One of the 135 articles of the Law of Urgent Consideration (LUC) that will be challenged on March 27 consists of the admission of exceptions to the demands of the National Colonization Institute (INC) towards settlers when establishing themselves in the fields.
Despite accusations that now the land “is going to be run by people with money from other places” – as stated in one of the videos released by the person in charge of communication of the Yes campaign, Esteban Valenti -, in the ruling party they understand that the effect of the LUC “is not relevant”, while the partial indicators open a substantive debate on the raison d’être of Colonization.
To be a settler it is mandatory to inhabit the property, although with the new articles three exceptions are established. Now the board of directors of the institute can allow that they no longer live on the land as long as the settler substantiates that: You have been living for at least ten years, you have complied with the committed investment plan and you present health, education or work reasons for yourself or your family.
Since the entry into force of the LUC, there have been three requests under this new provision, according to the president of the INC, Julio Cardozo.to The Observer.
So far none have succeeded.: one for lack of justification, another for lack of votes and another because due to his advanced age he did not need to rely on the LUC, according to the hierarch.
“The effect of the LUC in the case of Colonization is not relevant,” Cardozo said.. The representative for the rural unions in the directory, Rodrigo Herrero, went further and assured that the new wording does not agree with his “original idea” when he campaigned and took the proposal to the National Party. “That’s why it’s not easy. The original idea when I brought it up was for it to be something more accessible,” he told The Observer.
However, the opposition attacks substantive issues of the articles that it will challenge on March 27. “There is a discussion that is taking place about how much impact the LUC has had. That is very well done. But you also have to see that the laws are permanent over time, they are an accumulation of years,” declared the MPP senator, Alejandro Sánchez, when asked by The Observer.
Colonization Property
The legislator recalled that the creation of the INC in 1948 had as its axis the repopulation of the campaign “on the premise that small producers have enormous difficulties in accessing the land due to its high value.” In this sense, he attacked the change in the wording. Specifically, article 358 no longer speaks of the need for the settler to work “directly” the land – according to Sánchez, leaves it to the “generality” – and adds the requirement to “supervise” the work.
The use of this last term – which can imply that the settler is not the one who operates directly on the ground – even led President Cardozo to recognize in dialogue with The Daily that the modification “is not minor” and considered it positive to clarify it so that it does not give rise to other interpretations.
“Beyond the requests that there are now, when you place as one of the elements that those who receive land do not have the obligation to reside in rural areas – that is, if they are not settlers – and you also establish that they do not even have the obligation of working the land themselves, you are denaturing the INC”, raised. “There is a position in which the State withdraws its repopulation policy from the campaign and builds it from another place, when there are huge waiting lists of young people seeking to settle in rural areas,” he added.
How was it until now?
The Legal Area of Colonization has to date 14 files under study for failing to comply with the obligation to reside in the field or work directlybased on the data you accessed The Observer. Failure to comply with the regulations are prior to the validity of the LUC.
Did it already exist?
Both the ruling party and the opposition recognize that the authorization for settlers not to reside in their fields was already given in fact with the approval of the board of directors. By way of example, the president of the institute explained that at advanced ages – he took 70 years as a reference – tenants are recommended to look for a successor to continue with the activity. Other cases arise, according to Herrero, from calls to expand areas for producers who are not necessarily settlers, and who are therefore not bound by law to the requirement to inhabit their fields.
Asked about why repeal it if it had already happened before, Sánchez replied: “That’s the big question then: why change it if it was already enabled by the board of directors?” asked the front-runner, who assured that with the new wording “A more abrupt change is being given legal backing.” “One would have to clearly establish that when you ask for colonization land, it is because you want to live in rural areas,” claimed the senator.
The representative of the rural associations, Herrero, attributed the change to the need to give “legal protection” to something that previously “remained subjectivity.” “I’m not talking about recently adjudicated. On the contrary, they are followed up on the settlement and development of the family within the property. After ten years, when the young children start going to high school, they have to move to Guichón because the neighborhood is out of the way, instead of being in a pension, the man can rent a house; or he bought a property and the family went to town,” he said.
“Those who are campaigning experience that as normal, but when there is a more urban vision, they think it is different,” the INC director questioned. “But since he was left with these demands that are quite complex, there have not been many proposals,” he considered.
the other item
The other article that will be challenged in the referendum is article 357, which implied that around 55,000 hectares were disaffected – within a total of 400,000 that the Colonization Institute has in total. Specifically, the text established that the parcels promised for sale by the Colonization Advisory Commission or the Rural Development and Colonization Section of the Mortgage Bank of Uruguay are no longer affected by the administration.
The central criticism of the opposition is that these lands are now left to supply and demand, when the Colonization policy aimed to repopulate the countryside with small producers who are left behind by the high market value. It is that not being affected by the administration implies not being subject to the requirements of the institute.
“There may be a situation where those lands that are no longer protected – reserved for family production – can now be bought by anyone. In short, Uruguayan family production lost 60,000 hectares. It is nothing less when we talk about that in the last 15 years 150,000 hectares had been incorporated,” stressed the MPP senator.
According to the president of the INC, Julio Cardozo, that “is not true.” “Necessarily if you want to sell you have to ask the institute for permission to be able to sell it. If politically there is a decision that they are important for small producers, the institute is going to stay with them”, guaranteed the hierarch.
