CORTINA DE FUMAÇA (FILME COMPLETO)

2.45M views12119 WordsCopy TextShare

Brasil Paralelo

Torne-se Membro da Brasil Paralelo por R$10 mensais e apoie a mídia independente: https://sitebp.la/...

Video Transcript:

[Indistinct chattering] Be careful! We're listening to a baby groaning. Get an ambulance! Get an ambulance! 16 minutes. When they were there, they realized there was a movement, and that the child was alive. Let's take them. Let's take them now. Let's go. So, some ethnicities in Brazil have within their culture what we call a harmful cultural practice which is the practice of infanticide, children who are born with disabilities, children of single mothers, and twins are sometimes qualified as if one were good one and the other evil, or cursed, and many times those children are rejected. But

we do have cases of children who are buried alive in their 1, 2 years old, some are destined to death at 5, those children are sacrificed, so the word is not infanticide, is child murder. We handle this as a harmful cultural practice. It exists in virtually every culture. For example, in our Brazilian urban culture we have several harmful cultural practices. Corruption is part of our culture. It is a harmful practice, and it is highly detrimental to us. Smoke Screen I guess I had anemia right after they buried me, because when they buried me I lost

a lot of blood. They buried me because the woman who was my real mother was a single mother, then she couldn't raise me, so she buried me. My mother, the other from the farm, she heard about it, my adoptive mother heard about me being buried and she rescued me. I lost a lot of blood, there was too much soil, too much soil in my ears, nose and mouth. The anemia issue, I have been treating it since I was a child up to today, at the Children's Hospital, I go every month to the hospital and receive

three blood bags. If I were at the village, I wouldn't have survived. They don't even know exacty how they'll take care of those children, how they will feed them, how they will get wheelchairs. This infanticide issue cannot be seen as cruelty of those people. Indigenous people believe a child who is born with disabilities is not able to come with the community when they go hunting, and the dynamics of the village, where the women go farming, the men go hunting and the village is left alone. This disabled child isn't able to go with the father, if

the child is 12, the father can't take the child home, he leaves the child alone at the maloca. This child will get hungry, and can even be attacked by a beast. A puma may get into the village, and if this child is alone... The dilemma of survival that makes some indigenous people kill their children is not unique of those peoples. Many times our civilization also faces the human survival with less compassion, as it could be reduced to a mathematical calculation. Only 3 years after the end of WWII, the environmentalist Willian Vogt published a bestseller called

"Road to Survival". The book was a manifesto opposing the poor countries whose populations multiply quicky. The author even attacked the medical science for trying to mantain the highest number of people alive and praised the practice of infanticide in Ancient Greece. The Science journal published a paper called "Tragedy of the Commons". The biologist Garrett Hardin argued that the environmental collapse was inevitable due to the uncontrolled proliferation of humans. Some years later, the book "The Limits to Growth" was published, advocating the planet was on the brink of ecological collapse. If we continue to let populations grow, and

if we continue to exploit the underdeveloped countries, if we continue to pollute the seas with a wide variety of compounds and so on, it's very difficult for me to picture things holding together for more than over decade or so. "The limits of growth" was a report ordered by the Club of Rome, experts from MIT, the Massachussetts Technology Institute, had made a study which said the world needed to change, otherwise it would start to lack things. The world would be unsustainable by mantaining the usage of that time, the people's behaviours of that time. *Our option is

not between this kind of society, a pleasant, a stable society. It is between a stable society and chaos. The overpopulation so long predicted has stumbled upon us. It's getting worse week by week. We have to get the death rate and the birth rate balanced. There's only two ways to do it. One is to bring the birth rate down, the other is to push the death rate up. On science fictions, the world started appearing as an overpopulated place filled with crime and disputes over scarce resources. Listen to me, Hatcher! You've got to tell them! Sell and

feed this people! Many famous scientists, such as Richard Dawkins up until this day openly advocate the abortion of Down Syndrome babies. If you accept abortion at all, then aborting because you've been diagnosed by amiocentesis of having a Down Syndrome child, it's sure enough not a worst reason for aborting than aborting just because you feel like it. All of those are consequences of the ideas of Reverend Thomas Malthus, who, in 1789, wrote his essay on the "Principle of Population". Malthus announced the populational growth would soon surpass the food production capacity. What started as a reasonable concern

relating to the use of resources ended up becoming the idea that humanity was like a virus spreading throughout the planet. About man being the nature's problem, it's what I call the obsession for the de-anthropization. The obsession of pursueing the presence of men in nature. It's almost like saying that if we take men off nature the environment issue is solved. If we fight men, we're fostering the environmental development. That's what time it is for us. In 40 years, 32 billion people will fight to survive. Still we keep attacking our own environment. There have been five major

extinctions in the Earth's history and unless we take bold, imediate actions, the sixth extinction... will be our own. The projection of the image of men as nature's destructive parasite with a dismal future in an overpopulated planet and without sufficient food. Global warming will melt the polar ice caps within 80 years, flooding 90% of the whole habitable areas on Earth Unchecked populational growth will overtake food production in less than 50 years, leading to famine and war. This is not a projection. This is a fact. One way or another, our world is coming to an end. And

the question is: will we end with it? But the nightmare announced by science fiction has never come true. In most part, due to man's efforts. Alysson Paolinelli is known throughout Brazil and in the whole tropical world as the father of the contemporary sustainable agriculture in Brazil. Today, he's been nominated to the Nobel Peace Prize, and he really deserves it. Why? Because none of this would have happened if it weren't for him. So he's the father of this whole process. Why? Because the food produced in Brazil nowadays is for 800 million people in the whole wide

world. Today, we feed more than 12% of the planet's population. Before his work, we used to import food. So Brazil is now a country that ensures food and therefore it ensures peace. Nothing is more dignifying for giving him the Nobel Peace Prize because he has solved, with his friends and assistants, and a top-quality technical staff, and serious Brazilian producers. His work changed Brazil from a food importer to a food exporter. Green revolution. Is it in here? It is inside. I was born in a small rural town of Western Minas Gerais called Bambuí. I used to

accompany my father in his chores as an agronomist, to take the producers a message trying to improve their production system which was very archaic, rudimentary, they couldn't get sufficient income for their own food. And he tried hard to show them that there were solutions. And I also heard from their side and I never forget this, the distress of the producer, of knowing he could improve but didn't have the conditions to improve. I'll never forget this. And when I was 16, I told my father I wanted to study agronomy. By the 1980s, Brazil was a food

importer. We weren't self-sufficient in meat, we needed to import rice, beans, everything. Brazil didn't have fertile soil, the existing ones were already occupied. We were in a very dramatic situation. One-third of what we consumed came from importation, Brazil wasn't able to produce. The Brazilian average family used to spend half of their income only on food. If you spend half of your family income on food, you won't have money left to spend on clothing, housing, health, education, security and so on. Listen, those were sad times. And at a certain point, the government has decided that becoming

