcredit of up to R$20,000 with 0.5% annual interest and a 40% bonus for paying on time. This program also offers Pronaf B Productive Backyards for Rural Women, which offers similar conditions. There’s also the creation of SocioBio Mais, which guarantees a minimum price for products such as babassu, pirarucu, and rubber. 

The measures were introduced in response to civil society criticism of the historical use of Pronaf , especially in the Amazon. The Sociobioeconomy in Pronaf campaign , for example, organized by dozens of organizations, called for at least 5% of the program’s resources to be allocated to sustainable production systems based on forests, agroecology, and community management—something that can be achieved with the new lines of credit.

« This plan only exists because of your contributions. You who fight, push, and strive for public policies for food production, » said Minister of Agrarian Development Paulo Teixeira during the launch. 

President Lula classified Pronaf interest rates as “negative” — 2% to 3% per year for the most part — given an estimated 5% inflation rate, and celebrated the plan as part of a strategy to rebuild public policies in the countryside.

The announcements are important because they reinforce the government’s commitment to family farming, says Dione Torquato, secretary-general of the CNS (National Council of Extractive Populations). However, he warns that it’s important to ensure that resources actually reach family farming. « We’re not against large-scale commodities, but it’s foods from sociobiodiversity that reach Brazilians’ tables, » he states.

Bureaucracy and lack of information limit access to credit

The new credit lines will only have a real impact if they are backed by sufficient resources and implemented in a structured manner, says Feltran-Barbieri of WRI. « If these specific programs don’t have funding, they will remain on paper. Livestock will continue to be prioritized, » he assesses. 

According to the economist, even when resources are available, credit often ends up being directed to livestock farming due to a lack of informed demand and technical knowledge in the banks that operate Pronaf.

« Bank technicians have data on livestock productivity, but they often don’t have a basis for evaluating agroforestry, for example, when granting credit, » he explains. 

Fernando Moretti, from Conexsus (Sustainable Connections Institute), also recognizes progress in the new Harvest Plan, but he points out a lack of structure to ensure credit reaches those who work with agroecology and forest products. 

One of the main problems is that many families remain outside the program because they lack the CAF (National Family Farming Registry), which is required to access Pronaf (National Family Farming Program) and other public policies. According to Conexsus, approximately 40% of sociobiodiversity families still lack this document.

Moretti also advocates for changes to rural credit rules, such as accepting alternative documents to the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry) in collective areas and creating specialized teams in public banks to better serve those who live off the forest.

Program ignores insurance for communities to face climate emergency

Dione Torquato, of the National Council of Extractive Populations, also points out the lack of an important component in the federal government’s plan: national climate insurance that includes extractive communities.

He points out that the Safra Plan already offers subsidies to large producers for climate losses, which, to date, are lacking for those who make their living from the forest. An example of this exclusion, according to Torquato, was the losses faced by families in the lower Juruá River (AM) during the severe drought of 2024. 

A raft loaded with managed pirarucu was stranded for days on a sandbar, forcing the local association to hire additional boats to try to salvage the cargo. The emergency operation resulted in the loss of all profits, explained Antônio Marcos Faria dos Santos, president of Aspruj (Rural Workers’ Association of Juruá).

According to the farmer, longer dry periods are reducing the useful time for pirarucu fishing. « Recently, the droughts have been severe. The government needs to pay attention to those who care for the forest, » he stated. Aspruj represents approximately 500 riverside families from 15 communities near Tefé, Amazonas state.

Faced with situations like this, Bill 1528/2025, presented by Congresswoman Célia Xakriabá (PSOL-MG), seeks to include indigenous peoples, quilombolas, riverside communities, extractivists and artisanal fishermen in the Harvest Guarantee Fund, with the right to compensation for losses caused by drought or excessive rainfall. 

The text provides for the benefit to reach up to two minimum wages, paid in up to six installments, and to be extended to extractive and fishing activities, not just agriculture. The proposal also suggests that beneficiaries participate in technical training programs to address climate change, focusing on regions such as the Semiarid region and the Amazon.

Despite reaching record levels, the Family Farming Harvest Plan is still much smaller than the amount allocated to medium and large producers. The business component of the plan, launched the following day, on Tuesday (1st), promises R$516.2 billion, almost six times more than the amount allocated to family farming. 

Greenpeace Brazil criticized the disparity and warned against stricter criteria. The organization claims that rural credit aimed at agribusiness still allows financing for properties with environmental violations and does not require traceability for livestock.

« These billions must be used to transition to fair, resilient, and sustainable food systems, » said Thais Bannwart, spokesperson for the organization’s Zero Deforestation Front. For Greenpeace, the rural credit policy, as currently structured, continues to fuel deforestation, even when packaged in a sustainability narrative.