Amazon Soy Moratorium
- The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
- Researchers Heilmayr et al., Nature Food: Deforestation in soy-suitable Amazon areas was 35% lower than the counterfactual over 2006-2016, about 18,000 km2 of forest was not cleared, and there was no significant leakage to cattle or the Cerrado, which remained a risk. UCSB Bren news (reporting Heilmayr et al., Nature Food)
- Researchers Rausch et al., Science (via Carbon Pulse): The end of the moratorium could cause at least 1.4 million hectares of additional deforestation over ten years. Carbon Pulse
- Press and investigations Mongabay (2026): Deforestation may rise by up to 30% as major traders exit the pact; modelling puts added loss at no less than 1.4 million hectares over ten years. Mongabay
A voluntary pact among soy traders, in force from 2006 and measured to have cut deforestation in soy-suitable Amazon areas by 35% over 2006-2016, ended in January 2026 when the traders left it, after a Mato Grosso state law took effect that allows tax incentives to be withdrawn from firms applying environmental criteria beyond the legal requirement.
Heilmayr et al., Nature Food, 2020: about 18,000 km² of forest not cleared. The traders left the moratorium in January 2026.
Status As of October 2026: the traders left the moratorium in January 2026; a Supremo majority voted in August 2026 to validate the moratorium while state laws penalising signatories were also upheld; CADE's proceedings are unresolved in the sources.
- Soy traders (members of Abiove: ADM, Bunge, Cargill, LDC) — According to Greenpeace Brasil, kept Mato Grosso tax incentives by leaving the moratorium. Greenpeace Brasil
- Aprosoja-MT — Sought R$1.1 billion in compensation for soy producers. Canal Rural
- Amazon forest — Projected additional loss of at least 1.4 million hectares over ten years if the moratorium ends. Carbon Pulse
- Companies and campaigners that relied on the pact as a market guarantee — A 20-year commitment ended. Band
What happened
The Amazon Soy Moratorium was a voluntary agreement among soy traders, in force from 2006, not to buy soy grown on newly cleared Amazon land. It was an agreement between companies, not a law. Abiove, a trade association whose members include ADM, Bunge, Cargill and LDC, was part of it. The traders had defended the pact at first; those who attacked it were the producers' lobby, the competition authority and a state tax law.
A 2020 study by Heilmayr and colleagues in Nature Food found that between 2006 and 2016 deforestation in soy-suitable Amazon areas was 35% lower than it would have been without the moratorium, with about 18,000 km² of forest not cleared. It found no significant leakage to the cattle sector or to the Cerrado savanna, though the Cerrado risk remained open. Amazon soy production rose from 4.9 million to 17.2 million tonnes over the same period.
In 2025 Brazil's competition authority CADE suspended the moratorium and opened proceedings against the traders, according to CNN Brasil. Aprosoja-MT, the Mato Grosso soy producers' association, sought compensation of R$1.1 billion, according to Canal Rural. A study cited by Reuters in July 2025, from the industry association that manages the moratorium, found that 98% of the farms the moratorium blocked had cleared land illegally. In September 2025 the retailers Tesco, Sainsbury's, Lidl and Aldi wrote to the traders urging them to defend the moratorium.
A Mato Grosso state law took effect on 1 January 2026. It allows the state to cut tax incentives for firms that apply environmental criteria beyond the legal requirement. Abiove began negotiating its withdrawal on 5 January 2026 and the traders left the moratorium in January 2026. Greenpeace Brasil said the traders left to keep their tax incentives; Greenpeace Brasil gave the incentives in Mato Grosso for 2019–24 as R$4.7 billion. WWF-Brasil also said the aim was to protect tax subsidies.
A majority of Brazil's Supreme Court (Supremo) voted in August 2026 to validate the moratorium, but the court also upheld state laws that penalise its signatories, according to Agência Brasil. A study by Rausch and colleagues in Science, reported by Carbon Pulse in 2026, estimated that the end of the moratorium could cause at least 1.4 million hectares of additional deforestation over ten years; Mongabay, in February 2026, cited modelling with the same minimum figure and reported that deforestation may rise by up to 30% as major traders exit the pact.