self-sufficient in producing food was a priority for the country. It was a matter of sovereignty, really, of food security. General Ernesto Geisel was elected president. He heard about the actions in Minas and commanded people to collect everything we had there and quietly stopped by. And he was delighted by what he saw there. He called me for a conversation. We had to create an opportunity for Brazilian agriculture. And then the problems started. Where do we have tropical technology in the world? Let's go there! He was the minister for Agriculture at the time. And he only managed

to do it because he was given full autonomy. It is not cheap to send 3,000 researchers all over the world, then bring them back, invest in the continuity of the researches. So, if anyone is accountable for this Brazilian transformation, Alysson Paolinelli is this person. You're going to learn about the latest researches. Do not forget this: science is there. But technology and innovation are in the Brazilian Cerrado. The Cerrado, in the 1970s, the traditional farmers from São Paulo and Paraná would say "Cerrado? God forbid!". "Cerrado? No way, not a chance!" Nobody wanted the Cerrado, an infertile

land, with dry soil, low humidity, low levels of organic material, little clay... Nobody wanted to work with the Cerrado. But the Brazilian science - and that's important - the Brazilian technology has developed tools and mechanics that mastered the Cerrado and turned that degraded forest into productive areas. That's how we assembled a system for restoring the agriculture, for turning Brazil into self-sufficient, and then, even better than expected, we managed to create a highly sustainable, competitive tropical agriculture. And in the last 40 years, we managed to turn the table, Brazil's agriculture and livestock are now very different

from what they were a while ago. During this period, exactly in this period Brazil is no longer a country that imports food and became one of the world's leading food exporters. How was it possible? With technological modernization. We did the opposite of what the world did back then. By then, the world used fertile lands, and here we did the opposite. We took the Cerrado, the most degraded land in the world, we took the Cerrado, and we recovered its fertility, we recomposed it, its physical, chemical and biological elements, for it to become a productive area again,

how it must have been a million years ago. We dealt with global commerce regulations. So, in one side, food security, and in the other, sustainability are the basis for the future of manhood. And both pass through the agriculture! In 2020, the World Trade Organization acknowledged Brazil as the world's largest agricultural net exporter. The Brazilian agricultural exports have grown from 5 to 10 billion dollars per year, reaching 100 billion dollars. There are almost 1 billion people consuming food produts from our country in the whole world. Brazil is already the third largest producer of the globe and

an industry giant. And it seems it can get even larger. No one would have believed in the early years of the 20th century that our world was being watched. That as men busied themselves about their various concerns, they observed... and studied... Intelects, vast and cool and unsympathetic regarded our planet with envious eyes and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. A group of volunteers in fragile inflatable boats entered the route of a Russian vessel that hunted whales. They wanted to prevent the whaler to shoot by putting themselves in front of the harpoons, but the

Russians shot and continued hunting without greater problems. The activists may have failed in protecting the whales, but they achieved a more important victory, the tragic images they recorded were broadcast around the world cementing the reputation of the world's most renowned environmental NGO, the Greenpeace. I stayed then with Greenpeace for 15 years I saw the organization that I had helped to create turn into kind of a negative force. And today it's even worse. They have turned into kind of a racket. Or a conspiracy organization, spreading junk science around the world. Well, we were successful, so people

sent us money. Pretty soon, we hired people to work for us. Now you could make a living in the environmental movement. But before, it was just all volunteers. So now we had a payroll to meet. So fundraising became more important. And before you know it, I found myself, one of six international directors, the only one with any formal science education. But most of the other people in Greenpeace were political activists, social activists, and just looking for a career. Now you could have one with a good salary in the environmental movement. Now we were into the

mid-1980s, and Greenpeace was basically hijacked by the political left at this time, because we had fame and money, and I was left kind of alone in the organization, believing in science. And suddenly they began to invent campaigns which made no sense to me, and also they started to refer to humans as the enemies of the Earth. Not many people know that oil, mainly kerosene, its derivative, was responsible for saving whales and penguins, suddenly, when a synthetic liquid was created the kerosene, that didn't require biomass to be produced, that was a great relief for the species.

When whale hunting was restricted, in 1982, it was just making official a situation that had been happening naturally. Greenpeace's history represents how the environmental issues are presented to the public. In many cases, the real effect of the NGOs work is overshadowed by sensacionalism. Well, I don't have anything against publicity stunts, we made a publicity stunt sailing across the ocean to stop the H bomb. Obviously our little fishboat wasn't going to stop the H bomb, but our movement did. So, a publicity stunt can have great repercussions and impact on politics. As long as it is for

something true and righteous. Today, it has become quite acceptable to lie. The NGOs are entities that work in Brazil barely without supervision and have a freedom of action that no Brazilian official entity has. ... would be collecting signatures for the establishment of a Parliamentary Inquiry to investigate the NGOs activities in the country. The Lula government has cut spacial research fundings, but allocated 7.5 billion for the Sociedade Amigos de Plutão, a NGO. Sociedade Amigos de Plutão, to advocate for an issue already solved by the International Astronomical Union on the planet classification. 7.5 billion to discuss the

classification of planets, Mr. President. This Parliamentary Inquiry has worked for 2 years with a lot of difficulty, because there was a black box, no one could get any information, no one could convene anyone to testify, it was like an armour. We have several requirements, we have requests for breach of bank secrecy, we have corrution complaints involving NGOs and this issue today fits like a glove. It shows exactly what can't be done, we cannot end this as some people want. After being extended four times, the NGOs Parliamentary Inquiry was ended without the final report voting. We

haven't found during the Inquiry anything very serious. Only in institutions already being investigated by the Public Ministry, by the Federal Police and by the Court of Auditors, they are already under this investigation. This is a government report that hasn't been created to reveal, but to hide. So it makes no sense to escalate this report. In Brazil, everyone's investigated and held accountable. Everyone. The companies are supervised by the Federal Revenue. If there's an accusation, it is possible to breach a company's secrecy, private individuals are investigated, but the Supreme Court decided to protect the NGOs. And my

question is: why did the NGOs appeal to the Supreme Court to stop the Parliamentary Inquiry to access the origin of their funds? What exactly did they have to hide? I like NGOs, I'm a NGO founder. I don't have an issue with it. I guess in environmental policies, in general policies in today's world, you need the organized civil society to help governing. But amongst them there are some grafters, dishonest NGOs. Probably. There are grafter doctors, agronomists, farmers, police officers, judges... So, what is the matter with some NGOs...? They turn the environment into a source of funds

collection. A NGO with an office in Europe, its headquarters, opens an office in São Paulo and they don't have a biologist, a botanist, a researcher, but it tells the world there is a threat on the Amazon, as if asking for protection. As in: "You give me money, I'll help reporting the threats on the Amazon". It happens a lot. I saw this on the forest code, people who didn't know what they talked about, who didn't even know the Amazon, who couldn't even find it on the map... A NGO is a legal mechanism whereby the parlamentarian might

