Amazon at Risk: Soya Moratorium Faces Legal Challenge as Cultivation Moves North

Legal uncertainty over soya pact threatens hard-won gains against Amazon deforestation

Since 2007 Marcelo Salazar has lived in Altamira, Pará — an Amazonian municipality about the size of Florida that for years led Brazil in clearing forest. Deforestation there is driven by land grabbing, cattle ranching, mining, hydroelectric dams and major infrastructure projects. Now, Salazar and other local activists warn of a new pressure: the northward advance of soya cultivation from Mato Grosso, one of Brazil's largest soy-producing states.

A central reason for that spread is a legal and market dispute over the soya moratorium, a voluntary pact struck in 2006 by soya traders, NGOs and Brazilian agencies. Under the agreement traders committed not to buy soy planted on land cleared after 2008. An extensive monitoring system, including satellite imagery, was created to trace origins and detect recent clearing.

What changed and why it matters

At the end of August Brazil's competition authority, CADE, opened an inquiry suggesting the moratorium may operate like a cartel. The announcement created de facto uncertainty about enforcement; a judge briefly lifted the resulting suspension, CADE agreed to delay enforcement, and on November 6 Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino ordered CADE's investigation paused until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling scheduled between November 14 and 25. That legal limbo is already altering behavior on the ground in places such as Altamira.

'Soya doesn't usually cause the initial clearing,' says Salazar. 'Investors buy land previously cleared by others, such as cattle ranchers, and sellers move on to clear new plots. Even lawful soya cultivation raises land prices and fuels a destructive cycle.'

Researchers and environmental groups say the moratorium has been one of the few market tools that measurably slowed Amazon deforestation. Holly Gibbs of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, co-author of a 2020 Nature Food study, notes that the share of soy coming from recently cleared forest dropped from roughly 30% before the moratorium to less than 1% afterwards.

Soya is a high-value land use: revenue per hectare from soy farming typically far exceeds returns from cattle. That price premium historically made deforestation profitable — land could be cleared and later sold to soy farmers at a premium. By denying a market for soy grown on recently cleared forest, the moratorium reversed that incentive.

Opposition, enforcement gaps and international rules

Critics argue the moratorium adds an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of Brazilian law, which already restricts deforestation in the Amazon. Groups such as Aprosoja Mato Grosso say the private pact lacks legal backing and harms small and medium-sized farmers. Proponents counter that enforcement of Brazilian environmental law is often weak, and market measures are needed to compel compliance.

The dispute has an international dimension. The European Union is introducing the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which bars imports of certain commodities from land deforested after 2020. That 2020 cut-off does not match the moratorium's 2008 date, and experts warn the mismatch could create a loophole large enough to open extensive areas to soy expansion that had previously been constrained by the moratorium.

Politics and possible outcomes

The push to weaken or overturn the moratorium reflects Brazil's fractured politics. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has pledged to curb deforestation, but his coalition includes rural and agribusiness interests less inclined toward strict environmental measures. Ministries within the federal government also disagree: environment officials support the moratorium, agricultural authorities oppose it, and finance officials worry about trade effects.

In the state of Mato Grosso, governor Mauro Mendes issued a decree threatening to withdraw tax incentives from traders that adhere to the moratorium, and Aprosoja Mato Grosso has filed lawsuits seeking compensation from traders for alleged losses tied to the pact. If these measures succeed, private-sector support for the moratorium could weaken, removing a sector-wide mechanism that makes sustainable sourcing enforceable across the industry.

Even if the moratorium were annulled, buyers in major markets such as the EU are unlikely to accept soy grown on newly deforested land because of the EUDR and reputational risks. Still, the loss of a coordinated sector agreement would shift responsibility back to individual companies, making consistent, economy-wide safeguards harder to maintain.

Local stakes and a broader warning

Back in Altamira, residents worry that the moratorium's collapse would accelerate indirect deforestation by increasing land prices and encouraging speculative clearing. 'We should be moving in the opposite direction,' Salazar says. 'Protecting the Amazon and promoting alternatives like sustainable agroforestry are the solutions. Instead we face agri-business expansion and large-scale clearing.'

The case exposes how fragile market-based environmental protections can be when they collide with legal challenges and political pressure. The outcome of the Supreme Court review and related legal battles will shape whether the moratorium remains a model of private-sector responsibility or becomes a cautionary tale about the limits of voluntary agreements.