In a significant development, the state of Mato Grosso in Brazil, the largest soybean-producing state in the country, recently passed a law that effectively ends incentives for companies participating in the Soy Moratorium. The Soy Moratorium, established in 2006 following a Greenpeace investigation, aimed to prevent the purchase of soy produced in illegally deforested areas after 2008 by major commodities companies like Cargill, Bunge, and ADM.
Studies have shown that the Soy Moratorium, in conjunction with public policies, played a crucial role in reducing deforestation in the Amazon. A 2020 study published in Nature Food highlighted the significant impact of the agreement on preserving the Amazon between 2003 and 2016.
The new legislation in Mato Grosso, supported by soybean producers and lawmakers, revokes tax benefits for companies participating in agreements that restrict agricultural expansion into legally deforested areas. The law, signed by Governor Mauro Mendes, is set to take effect on January 1, 2025, pending regulations.
Under the new law, only soy produced from illegally deforested areas on a farm will be prohibited from sale. This contrasts with the moratorium, which bans the sale of crops from any post-2008 deforestation, regardless of legality.
While supporters of the law argue that the moratorium's restrictions are stricter than Brazilian legislation, critics, including environmental nonprofits and industry associations, view the new law as a setback. The Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (Abiove) expressed concerns over the law's impact on sustainability commitments and market demands for deforestation-free products.
The law has sparked debate within the Brazilian government, with conflicting views on its implications for environmental protection and sustainable development goals. While some officials support the law as addressing producer concerns, others raise constitutional and policy-related objections.
As Brazil aims for zero deforestation by 2030, the implications of Mato Grosso's decision on the Amazon's conservation efforts remain a subject of contention and scrutiny.
