The Institute of Latin American Studies hosted a panel on November 10 that discussed proposals to promote economic growth in Argentina’s biotechnology and renewable energy markets.

Ah! The famous question. As soon as it is posed, ears perk up, and throats and mouths open in preparation for the battle of opinions. “A restructuring of debt!” they say. “International investment!” they say. “Strengthening local markets!” they say. Everybody has their own take and everybody wants to share it. Forming an opinion surrounding Argentina’s future, nevertheless, requires an in-depth understanding of the intersectional elements that make up the country’s current state of politics. What is a good proposal without any public support? What is a government without any trust? What is an economy if only a select few are doing their part?

Such were the challenges to be discussed in the Institute of Latin American Studies’ panel “Rethinking Argentina’s Strategic Sectors for Economic Growth: Biotechnology and Renewable Energy.” Two visiting academics were slated to speak, followed by a discussion where members of the audience could interact with the presenters and their proposals. Julia Juliana, a Visiting Fellow from Argentina’s National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), laid out the current state of the countries’ renewable energy market. Surprisingly, Juliana began not speaking of the Argentina government itself, but of China. The Chinese government has become one of the most important trade partners, investors, and financiers of Argentina’s oil and gas sector, even giving out loans in order to encourage an alignment with their new climate policy proposals. They are financing the construction of two new dams, the development of Argentina’s fourth nuclear plant, and also hold significant stakes in the lithium extraction market, to name a few examples of involvement. What has occurred, Juliana said, is a merging of interests wherein China is able to satisfy their desire for expansion while satisfying Argentina’s need for funding. She also noted that these agreements are multilevel, meaning they take into account local, provincial, transversal, and national relations, as well as technical and institutional elements in its planning.

The next presenter was Juan O’Farrell, an Argentina Studies Visiting Fellow and member of “Fundar” who came to the stand with a bold proposal; as the bold Arial Size 35 title in his Google Slides read: “Towards a Public-Private Fund for Strategic Investment in Agricultural Biotechnology.” A mouthful of a title, yes, but nevertheless a proposal that can be broken down into understandable pieces when given a little context. Argentina is one of the major agricultural exporters in the world. Currently, 65% of the exports of Genetically Modified (GM) Seeds and related processed products come from Argentina. However, Argentina also has a large illegal market, with only 36% of soy and 44% of wheat sold having been grown from certified seed. Autonomy also emerges as an important issue. Argentina’s current agricultural landscape is currently dominated by multinational companies. In the past year, for example, three of the 60+ approved projects in this sector were proposed by national companies. Argentina is thus left dependent on technologies adopted by these multinationals corporations, which are more likely to serve a global business strategy and rather than be specifically focused on tackling local issues. On top of this, as of right now, only 1.1% of global R&D (Research and Development for those who hate business jargon) investment is put into Argentinian markets. How can this addressed? According to O’Farrell, what we need is an increase in R&D and a push to strengthen local technological and intellectual capabilities in the area. His plan sounds simple but hinges upon complex or possibly far-reaching assumptions. There are three steps to his plan:

1. Seed buyers pay a technological fee when purchasing their seeds, thus acting as withholding agents for the fund. 
2. In order to protect small farmers, those that can prove that they bought reality licensed seeds will get their money back
3. The money collected by the fund will then, through government planning, be invested in R&D development for agricultural projects.

O’Farrell spoke with a tingling enthusiasm, clearly believing in the promise of a proposal that hinges upon collaboration and communication. Nevertheless, it was met with more skepticism than excitement. In the discussion portion of the talk, which was mostly made up of people who call Argentina home, the practicality of the propositions came to light. The audience member raised her hand and blatantly said that she would never trust the government with that type of money, calling to question the possibility that they would mishandle it. Another was curious about the volatile political landscape over the past couple of years. How could we know that the next government, after rising to power, would not pull it all apart? Juliana and O’Farrell admittedly struggled to find concrete and fleshed-out answers to their valid inquiries. 

I would like to leave at least one of these types of talks with an answer. A concrete one that could withstand all questioning and would embolden me so strongly that I myself would even think of running for office just because this idea was so good. This will never be the case. I passionately dislike cheesy conclusions. But what I will say is that after having heard for so long that “Argentina has no future,” it is still nice to hear people at least try to move forward, even if it is still in our heads.

Argentina Flag via Wikimedia Commons