appropriate public money, it is a branch of a system that already exists. It's called the third sector, and it's not even used anymore, only to transfer public resources. But oh, the NGOs are financed by foreign agencies, right? This is a bad mistake. The NGOs are financed with public money, the foreign agencies put money to mobilize political players who will drag money from the budget to the NGOs. The intellectual dishonesty of a great part of those groups - I won't say all of them, but a good part of them - is apparent. They use wrong data,

unexistent studies, non-scientific sources to disqualify a country like Brazil and others, but Brazil is now the cue ball. The Federal Senate has already started two Inquiries to investigate transfers for those organizations. One in 2001 analyzed the misapplication of resources in groups liked to the landless rural workers movement, the MST. The other, five years later, showed that between 2000 and 2006 only the Ministry of Agrarian Development had already allocated 1 billion reais to those organizations. In 2004, the Veja magazine revealed the Ágora case, where a NGO misappropriated 900,000 reais from public coffers due to the lack

of control. The money was even used in electoral campaigns. The PC do B party nominated suppliers and got fake invoices for justifying expenses. In 2017, the Public Ministry of the State of Amazonas identified irregularities in 41 institutions. Besides observing diversion of resources and corruption, it was proven some of them were founded only to receive funds. The prosecutor's office has asked the extinction of NGOs such as Intituto Novos Caminhos, which between 2014 and 2016 has received from the state government 549 million reais, of which 40 million were not under a contract. Some groups, when audited, hadn't

rendered accounts for 16 years. An international equity funds group with more than three times the Brazilian GDP has submitted a public letter to the government complaining about deforestation. If we don't do our homework properly, for example, in the control of the illegal deforestation in the Amazon, we'll provide an outlet for our opponents, so they attack us because there is a real problem that shouldn't be happening. They take advantage of this to fight the competition. That is, they depreciate our product due to a proper cause, the preservation of the Amazon. The group is composed by 34

financial institutions and led by a Norwegian company, and it requires a position from the Brazilian government to keep investing in the country. The researcher Claudemiro Soares Ferreira brought a public suit to investigate the Amazon funding due to several irregularities. The Amazon funding isn't linked to environmental preservation, it isn't linked to reducing the greenhouse gas emisions effects, it was a fund created by statute, a statute by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and, by facing it with other environmental funds existing in Brazil, in the three governmental levels, i realized only the Amazon fund was created by

statute, so the official version is that the money donated by the Norwegian government for the Brazilian government to preserve the environment, specifically in the Legal Amazon region. But there are studies from Norway published by the Norwegian government that say we are a corrupt country, our institutions are corrupt, the Norwegian government itself quoting the Judiciary, that public administrators from Brazil use the funds for private interests. So, how can a country that thinks that we're such a messy country send us 1 billion dollars? What Norway wants, and we have data to prove, is that -- and this

is not a conspiracy theory, we have data, we have CNPJs from Norwegian companies to show that what they want is to hijack the resources existing there! Among other things. So, the Amazon fund doesn't fall from the sky, it's not a donation due to global warming they give us. No, there is a political project, there is a partnership, a strategic alignment. The NGOs themselves that receive the Legal Amazon resource are supposed to fight deforestation, they are always issueing reports that deforestation has increased because the data shows it and I can't relate, I can't make a research

and show there was such deforestation they received the resources, now deforestation is that minus a percentage. Regarding those billion reais at BNDS that are allocated to those projects there's no regulation; it's simply the decision of some technician there. That is, a NGO can get 50 million reais to develop a project in a given city but the city halls of the cities don't, and not even in Belém, or in Manaus, that is such a big city it doesn't manage to get 1 cent of this money. So Sales said this week he needs 1 billion to preserve

the Amazon, but we've just got there and there are almost 2 billions there in the Legal Amazon fund. Why not using that money? Because Brazil doesn't have sovereignty over the Amazon fund. This is the greatest embarassment in Brazil's history, where a foreign state created a private account in a development bank and the State can't use it. This is a violation of the national sovereignty. So this fund serves anything but environmental preservation. Despite bringing the subject to the knowledge of politicians and prosecutors, the case didn't go further. How much is the Amazon worth? Would the foreign

investment be endangering the national sovereignty? A report arouses suspicion on the operation in public Amazon areas of a NGO and tries to understand why the director of this NGO, a Swedish millionaire has bought so many lands in the region. The lands of the cities of Manicoré and Itacoatiara integrate 160,000 hectares An area that is larger than the city of São Paulo. Johan Eliasch's businesses in Brazil would be done through an investment fund that bought land from the Gethal lumberyard and Abin's investigation is hampered because their legislation doesn't allow the disclosure of the names of the

company's partners. Why did you become interested in the Amazon Forest issue? I love trees and have always been worried about deforestation. Johan is one of the Cool Earth founders, a NGO that operates in the Amazon and is also investigated by Abin. Cool Earth asks for donations in the internet for the preservation of the Amazon forest. In its publicity material, the NGO shows a man that would be benefited by the project. He is surprised to see his picture being used by the NGO. - Is it really you? - Yes. Did you receive any benefit from this

organization? No, I have never received anything. Last summer, the Amazon rainforest burned. The fire has been lit deliberately, caused by deforestation. This caused widespread devastation and unimaginable suffering to the indigenous communities and wildlife who live there. Right now, trees that have stood for hundreds of years are being chopped down and areas of rainforest are on fire to clear the ground. In Brazil alone, an area bigger than a football pitch is being destroyed every 20 seconds. Our home is burning. And time is running out. But we can stop it. By standing up, we can support the

Amazon's local and indigenous communities. We can protect the rainforest and its wildlife. Together we can put the fires out. Will you help us? Environmentalism has become completely about politics. And almost zero about science. I mean, it was over 30 years ago, I travelled to the Amazon to look at what was happening there and realized we are being shown all these fires that take up the whole TV screen like as if the whole Amazon is burning down And they're doing the same today as they did 30 years ago, it's no different. And still the Amazon is

more than 90% native forest! They call it a human desert, because there are so few people living there! That is one of the reasons it's easy to fool all the urban people and people in other countries. Because there's hardly anybody there to see what's happening. Important countries such as German, France, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Italy and the United Kingdom have sent an open letter to the Brazilian government in a protest against deforestation. Retail groups, activists and even the European Union have been pledging the withdrawal of Brazilian products from their shelves, due to the environmental politics of

the Brazilian government. European retail giants threaten to boycott products from Brazil due to the risk of deforestation in the Amazon. The French president Emmanuel Macron has said depending on the Brazilian soy would be endorsing the Amazon deforestation. When we import soy that is planted on Brazil's destroyed forest, we're not being coherent to ourselves, That's why we're producing European or equivalent soy to relive our model... Macron has posted a picture with the phrase "Our house is on fire" referring to the forest fires. Macron has convened members from G7 to discuss what he called an international crisis

during next weekend's summit in the Biarritz seaside. The image is from a photographer who died in 2003. And why does Mr. President of France have to tell Brazil to take care of Amazon etc., if every year he depends on 500 thousand tons of soy produced by the Brazilian Cerrado? I wonder if he knows that. And the European Union has threatened to not ratify the free-trade agreement with Mercosur. Today, a great part of the international trade, 40% are bilateral agreements. We for example are pleading that agreement between the European Union and Mercosur for 3 years. And

it is slipping due to issues like that. It inhibits our development. And the idea of funding environmental groups is that they would aggitate locally for a change in policy, making it look as if it's a grassroot project. And this woud like bypass sovereign nations. So if you have a NGO in Brazil - I'm making something up - the "Brazilian Peoples Climate Fund" and they suddenly say: "Oh, we don't ever want to have cruise ships here in the harbour anymore!" And then they run around and get lots of parades going, people with banners saying: "NO MORE

