Buenos Aires, April 2 (NA) – Hugo Biolcati, the agricultural producer who died this April 2, was one of the most prominent media and political figures of the Argentine Rural Society (SRA) due to his role during Resolution 125. This resolution established mobile export duties on soy and sunflower, and his marked opposition to Kirchnerism. Between 2008 and 2012, he presided over the SRA, a period that coincided with the first term and the first half of the second term of former President Cristina Kirchner. Their relationship was one of marked confrontation, as Biolcati criticized the economic model of the then-national officialism, which he described as an 'anti-field' government. In this context, the head of the Rural Society was a key figure in the Liaison Table (Mesa de Enlace) alongside his predecessor Luciano Miguens (SRA), Mario Llambías (CRA), Eduardo Buzzi (FAA), and Fernando Gioino (Coninagro). They discussed Resolution 125/2008, which sought to increase fiscal revenue if international prices rose. This situation led to a 129-day strike by the agricultural sector, in which Biolcati was one of the main protagonists and spokesmen of the conflict. The Cristina Kirchner government aimed to 'redistribute wealth' in the face of rising international grain prices and 'decouple' domestic prices. However, the agricultural sector considered the measure 'confiscatory' and a 'brake on investment', as the rates increased with the higher price of the grain. After the social, political, and media tension, the measure was sent to the National Congress, and on July 17, 2008, the Senate vote was tied: Vice President Julio Cobos voted against it with a phrase that went down in parliamentary history, leading to the repeal of the resolution: 'My vote is a NO,' he stated. Biolcati's firm stance against the Kirchnerist management, added to his active and constant defense of the interests of producers, positioned him as a fundamental leader in the union defense of agriculture and in the articulation of the entities that bring together the rural sector during those years. He was not only a leading voice during the four months of conflict but was also considered one of the most influential and beloved leaders of the field.
