EN 
PT_BR 
Brazil has two ministries overseeing agriculture and two Harvest Plans running simultaneously. Combined, they provide R$622.4 billion for the 2026/2027 cycle, one of the largest targeted credit programs in the world. Even so, the amount fell short of what the sector had requested, and this gap between request and delivery explains more about how Brazilian agricultural policy works than any organizational chart.
Who's who: two ministries, two logics
The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Mapa), headed by André de Paula, is responsible for agribusiness, agricultural and livestock defense, opening foreign markets, and regulating the sector. The Ministry of Agrarian Development and Family Farming (MDA) is responsible for family farming, the National Program for Strengthening Family Farming (Pronaf), land credit, and public food procurement.
Each country launches its own Harvest Plan, in separate ceremonies, with different rules, rates, and target audiences. In practice, Brazilian producers are served by two agricultural policies that rarely communicate with each other.
The numbers for the 2026/2027 Harvest Plan
The Agricultural Plan for agribusiness was launched on June 30, 2026, at the Palácio do Planalto, by acting president Geraldo Alckmin and minister André de Paula. It represents R$ 525.1 billion, an increase of R$ 9 billion over the R$ 516.2 billion of the previous cycle, which represents an increase of 1.7%.
Internally, R$384.9 billion will go towards operating costs and marketing, and R$140.2 billion towards investments in properties. By target audience, R$72.6 billion will serve medium-sized producers enrolled in Pronamp, and R$452.5 billion will go to other producers and cooperatives. According to the minister, the line of credit that was R$141,000 per year has been reduced to R$12.51,000, and the line that was R$101,000,000 has been increased to R$91,000.
On the other hand, the Family Farming Harvest Plan brought in R$97.3 billion, with R$85.2 billion in Pronaf credit, at interest rates of 21% per year for food production costs and 1% per year for agroecological and organic systems. Adding the two plans together, the total reaches R$622.4 billion.
What the sector asked for and what the government delivered.
In June, before the announcement, Minister André de Paula himself spoke of a Harvest Plan of R$550 billion. Agribusiness entities advocated for something between R$623 billion and R$674 billion, arguing for higher production costs and greater demand for rural credit. The final value for agribusiness was R$525.1 billion, and the difference is attributed to fiscal constraints and the high cost of interest rate equalization borne by the National Treasury.
How does interest rate equalization work?
When the government announces rural credit at 9% or 12.5% per year, it is not lending money from its own coffers. The lenders are banks and cooperatives, with resources that have a cost of raising capital. If this cost is higher than the rate charged to the producer, someone needs to cover the difference, and that someone is the National Treasury. This instrument is called interest rate equalization.
The size of this account depends on two variables: the volume of subsidized credit and the difference between the interest rate charged and the cost of money in the economy. This is why the Selic rate sets the ceiling for the Plano Safra (agricultural subsidy program).
The Monetary Policy Committee reduced the Selic rate to 14% per year on August 5, 2026, the fourth consecutive cut in the cycle. The Focus Bulletin released on August 24 projects the rate at 13.75% at the end of 2026 and 12% at the end of 2027. With the Selic rate at this level, each percentage point of subsidy applied to R$ 525.1 billion has a considerable fiscal cost, and this arithmetic is what limits the size of the announcement, more than any discretionary decision.
The size of the sector being funded.
It's important to contextualize who receives this credit. The GDP of Brazilian agribusiness closed 2025 at R$3.20 trillion, with growth of 12.20% compared to 2024, according to Cepea, from Esalq/USP, in partnership with CNA. The sector's share of the national economy was 25.13% that year, above the 22.9% recorded in 2024.
In 2026, the picture changed. The agribusiness GDP fell by 2.01% in the first quarter, with declines in all segments: primary production (4.15%), inputs (2.15%), agricultural services (1.25%), and agro-industry (1.03%). With this result, the sector's estimated share of the Brazilian economy fell to 22.8% in 2026. Researchers attribute the contraction mainly to the expectation of a drop in the value of production, driven by prices that fell more than production increased.
The sector is being financed in a year of tight margins, not prosperity, which changes the interpretation of the importance of production credit this season.
The other agricultural policy: opening markets.
There is a part of the Ministry of Agriculture's actions that does not appear in the Harvest Plan and that can weigh heavily on both the price received by the producer and the interest rate, which is trade policy.
In August 2026, Minister André de Paula stated that Brazil had already secured 674 new markets for Brazilian products and projected surpassing 700 by the end of the year. In June, he had cited 642 markets opened in three and a half years of government and highlighted the conclusion of negotiations for the agreement between Mercosur and the European Union, after 26 years of discussions. Also in June, he mentioned the reciprocal recognition of Brazil as a foot-and-mouth disease-free zone without vaccination by China and Russia.
The economic effect is direct. Each open market reduces dependence on a single buyer, and an exporter who sells to five countries negotiates under different conditions than one who sells to only one. Sanitary status functions as an economic asset: a poorly managed case closes markets that took years to open, and the price per arroba (a unit of weight) responds in the same month. Therefore, the agricultural defense budget, which is usually the most silent item in the Ministry of Agriculture, should be interpreted as a pricing policy, not as an administrative expense.
What to watch out for going forward
2026 is an election year, and the economic agenda for agribusiness has entered the debate. Senator Tereza Cristina, former Minister of Agriculture, publicly advocated that the next government treat agribusiness as a state policy, guaranteeing predictability and legal security for the sector.
Behind this formulation lies a rather specific technical question: what happens to interest rate equalization, subsidies for rural insurance, and the agricultural defense structure in a potential government transition? Rural credit is contracted in crop cycles, and investments are amortized over years, so policy discontinuity in this environment translates into a direct cost for producers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is the Minister of Agriculture of Brazil? André de Paula heads the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Mapa).
How much is included in the 2026/2027 Harvest Plan? It includes R$525.1 billion for agribusiness, announced by the Ministry of Agriculture, plus R$97.3 billion for family farming, announced by the Ministry of Agrarian Development. The total reaches R$622.4 billion.
What is the difference between the Ministry of Agriculture (Mapa) and the Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA)? Mapa is responsible for agribusiness, agricultural defense, and market access. MDA is responsible for family farming, the National Program for Strengthening Family Farming (Pronaf), and land credit. Each has its own Crop Plan.
What is interest rate equalization in rural credit? It is the mechanism by which the National Treasury covers the difference between the cost of borrowing for banks and the subsidized rate charged to rural producers. The higher the Selic rate, the more expensive this becomes for the budget.
What is the agribusiness sector's share of Brazil's GDP? It was 25.131% in 2025, according to Cepea/CNA. For 2026, the estimate fell to 22.81%, considering the performance of the first quarter.