CRUISE SHIPS!" Well, it looks like it comes from the people. Or people are saying: "We want everyone to drive an electric car!" It looks like it's coming from the people, but it's actually coming from these big foundations. The WWF, as instance, in Brazil, in 2019, it had a funding of 63 million reais. With a hundred something employees. And almost all this money is spent with its own bureaucracy. The big international NGOs are already indistinguishable from large corporate conglomerates. Those NGOs are responsible for creating national parks and conservation units. Today, there are more than 100 k

protected areas in the world, about 20 million km², a surface equivalent to Africa, are under the tutelage of those organizations. Brazil has become one of the major creators of protected areas, mainly from the project Arpa, proposed by WWF. The goal of the programme is to promote the conservation of 60 million hectares, or 15% of the Brazilian Amazon. This is almost twice the size of Italy. In an UN report from 2020, it was established that at least 30% of the planet surface will be turned into protected areas by 2030. In Brazil, 30% of the national territory

has already been converted into preservation areas. Those are the preservation areas that exist in Brazil today. And those are the forest areas that the project Arpa wants to turn into preservation areas by 2030. There are 32 million hectares protected, supported by Arpa. The practical effect is Brazil cannot decide what happens in an area of the size of the Mato Grosso do Sul state. Someone has a farm and can't use one fifth of this farm, it has to be kept preserved because today we have the Forest Code, that obliges every farm, every ranch to have a

native forest reserve. It varies according to the region. Here in the Southeast, it is necessary to keep 20%. In the Cenntral West, it's 50%, in the Amazon region, it's 80%. What does this reality mean in the urban world? You have a 5-bedroom house, but you can only use 4, one of the bedrooms has to be kept there tidy and clean, you can't use it and nobody can get in there, it has to be kept there as it was originally built. So they create a series of narratives, they say the Brazilian cattle is slaughtered at the

backyard, that there are no health requirements, that we have lots of problems, then we prove it's not true. "Oh, but you use slave labor, child labor, put indigenous people to work", but then we prove it's not like that. "But you're deforesting the Amazon", each time there's a different narrative to disqualify the Brazilian meat. The meat and other products, like soy, which has been linked to deforestation in the Amazon. What's the truth behind all this? Under our nose, the attempt to take advantage of the natural resources of the Amazon in order to take Brazilian territorries to

divert public money in the environment's sake, attacking the national sovereignty, the economy and our image overseas. None of those issues was cleared, nor reported with due importance, but the animal, vegetation and environment preservation are not the only topics involved in this complex scheme, there's another piece lacking on the propaganda board. The indigenous people. The physicist Max Plank said science advances one funeral at a time. For a long time, anthropology has followed the steps of Gilberto Freyre, who defended the miscegenation as a major Brazilian brand. The greatest lesson Brazil was teaching the world and that should

be followed is the mixture of races and cultures. Freyre saw in Brazil an example of the balanced integration of races. The model of peaceful coexistence in a world plagued by wars. Our distant grandmothers, the matriarchs of Brazil, the first families of Brazil were the mixed families, right? The indigenous mother and the Portuguese father. We're in front of the Darcy Ribeiro Memorial in the University of Brasília and he said Brazil has a lot to teach the world, because here different ethnic matrices, different ethnic groups have joined together to form an united society. What we notice from

2003, 2004 is an ethnic-racial division, an increasing segregation. People want to use indigenous peoples to divide Brazil, and not to integrate, as if there was a country of Brazil and the Brazilians and another antagonistic country of the indigenous people, manipulated by interests that are not Brazil's interests. But Gilberto Freyre's anthropology was left behind in the Brazilian Academy, allowing grounds for a different thinking inaugurated by Florestan Fernandes. I'm not only a marxist, I'm a marxist that thinks the solution for the capitalist countries problems is in the revolution. It's the ethnic-based class struggle. Anthropology has been reorganized,

it stopped being an instrument of knowledge and became an instrument of power. As if the political game is war, the purpose became the conquest of territories. In the quilombo, black peoples. In the reserve, indigenous peoples. And in the pocket, money. The final report of Funai and Incra's Inquiry has more than 3,000 pages. The Inquiry has requested the indictment of 96 people. They are Funai's and Incra's employees, anthopologists, missionaries and NGOs. All of them have participated in the process of demarcation of indigenous lands, quilombolas and settlements for agrarian reform in Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina,

Mato Grosso do Sul, Mato Grosso and Bahia. They are accused of comitting crimes to embezzle those processes. The Funai's Inquiry requested the breach of secrecy of the NGO Centro de Trabalho Indigenista and of their anthropologists. The entity has been accused of receiving international funding for the demarcation of lands in favor of foreign entities in areas where there was no evidence of traditional populations. My anthropological report on the indigenous lands of the Lower and Medium Negro River was disregarded by Funai. Another anthropologist was called to make the report and also had his report rejected by Funai,

and only one anthropologist linked to the social-environmental institute - at the time, her husband was the president of Funai - managed to deploy an indigenous land with more than 1 million and 200 thousand hectares. Look, the incidents are grotesque. Yes, there are misleading reports on Funai's part, that identify the traditional indigenous possession in areas where there never were indigenous people, the Inquiry has identified Funai creates indigenous communities, there are concrete cases in which Funai has revived indigenous groups that had been already extinct for many decades. This was identified by the Funai's Inquiry. The final report

of the Funai and Incra's Inquiry that ended in May, 2017, has more than 3,800 pages, but unfortunately the Public Ministry did not proceed any investigation. Even because nothing less than 16 promoters and prosecutors of the Public Ministry were accused for being part of this process of manipulation of ethnic populations in Brazil. Hundreds of residents are constrained to sign up to Funai as if they were indigenous for swelling the land invasions in the south of Bahia. While the Ministry of Justice doesn't give the final word, more than 100 properties have been invaded by armed groups led

by tribal chiefs who call themselves Tupinambá Indians. Who is your chief? The chief is Babau. - What's your name, my friend? - Osman. So this gun you took during the resumption. I took in the resumption. Right, then you took it. Alright, Osman. - Do you have its registration? - No. - Do you have its possession? - No. You're arrested for illegal gun possession. In the beginning of the month, a farmer was shot to death and has his ear cut off. Four suspects are sought, amongst them, the chief Cleilton, but no one was arrested until now.

