Alice Thuault, executive director of Brazilian NGO Instituto Centro de Vida, describes a legislative attack on companies making extra efforts to rein in deforestation.
Using the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) as a pretext, Brazil’s mighty agricultural lobby has recently mounted an attack on a voluntary corporate agreement that, for almost two decades, has helped halt deforestation linked to soy. As the second-largest importer of Brazilian soy, the EU should encourage an EU-Brazil partnership that, in the immediate future, paves the way for EUDR implementation, and over time will preserve a liveable climate for future generations.
Brazilian NGO Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV) has just published a study revealing how grave a problem unauthorised forest clearances continue to be in Brazil’s forests and savannahs. But one measure has been largely successful in reining in destruction linked to soy, a commodity covered by the EUDR.
An effective initiative: Initially adopted in 2006, the Amazon Soy Moratorium (ASM) commits participating traders across the supply chain not to purchase soy from farms where land was deforested – legally or illegally – after the Moratorium’s cut-off date, July 2008. Importantly, the ASM fit into the domestic legislative logic of the time, beginning with the 1988 Federal Constitution that enshrines a balanced environment as a fundamental right, and the duty to defend and preserve it for future generations (Article 225). The cut-off date was based on Federal Decree nº6.514 of 2008 establishing sanctions for environmental misconduct, and is in keeping with the Forest Code.
The ASM has been effective in halting new deforestation for soy. Scientific studies confirmed that, prior to the agreement, 30% of the expansion for soy was at the expense of native vegetation; after the ASM, this dropped to close to 1%.1 Importantly, the ASM did not destroy trade or halt soy expansion, which grew from 1.64 million hectares in 2007-2008, to 7.28 million hectares in 2022-2023; rather, it spurred better use of areas already cleared and of under-used pastures.
Managed collectively among traders and civil society with a specific governance ensuring that the agreement is monitored year after year, the ASM is not an imposition on the public purse. On a practical level, the Moratorium’s elements could help prepare for EUDR implementation; e.g., it has almost two decades of experience tracking soy back to farm level, ironing the kinks out of traceability systems for the EUDR.
Mounting a legislative attack: Although this initiative has functioned domestically for 16 years, a strong agricultural lobby in the State of Mato Grosso – where, ICV has revealed, roughly 81.9% of deforestation is non-authorised – seized the opportunity of discussions surrounding the EUDR to stoke right-wing resentment about ‘requirements imposed from Europe’, and to instigate a backlash targeting the ASM in the State of Mato Grosso’s Legislative Assembly.
In October 2024, the Governor of Mato Grosso signed a law (12709/2024) that withdraws the fiscal incentives extended to companies adhering to agreements to halt deforestation, dealing a financial blow to those companies willing to take extra measures to protect the environment.
“This law actively punishes companies willing to take on greater obligations in the public interest,” says Alice Thuault. “We are not talking about new obligations being imposed by the EUDR – similar obligations existed under national rules since the implementation of the Forest Code in 1965. Rather we are talking about a new excuse for dismantling protections that have been fundamental to reducing deforestation and preserving biodiversity.”
Nor are we talking about the EUDR potential impact on smallholders, Thuault explains. “The agricultural holdings mounting the pressure are massive companies, savvy in the functioning of global markets. Rather, they have likely compared the original ASM deforestation cut-off date 2008, to the 2020 EUDR date, and made a calculation in favour of the EU’s less stringent date to exploit the opportunity to sell soy from farms blocked under the ASM.”
Today, the lobby is campaigning to ensure that the backlash spreads: similar rules are being negotiated in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies and state legislative assemblies. The State of Rondônia has already approved a similar law, and parallel proposals exist in other states, and are before the National Congress.
What next? Brazil’s Supreme Federal tribunal is currently examining the constitutionality of such a measure and has issued an interim suspension of the legislation’s effective implementation. More than 70 civil society organisations, including Instituto Centro de Vida, signed a Manifesto to defend the soy moratorium; while awaiting judicial decisions that can change everything, NGOs have developed a strategy in response. A group of NGOs, including the ICV, has acted as amicus curiae (friends of the court) to provide information officially.
But uncertainty is bad for business. Faced with the threat of retribution for acting responsibly, many companies are quietly backing away from their environmental commitments so as to not lose tax reductions.
The world is rushing towards irrevocable climate change and biodiversity collapse. To invest energy and money campaigning to dismantle an initiative that has functioned well for years, as opposed to investing in genuine solutions, pushes the envelope of irresponsibility. Legislatures should not allow themselves to be used to postpone solutions needed now, and public officials on both sides of the Atlantic should build dialogue and alliances that will help them withstand commercial pressures, and to ensure that they can uphold their duties to broader public interests.
1 Gibbs, H. K., et al. ‘Brazil’s Soy Moratorium.’ Science 347.6220 (2015): 377-378
Go back to the main page Sign up for Forest Watch
Image: Markus Mauthe/Greenpeace
Categories: News, Forest Watch, Partner Voices, EU Regulation on deforestation-free products