STF Backs Laws That Weaken Soy Moratorium

What Did the STF Actually Decide?

Brazil's Supreme Court (STF) ruled that state laws in Mato Grosso and Rondônia — which ban tax incentives and public land grants for companies participating in the Soy Moratorium — are partially constitutional. At the same time, the Court formally recognized the Soy Moratorium itself as constitutional and ordered the dismissal of legal and administrative proceedings that challenged the agreement's legality.

What Is the Soy Moratorium?

The Soy Moratorium is a voluntary industry agreement created in 2006. Signatory companies commit not to trade soy grown on land deforested in the Amazon after July 2008. In return, they receive tax exemptions, preferential credit access, and in some cases public land for production.

Why Are Environmentalists Alarmed?

Greenpeace Brazil's Zero Deforestation coordinator, Cristiane Mazzetti, warned that upholding these state laws could reverse recent progress on Amazon deforestation in the medium term. She argued the laws discourage private-sector participation in current and future zero-deforestation commitments, making it harder for Brazil to meet its climate targets.

Greenpeace Brazil's legal manager, Angela Barbarulo, called the decision contradictory — legitimizing laws that weaken an agreement the Court simultaneously declared constitutional.

What Is the Financial and Environmental Stake?

The ruling specifies that any withdrawal or reduction of incentives can only take effect in the following tax year, or after 90 days in special cases. Since similar state laws came into force, key industry players have already left the moratorium. In January of this year, the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (Abiove) withdrew from the agreement. A study published in the journal Science estimated that if the Soy Moratorium were abolished, an additional 1.4 million hectares of Amazon forest could be lost over the next ten years.