He fills in a registration and sends it to Funai. And then we arrived at Funai, Rômulo, the general administrator of Funai signs the registration and says we're indigenous people. Mr. José says the chiefs threaten who doesn't sign up. He threatened us, said that if we didn't become indians he would take our property. After the scandal of fake registrations arose, more than 300 people willingly searched for Funai in order to unsubscribe. When we talked to Funai, it said it didn't tutor indians, and that it wouldn't comment on the accusation. Many times, the measurement of the anthropologist

is the fingertip of the indian. The anthropologist asks "Where was your place?", "Where was your prayer place?, Where was your village?". And the indigenous answers "It was there", and the anthropologst writes "in such meters, such kilometers to the East, to the South...". In the conclusions of Funai's Inquiry report, it was written that while everyone suffers, the manacheistic speech serves as a smoke screen for illicit acts and dishonesty. It is common that properties are invaded by man who claim to be indigenous without any evidence. The rural producer who acquires a State property does it because he

believes in the State. He believes in the validity of that document. Isn't that document valid anymore? What happens when the State acts like that? There is a breach in the citizen's legitimate trust in the State. The indians are making a ritual to consecrate the ground. It's a way of marking the territory that, according to them, belongs to the reserve. The area where the villages are was donated through a law decree more than 60 years ago. But the indians question the demarcation of those lands and say some properties of the region are actually their areas. The

owner of the farm occupied on this Tuesday by the indians said he bought the land legally and that he is going to sue. Today, anthropology has been moderated by the indigenate theory, in which we interpret that the whole national territory could be considered as indigenous land. There are indigenous claims, such as from the Grande Nação Guarani, consisted by Brazilian, Paraguayan and Argentinian indigenous people, but especially Brazilian and Paraguayan, claiming the acknowledgement and the independence of the Grande Nação Guarani. They would be real nations inside Brazil. The articulation of the indigenous peoples of Brazil has sent

a letter to President Joe Biden asking for the establishment of a direct communication channel between the White House and the NGO, without going through the Brazilian government. We lived through several governments that interpreted this fight for land from invasions as if they were legimate. And there's when the government of the Brazilian State contributes to the legitimation of chaos. We'll keep taking farm by farm until we conclude the demarcation of our territory. What does "we'll keep taking" mean? It means "we'll keep invading". And what actually happens in the long run with the demarcation of indigenous lands

is the nationalization of private properties. If this will have a solution and if we'll have a fair outcome, it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. According to IBGE, more than 800,000 indians live in Brazil. It represents 0.4% of the Brazilian population. Due to peculiar calculations of entities like Instituto Socioambiental and Conselho Indigenista Missionário, less than 1% of the Brazilian population already owns 14% of the national territory. Where there are indigenous reserves, there is no progress. Did you know the state of Roraima is disconnected from our national electric energy network? Roraima may have a

blackout because energy doesn't reach there, Why? Because for our transmission towers to reach there, energy has to travel through a 800 km path, and about 150 km in the indigenous sea. The electric energy doesn't reach... We're letting children die in ICUs due to the lack of electric energy. Because the Linhão won't reach there. We can say about this construction, it's a construction that is Roraima's dream. Many times people want development, but they are asking them to not accept the energy. One day, Tupã descended from the sky to offer gifts for the indians. He offered a

shotgun, but the indians preferred the bow and arrow. He offered an ox, but the indians said it smelled, and preferred hunting. Tupã offered many other things, even gold, but the indians refused everything. And then, Tupã gave everything for the white people. Now, when the natives from the Xerente tribe tell this story for the younger ones, it is interrupted by the complaints of the listeners, that complain about their ancestors, who never knew how to choose. This myth shows us the indians as people with ambition and desire for progress. But the indians are not depicted like this

in Brazil. Today, the indians are tutored by anthropologists and bureaucrats who say what they may or not do. No culture is static. This is part of the history of humanity. As every other culture, it changes, so we preserve good things, but we may change. In Brazil we have sentenced the culture of the indigenous peoples had to be stopped in time and space, so we leave our indian in the jungle he is left without some care, without access to development, technology, health care, education, because we have decided we have to preserve their culture. We have decided

it has to be this way... naked, in the jungle, with a feather on their heads. They have the same possibilities and dreams such as any other Brazilian. It is possible to find balance. It is possible to know when the indigenous group shows they want to meet who is around, that they want to know who are the others. The indian doesn't stop being indian for wanting better life conditions. We need to meet other cultures to bring them to our village and have better things. But regardless of your opinion on the issue, the indian has an owner.

The anthropology. In one of the peoples from the Venezuela border, the children were feeling cold, some of them, were having pneumonia due to the cold at night. Then a group of people who loves the indians found out the children of this village were cold and conducted a campaign for collecting blankets, and sent those blankets to the area. The blankets arrived there, and Funai's employees at the time decided that blankets were not part of that people's culture. The truck left and the blankets were not given to the children, because that people don't use blankets, it's not

part of their culture. But wait... the cold, the pneumonia, the mosquitoes are part of the culture and a blanket cannot be used, even to bring quality of life for the children, and for those children not to die due to pneumonia? The health issue, it is insufficient. Health and education are very insufficient in the community. It is complicated to have health care living in the community. There are communities that in the past Funai hasn't allowed to have pans, and they wanted to have pans. Why? Because pans are not part of their culture. They had to keep

their clay pots and sometimes clay pots break in the fire while cooking food. It opens up. But our pans do not open up and they found out our pans don't open up. And they wanted pans, and Funai's employees said no, that pans were not part of their culture. But loosing food in the fire is culture? For the indians to keep being used for financial and political interests, it is necessary to keep them stopped in time, without active voice. Prisioners of what Thomas Hobbes called "state of nature". A short, brutal life, in constant danger of a

violent death, that not only condemns people to misery and danger, but also allows the perpetuation of harmful cultural practices, traditions and ancestral rituals that go from canibalism to even the practice of infanticide. When a child with physical or mental disabilities is born, they sacrifice this child. The grandmother looks at the hands, the eyes and the nose, everything, she looks at it all. If there's any problem, then the child is discarded, or buried. What is the logic for the child of a single mother? A 13-year-old girl gets pregnant and is not married yet, she doesn't have

a man to take care of her. Who is going to plant for this child? Who is going to hunt for this child? So this child becomes a problem. So in the past they eliminated the children because of those understandings, but today I cannot allow a child to be buried alive just because it is a child of a single mother. We have in the anthropological narrative in Brazil that, for example, if a family had three girls, the fourth one had to be sacrificed, because a girl is a burden, right? So I cannot allow that in my