- 2006Amazon Soy Moratorium comes into force among soy traders; the Heilmayr study covers 2006-2016
- 2016Amazon soy production reaches 17.2 million tonnes, up from 4.9 million in 2006
- 2020Heilmayr et al. published in Nature Food
- 2025CADE suspends the moratorium and opens proceedings against the traders; Aprosoja-MT seeks R$1.1 billion; July: study cited by Reuters on the 98% of blocked farms; September: retailers write to the traders
- 20261 January: Mato Grosso law takes effect; 5 January: Abiove begins negotiating withdrawal; traders leave the moratorium; February: Mongabay reports modelling of at least 1.4 million hectares of added loss over ten years; August: Supremo majority votes to validate the moratorium and upholds state laws penalising signatories
What was said
Where accounts differ
Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.
Deforestation in soy-suitable Amazon areas was 35% lower than the counterfactual over 2006-2016, about 18,000 km2 of forest was not cleared, and there was no significant leakage to cattle or the Cerrado, which remained a risk.
UCSB Bren news (reporting Heilmayr et al., Nature Food)The end of the moratorium could cause at least 1.4 million hectares of additional deforestation over ten years.
Carbon PulseDeforestation may rise by up to 30% as major traders exit the pact; modelling puts added loss at no less than 1.4 million hectares over ten years.
MongabayThe traders left to keep Mato Grosso tax incentives, after a law took effect that removes tax benefits from firms with ambitious environmental commitments; it gave the incentives for 2019-24 as R$4.7 billion.
Greenpeace BrasilThe aim of the Mato Grosso tax law was to protect tax subsidies.
Abiove began negotiating its withdrawal on 5 January 2026; no statement of its reasons is on record in the sources reviewed.
BandWrote to the traders in September 2025 urging them to defend the moratorium.
Sought compensation of R$1.1 billion for losses to soy producers.
Canal RuralSuspended the moratorium and opened proceedings against the traders.
CNN BrasilA majority voted to validate the moratorium, while also upholding state laws that penalise its signatories.
Agência BrasilA study found that 98% of the farms it blocked had cleared land illegally.
Reuters (via The Poultry Site)How it looked
Shown
- A pact under which traders would not buy soy from newly cleared Amazon landSoy traders, through Abiove · UCSB Bren news (reporting Heilmayr et al., Nature Food)
Recorded
- Between 2006 and 2016 deforestation in soy-suitable Amazon areas was 35% lower than the counterfactual, with about 18,000 km² of forest not cleared and no significant leakage to the cattle sector or the Cerrado.
- Abiove began negotiating its withdrawal from the moratorium on 5 January 2026.
- Greenpeace Brasil reacted to Abiove's exit from the moratorium after a law that removes tax benefits from firms with ambitious environmental commitments took effect.
- Modelling cited by Mongabay: the end of the pact could add at least 1.4 million hectares of deforestation in ten years.
- A majority of the Supremo voted to validate the moratorium and the court also upheld state laws penalising signatories.
- For the Cerrado only companies' self-reported data and 'potential link' data were found; no independent measurement of the moratorium's effect there was located.
Who gained
Reached nature or the ground
Gained elsewhere
Responses on record
- abiove (2026-01-05): Began negotiating its withdrawal from the moratorium on 5 January 2026. · Band
- cade (2025): Suspended the moratorium and opened proceedings against the traders. · CNN Brasil
- aprosoja-mt (2025): Sought compensation of R$1.1 billion. · Canal Rural
- greenpeace-brasil (2026-01): Issued a statement reacting to Abiove's exit from the moratorium after the law removing tax benefits from companies with ambitious environmental commitments came into force. · Greenpeace Brasil
In court and with insurers
Lawsuits and rulings
- 2025–OngoingCADE proceedings against soy traders over the moratoriumCADE (Brazil's competition authority) · Administrative · CADE → Soy traders
CNN Brasil reported that CADE suspended the moratorium and opened proceedings against the traders. The outcome after 2026 is not known. CNN Brasil
- 2026-08Outcome not on recordSupremo review of the moratorium and Mato Grosso state lawsSupremo (Brazil's Supreme Court) · Regulatory · Not stated in the sources reviewed → Not stated in the sources reviewed
A majority of the court voted in August 2026 to validate the moratorium; the court also upheld state laws that penalise signatories. Whether the judgment is final is not stated. Agência Brasil
Insurers
What nature saw
Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.
