Press release by WWF-Brazil
The announcement made this Monday, January 5, by ABIOVE (the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries) that its member companies will leave the Soy Moratorium and stop honoring the commitment not to purchase soy originating from deforested areas in the Amazon represents a serious and unjustifiable setback for the private sector and for Brazil.
The decision by these companies weakens one of the most effective instruments to combat deforestation in the country and exposes agribusiness itself to growing risks by compromising the integrity of forests on which climate stability and rainfall regimes essential to agricultural production depend.
It is essential to clarify that the Soy Moratorium was not terminated by legal imposition: it still exists but has been deliberately hollowed out by the voluntary decision of companies to withdraw, despite having full legal ability to remain. In doing so, these companies chose to distance themselves from a solution widely recognized internationally as a benchmark in the climate agenda and signaled a willingness to prioritize access to tax incentives funded with public resources, to the detriment of confronting deforestation and assuming responsibility in the face of the climate crisis.
The companies’ exit occurs under the validity of State Law No. 12,709/2024 of Mato Grosso, currently challenged through a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality before the Federal Supreme Court. The rule sets criteria for granting tax and asset incentives and explicitly authorizes restricting these benefits to companies that adhere to private commitments such as the Soy Moratorium. This provision institutionalizes legal uncertainty, undermines regulatory predictability, and penalizes voluntary socio-environmental responsibility initiatives, producing a dissuasive effect on more advanced corporate sustainability practices.
After 18 years in force, the Soy Moratorium has become the most effective multisectoral agreement to decouple the expansion of soy cultivation from deforestation in the Amazon. Since 2008, only 2.1% of deforestation recorded in monitored municipalities resulted in soy planting, according to ABIOVE data, and more than 13,000 km² of forest were preserved thanks to the agreement. Between 2009 and 2022, deforestation in these municipalities fell by 69%, while the area planted with soy in the biome grew by 344%, unequivocally demonstrating that the moratorium did not limit agricultural production, but rather guided its expansion responsibly.
Between 2007 and 2022, the area cultivated with soy in the Amazon increased by 1.64 million hectares, but only about 250,000 hectares occupied areas deforested after 2008. These figures show that the Soy Moratorium directed sector growth toward already-cleared areas, protecting native vegetation and reducing environmental, climate, and reputational risks for Brazil.
Data from PRODES, released in November 2025, show that Mato Grosso was the only state in the Legal Amazon to record an increase in deforestation in the recent period. The entry into force of rules that weaken environmental safeguards tends to further intensify pressure on forest areas, increasing the risk of conversion of native vegetation at a time when the Amazon has already surpassed critical resilience thresholds.
WWF-Brazil highlights that the Soy Moratorium constitutes a robust and proven model of socio-environmental governance, supported by independent monitoring, periodic audits, traceability, and multisectoral participation. Between 2006 and 2014, even in the face of significant expansion of planted area, only 0.88% of deforestation recorded in the period was associated with soy cultivation, unequivocally demonstrating the effectiveness of the agreement as a deforestation control instrument.
The conservation of the Amazon must occupy a central place in the strategy of any sector that aims to align with sustainable development and the country’s long-term competitiveness. By distancing themselves from the Soy Moratorium, these companies project to Brazil and the international community a clear message of institutional and environmental rollback, starkly misaligned with growing global market demands for verifiable zero-deforestation commitments and with the need for the country to reaffirm climate ambition, regulatory coherence, and environmental leadership.
Photo: Mark Stebnicki on Pexels