Brazil we bury girls for just being girls. Twins... my cousins were killed because they were twins. They were both born healthy and had no health issue, but they were buried alive. The mother suffers up to today because she killed her son, a living son, who cried in the grave, and she could not do anything. Today, she listens to a child crying and thinks it's her son's cry. She gets sick because of it, even after all those years to forget it, she says she can't forget it. The indigenous woman suffers when burying a baby, because a

mother is still a mother in any language and any race. Do you think she buries a baby and then she goes dancing in the village? She cries. This is a harmful practice that needs to be changed. We can show those peoples there is a place for help. How to raise those children. We work with the awareness issue, and we have positive results regarding this. Sometimes, they are peoples without electric energy, and how to take care of this child? So we come to teach them, in a certain way, how the life of this child could get

better. Some of those ethnicities that used to practice infanticide in the past no longer do it. The Tikuna girls, look them up. In the rite of passage of those girls they get in the middle of older women, sometimes their maternal and paternal grandmothers, and the women start to pull their hair out. There is blood, there is pain, and there is suffering in this rite of passage. It's in their first period. Do not edit my part, right? I wanted to make an appeal to Brazil, to love the indians. I'm very careful when I talk about harmful

cultural practices, for not generating anger, but mercy, love, understanding and a willingness of Brazil to help them overcome some practices we consider harmful cultural practices. Indians that many times declare their wish to join modern civilization are muted. If today they are in the same culture that many times seems cruel to us, it doesn't happen because all of them want it. I also question the perception of voluntary isolation. This term, for me, is inadequate, wrong and strategically untrue, because it lead us to think they are aware of all our society can offer them, and that they

voluntarily decided to not be in contact with us, as if they were ok. We live strange times nowadays, when the indian is no longer protagonist and becomes a victim. I'm not saying the indian wasn't a victim in Brazil, but he was the protagonist before. We're an indigenous-based civilization. It is very important to recognize the true cry for independence. For autonomy of some ethnical groups, of some indigenous groups, that today, due to the economic development, due to some economic activity that have been managing to free themselves from the grip of NGOs. We have the example of

the case of the Parecis, that have been for a long time in this process, the grain productions. So there is a capacity, a great potential in the indigenous lands. The Parecis, in Mato Grosso, implemented in the last decades, precisely in the last years, a strong, thriving agriculture, a soy monoculture that has been acknowledged not only by Funai, not only by the Brazilian government, but by the whole regional society, as an agriculture that is triumphant, powerful and that has been ensuring the economic autonomy of the group. The Parecis are an example of the strength of the

agricultural production that is possible to be done in indigenous lands. I understand this is the greatest asset for indigenous communities, for them to achieve this economic maturity. In the past, people were dying. We had 300, no more than 350 people in the indigenous reserve. We had in the past some anthropologists that said money was going to destroy us, that we would end. Today, we are more than 3 thousand and I believe in the future we are going to be even more. Today I say I'm the third generation of the Parecis people that use mechanized farming.

There are the older ones who began the process, and then, people from my father's time, who didn't give up. Today, if you walk inside the villages with mechanized farming, you'll see they all have good houses, food, education. We many times we could have lost our people, but our resources haven't let it happen. Before that, everything was different. We lost people because we didn't have money to pay for surgery, to buy medication. We didn't have resources to pay for food. Today, thanks God, after such struggle, we're getting there. We're overcoming all critics here. We have a

very good generation, very responsible people, they play for the team and really want to make a difference, not only in agriculture areas, but also in health areas. They commit. In the educational area we have indigenous teachers today who dedicate themselves 24/7. It's not only one responsibility, not only agriculture. The whole people. The whole people dedicate themselves for this, to make a difference. This is what the farming brings us. It brings a condition, a condition for us to choose what we want to be, what the path of our people is. Today, my people work in 19

thousand hectares of land, we generate the average of 50 million per harvest. This resource, part of it we contribute to the State, with taxes, we pay taxes over everything, so, we also help the development of the Brazilian State. Globalization is coming for us in this modern world, in this technology world, so we, the indigenous, need to keep up with this economic, social and cultural development. So the idea is to bet on the Cerrado, on the mechanized farming. They said we were going to lose our future, right? Our origin... but I guess the opposite happened. It

was added, it strenghtened our culture even more. So I guess the money didn't come to destroy, but to add, to make us develop. I guess our mission is to show that to white people. That we're no different from you. We want something better. As a responsible for the cooperative, this is my obligation, right? To increasingly search things for my people. I'd like all Brazilians, particularly people from NGOs that criticize, even if with good intention, to understand that what we want, all societies want prosperity, to live well, the greatest number of people living well. And firstly

it means to eat. Our program for feeding the Brazilians and give them an engine to pull the prosperity is there. Exactly in line with science, biotechnology, in the food production, in the use of land, and in the sustainability. If we're not wise enough to use that, we'll be forever a poor country. The sociological paradigm of Florestan Fernandes, by throwing races into a state of unrest, one against each other, wants to turn the whole social life into a great state of nature, condemning individuals to a poor existence, as pieces of a grim human zoo. My daughter

comes from the Kamayurá people, her name is Kajutiti Lulu Kamayurá, look, it's such a beautiful name! I'll repeat it: Kajutiti Lulu Kamayurá. How did she arrive? She was a girl, a daughter of a single mother and there was a talk for her mother to eliminate her. Do you know how those teenagers kill the babies when they get pregnant outside marriage? They go to the forest, many times alone, have a lonely childbirth and they alone have to bury the baby. It's a child killing another child. But she abandoned Lulu in the forest, she didn't kill her.

She didn't kill Lulu. A couple was near, and they saw that was a girl and took her to another village. But they didn't take her as their daughter. They needed a girl in the family, for being able to work, make the beiju and the food. And when our group went to the village for getting a girl who was a wheelchair user, my group saw this girl. She was very ill. And my group asked to bring also the girl who was very sick. The family allowed. So she didn't go to my house, but this decision took

3 minutes between my husband and me. So I say I got pregnant, conceived and had a childbirth in 3 minutes. And it was the best decision of my life. Lulu has changed my life. Those children are amazing! To survive all adversities they live in the forest, famine, cold, mosquitoes, pumas, snakes, rites... The indigenous children are the strongest ones. They are extremely intelligent. We owe a debt, we've got to provide these children the right to study. To have opportunities. We have geniuses in the forests. We have scientists in the forests. Who knows if our next president

is in the forest? And they need to have the same opportunities our children here have. We have created in Brazil a big human zoo, for foreigners to come here and see how we preserve our culture. Parading naked, dancing naked for foreigners to see. With empty stomachs. Lulu is the greatest gift God could give me. Lulu has changed my life. Enough of pain, suffering, tears. That's it. Two paths seem to appear for the Brazilian indians. In the first one, they keep being represented by other people. In the second one, they gain the control of their destiny,

integrating themselves to the history of the country as agents who are able to take decisions. Brazil's tropical sustainable agriculture is the great solution for the world. The great solution for the world to not starve is here. We are able of guaranteing the food security, which is what stirs up the world today. On a beach in the UK, thousands of dead fish appear. In Jamaica, the water of a river turns red and frighten the population. Huge grasshopper clouds cover the sky of India, Ethiopia, Uruguay and Argentina, devouring crops and threatening the food supply. And all around

the world nature seems to be sending signals that the human interference in the planet is becoming unbearable. Your concern increases and you feel outraged with the greedy people that made this happen. You feel sorry for our poor wounded planet that is literally bleeding. And you feel a pang of despair. It's too late for our planet. But... is it really? Scientist from Wales explained the fish stranded on the beach are a natural phenomenon that happens during the low tide when predators chase the fish to the shore. The red waters of the river are a result of

the activity of algae that appear naturally when the supply of nutrients of the water rises. And grasshopper clouds have always accompanied human history, with activity periods that are more or less intense. As we can see, it is possible to paint a devastating picture with some images, a proper soundtrack, and the voice of a child. Apocalyptical previsons have sold books, yielded interviews in popular shows, guided public policies, elected candidates and brought billions of dollars for the ones who knew how to take advantage of it. Scaremongering is the most devoted feature of environmentalism. Many people say environmentalism

is a secular religion, a godless religion, but with all the features of a religion, with the idea of an Apocalypse, the idea of an original sin, as we emit carbon, we sin. The idea of guilt, a very common idea among environmentalists that if you attack nature it will turn against you. The press is scaremongering, it doesn't tell what I'm telling you right know, the facts. There are facts, I've seen it. We can notice some excitement when the percentage of deforestation, and of fires in the Amazon rises. It is reported with pleasure. The opposite is not

reported like this. When flying over the Amazon, you can see the size of the area, how it is preserved, everything is untouched. All that size. If you look at that, you'll be ashamed of believing there is a forest being destroyed. It doesn't exist. I can see that. I saw. There's no forest being destroyed. There is a forest being preserved. Unfortunatelly, disinformation is the mother of all confusions about the Amazon. We have to study history and geography to start this conversation. If we see the whole Western Europe, its area fits inside Brazil. So we start from

there. We're not talking about Norway or France dimensions. Then we're talking about lots of different biomes, Brazil has at least six biomes, and many sub-biomes, and the agriculture is well developed in some of them. In the case of burnings, the burning are like a low-technology manner to handle the agriculture. Legal burnings, permitted by law, are a low-tecnology manner to handle the agriculture and even more in the Amazon. A great part of Amazon's agriculture is of low technology, of primitive handling, This is the indigenous handling, the slash-and-burn, burning down the land to clear it up and

plant soon after. The satellite that observes [the area] doesn't make a distinction between legal burnings and burnings. It only finds fire spots, like this is a burning. You may say some are legal and other illegal, and you may say all of it is criminal. Likewise with deforestation. Brazil has more than 66% of its native forests preserved. Two thirds of Brazil are preserved up to this day. Sixty six percent of the forest are from the time of Adam and Eve. It is exactly like Pedro Álvares Cabral found when he arrived here. Sixty six percent, two thirds.

If you compare to the whole European continent, they don't have 1% of what it was in the Roman Empire. In the United States, there are 19%. In Brazil, again, 66%. The government can be accused of several mistakes, right? It can be. But it can't explain the Amazon. It got into a confrontation, that instead of explaining the Amazon to Brazil and the world, it is simply confrontation. And it results in distrust on the people, that there is something to blame. But there is no out-of-control deforestation in the Amazon, as it is spread out. It is not

happening, it's impossible. Do you know why it is impossible? The state of Amazonas has almost 1 million and 600 thousand km², more than 5 times the size of Italy, more than 3 times, or almost 3 times the size of France. If you gather the agriculture, the livestock, the infrastructure of cities, everything of the state of Amazonas, it isn't 3% of the territory. Therefore, you have more than 97% of the state of Amazonas covered by native vegetation. And it can't be altered. So, 80%, but there are 20% that may be deforested. No, because if you expand

the agriculture or the livestock, you'll have to put 80% aside for protection. We're saying here that all that Brazil produces occupies 9% of its territory. I'm talking about soy, corn, coffee, orange, sugarcane, cotton, and so on, all fruits and vegetables, everything. All plants grown in Brazil, all of them, from lettuce to eucalyptus, they use 9% of the national territory. Nine percent of the national territory. In a country like the Netherlands, more than 60% of their territory is occupied by crops. If you see Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, more than 50%. We've already talked about the United

States, 40%. Is this being on the brink of deforestation, savanization? As some NGOs and pseudo-scientists spread around? This is dishonest. It deauthorizes people who use this expression to be spokespeople of the Amazon protection, because it is a lie. How can you savanize a state like Amazonas, with its 97% of forest area? Amapá, with 80% of protected areas due to indigenous lands and parks. Roraima, with 70% of indigenous lands or parks. Look at the map! Yes, I flew all the way across Amazônia, it took 5 and a half hours in a jet plane, to fly across.

It is almost as much as flying, say, from Chicago to San Francisco. It's about the same. So people don't understand this, how huge Brazil is. This is a statement that diminishes the silly discussion that says that Brazil has increased its production at the expense of its natural resources. It is a lie. Brazil has increased its production because it knew how to recover a degraded biome, that's degraded here, in Africa and in Asia. They also have Cerrado there. But if the environmental concern doesn't explain the tough persecution Brazil has been facing, what does? In 2009, we

had a hint of this motivation in the document "Farms Here, Forests There". It was an assigment from the North-American Association of Farmers, they hired a very qualified team that had already served the Clinton government during the Kyoto Treaty, Farms Here, Forests There, which was a guidance for the North-American government to put pressure on the Brazilian agricultural production with a type of ecological taxation. That is, to create such a strong legislation to generate costs for the Brazilian agriculture. Today the United States show how much they earn while we preserve. Because they produce, they export, they don't

have our products as competitors in the international market, specially in the Asian market, one of the largest ones. The strategy is the financing of NGOs and organizations that press the government and the media for the approval of laws that hinder the increase of the Brazilian production. The proposal of the study is clear: to increase the protection of our forests means harming Brazil's production, and consequently, benefitting the American production. In the year 2000, the Brazilian agriculture exported 21 billion dollars - 20.6, but 21 billion dollars. Last year, 20 years later, it was 100.8 billion dollars, five

times more in more than 20 years. In this period, we had that financial crisis in 2008, 2009, 2010 when the world commerce collapsed, but the Brazilian agro didn't; it grew 5 times. What is it? Efficiency. Competitivity. Competency. If the exportations increased, someone has lost some market. Who lost some markets is not glad about it. More recently, in 2017, I wasn't a minister anymore, but I was at a dinner at the Chinese embassy, and the president of the Chamber was there, it was Rodrigo Maia at the time, and a government representative, it was Michel Temer's government.

And the embassador showed us his cellphone and told me that China would increasingly depend on Brazil. I understood what he meant, but told him to tell the president of the Chamber, the embassador meant that China's food security increasingly depends on Brazil, on our grain and protein production. So this is Brazil's force and what creates discomfort abroad from the commercial point of view. It has always created discomfort, and each time more. Today, the world depends on Brazil, they get mad because of it. Then they start to cast stones. The deforestation is a crime, it is not

a problem of the producer. Nobody deforests the Amazon to produce soy. In Brazil, only one crop is enough for feeding 5 times the Brazilian population. In only one year, our agriculture produces enough for 1 billion people. How does it bother the American and the European producers? Like this: first, Brazil has a very competitive agriculture, so it takes the market away from the Americans and the Europeans. This is the first problem, you take market away, of the cattle, the protein, the grains, the corn, the soy... What is the second problem? The second problem is, besides taking

the market away, you bring down the income. Why? Because with better prices you bring down international prices. So the American and European farmers see we already took the market away from them, and then we bring down their income because we are bringing down the prices. And the third problem is that the American, the French, the Dutch governments see we're obliging them to spend more on subsidies. Do you understand how to induct the idea that Brazilian agriculture undermines the American and European agricultures? Because of this: it takes market away, reduces income and increases the subsidies they

have to offer. So, confronted with this, they go for it. Don't you doubt that. When we say this agriculture is not beneficial for the environment, we are actually observing the practice of anticompetitive protectionist interests, under the allegation that it would be an environmental issue. But actually it isn't. In June of 2019, after 20 years of negotiation, a free trade agreement between Europe and Mercosur was signed. It would be the greatest agreement in the European Unions's history, saving 4 billion euros in taxes for the exporters. But due to the interference of countries like France and Ireland,

it is possible that the agreement never comes into force. The French shrillness was such that the Forbes magazine published an article called "Macron's Mercosul Veto: Are Amazon Fires Being Used as a Smokescreen for Protectionism? France alone receives 7.35 billion Euros in subsidies per year, more than any other country. Nobody wants to lose these subsidies, and Macron started feeling the pressure from the French farmers about the Mercosur agreement. President Emmanuel Macron was booed by French farmers on Saturday, when he was visiting the Agriculture Lounge in Paris. The producers were worried about a potential commercial agreement between

the European Union and Mercosur. The farmers fear that Europe imports more than 70 million tons of South-American beef. But why did the French go with it then? To protect the unefficient farmers from the commercial competition. The American and European farmers are not market farmers, the European agriculture is not a market activity, it is a semi-state activity. The European farmer is almost a civil servant. He receives so many subsidies from the Treasury of European countries that the market is secondary for him, because independly of the price of what he produces, the government will guarantee the difference.

It guarantees the price of the milk, the price of the cow, the price of the beet, of the grape, of the cheese... all of it is guaranteed by the state with subsidies. It's the same with the Americans. Then a tropical agriculture enters the scene, based on the availability of land, water and technology knowledge, provided by Embrapa, with quite experienced producers, expanding the production in a new area, the Cerrado, The ones fighting us are not countries, but businesspeople, traders. It is desguised by the talk of the president, but the competition is between companies. The Brazilian food

companies became very competitive. They offer good products for lower prices than our competitors. Meat, for instance, cattle meat and chicken meat, right? Now swine meat and grains. Brazil today puts in Europe a quality meat with lower prices than the meat they used to buy from Ireland. Do you think the Ireland producer is glad with Brazil's growth, that is managing to produce better meat at lower costs and yet this meat arrives in Europe at competitive prices? Don't you doubt that they'll go for it. Once I saw in a city at the Ural Mountains, Russia, at a

BRICs reunion, and president Dilma talked to president Putin, of Russia, I joined the conversation, and then he said to Dilma they would extend their contracts of food suppy with Brazil and Argentina, because they didn't want to depend on food security from countries that submit Russia to sanctions. You cannot be naive and think the problem would be a military occupation, no, it's a different occupation. It's an economic occupation, it's to immobilize the patrimony, the agricultural frontier, the mineral frontier, That's what is at stake. In my opinion, the Amazon will give Brazil a hard time, with diplomatic

work, and also in the field of defense. In 2016, a report from UN's environmental program already said half of the protected land in Latin America and the Caribbean is in Brazil, it's the largest protected terrestrial network in the world. An OCDE report says that Brazil has become one of the major contributors to the increase of areas under environmental protection. Between 2003 and 2008, it was responsible for more than 70% of the new terrestrial areas put under protection. And in all environmental benchmarks Brazil does better than the countries that want to teach how to preserve nature.

Brazil was being economically sabotaged under the excuse of protecting the environment. Reminiscing about predictions that failed, about other Gretas with the same messages, about other apocalypses that haven't occurred, about families with their subsistence endangered, the indians removed from their lands. the children buried in infanticides, the country suppressed from developing, the allegedly fought famine, the psicologically injured teenagers, the fearmongering media, all of them got the same answer: it's for the environment's sake. And the ones who gave that answer have never given a good example in the preservation of their gardens and have a lot of money

to earn with the poverty of their neighbors. The garden has always been a metaphor for our lives. After all, man is part of nature. At the same time he is its son, he can change it with his talents. Just like a jeweller finds a raw stone and polishes it, and he adds value to the stone, man contributes to God's work, and his garden is God's garden. We're children of God, and the masterpieces are God's granddaughters. By treating nature as if we were superior we can have the same tyrannic destiny of anthropology, that has set apart

the indigenous people and the white people. That has set apart the forest and the rural man. So you have a unique situation in Brazil and you are taking a leadership position. All of Brazil is in a nice warm climate, where it is easy to grow things. You must tell the world what you're doing. Show them the real thing of what you're doing. The great solution for the world not to starve is here! It is difficult for us to be a country that produces computers and information technology. We're far behind others that are far ahead of

us. The opportunity of being in front of everybody is in agriculture. And it's not because we have land, water and people, but because we have technical knowledge. The three themes: available land, technology and people joined together. Other big countries have it. And Brazil has it. You plant soy and reap the soy, plant corn and reap the corn, you grow and farm cattle, plant soy again if you want, you never stop producing all the time in the same area. You can have three harvests in one year. Brazil's sustainable tropical agriculture is the great solution for the

world. What would the rest of the world live of if it wasn't for the Brazilian agriculture? There would be famine. The cultivation has increased 27% in the last 20, 30 years. The production has increased almost 300%. Food security is the basis for a country's social and political stability. Stopping the famine, ensuring peace in the world. It's a knowledge other countries can't experience because they don't have the same climate we do. We can be, and will be; it's written on the stars, the world food security champion, the world peace champion. This is the greatest challenge you,

the younger generation have to solve. Count on the older people! Are we ou aren't we having food security?