What we don't know
Nature
- Disputed What did the moratorium achieve for the forest, and what follows its end?
Court
- Unclear Supremo review of the moratorium and Mato Grosso state laws: outcome not on record.
Figures
- Insufficient Public grants / subsidies: Mato Grosso tax incentives for the traders over 2019-24, per Greenpeace Brasil.
Accounts
- Disputed Why did the traders leave the moratorium?
- Disputed Was the moratorium lawful, and did it harm producers?
- None on record Abiove and the traders: Abiove began negotiating its withdrawal on 5 January 2026; no statement of its reasons is on record in the sources reviewed.
Record
- Not measured For the Cerrado only companies' self-reports and 'potential link' data were found; there is no independent measurement of the moratorium's effect there.
- None on record The outcome of CADE's proceedings after 2026 is not known.
- None on record The traders' and Abiove's own reasons for leaving the moratorium are not on record in the sources reviewed.
- Unclear Whether the Supremo judgment is final is not stated in the sources reviewed.
- Disputed The origin of the R$4.7 billion Mato Grosso incentive figure is given differently: Greenpeace Brasil gives it for 2019-24; another account attributes it to an unidentified source dated July 2025 and it is not independently verified.
- Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: CADE's decision was dated August 2025, accused the traders of forming a cartel, targeted about 30 traders and Abiove, and set the suspension to take effect on 1 January 2026 (only a secondary summary was available).
- Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: Aprosoja-MT called CADE's decision 'a turning point for free competition'.
- Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: within the Brazilian government the Environment Ministry and IBAMA defended the moratorium while the Agriculture Ministry opposed it.
- Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: a critique (Mongabay, March 2017) said that about 30% of soy expansion came with deforestation in the two years before the pact and about 1% after, but that much land had already been cleared by 2006, so soy could expand without felling forest; Gollnow and colleagues argue that leakage occurred through buyers that had made no commitment.
- Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: a 2015 measurement (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Gibbs et al., Science) putting the share of soy expansion associated with deforestation at about 30% before the pact and about 1% after.
- Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: Greenpeace's figure of an 86% reduction in 76 municipalities, against a counterfactual estimate of 35%.
- Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: the moratorium was formed after a 2006 Greenpeace campaign; the precise clearing cut-off date it used is not in the sources reviewed.
- Not measured No independent ecological evaluation of the period since the traders left was found; the forward-looking figure is a model estimate.
Did the harm stop?
The traders left the moratorium in January 2026, twenty years after it began. Land cleared during the pact period is not reversed by its end.
Who paid?
The Amazon forest, for which the projected additional loss is at least 1.4 million hectares over ten years; the traders kept the Mato Grosso tax incentives, according to Greenpeace Brasil.
Sources
Press and investigations
- Cade suspende moratória da soja e instaura processo contra tradingsCNN Brasil · 2025
- Prejuízo aos sojicultores: Aprosoja-MT pede R$ 1,1 bilhão de indenizaçãoCanal Rural · 2025
- Maioria do Supremo decide validar moratória da sojaAgência Brasil · 2026-08
- Brazil study links 98% of blocked soy farms to illegal clearingReuters (via The Poultry Site) · 2025-07-31
Communities and civil society
Researchers
- Decade-long Amazon soy moratorium in Brazil reduced deforestationUCSB Bren news (reporting Heilmayr et al., Nature Food) · 2020
Connected cases
- Brazil's top court rejects challenge to park cut for Ferrogrão railway Brazil · 2026
- Grain traders report 93–99% of Cerrado soy as deforestation-free Brazil · 2021–2025
- ADM (Company) — here: Soy trader; member of Abiove; there: linked to 2021 EU lobbying through trade associations
- Bunge (Company) — here: Soy trader; member of Abiove; there: named in monitoring of potentially linked losses; linked to 2021 EU lobbying through trade associations
- Cargill (Company) — here: Soy trader; member of Abiove; there: named in monitoring of potentially linked losses; linked to 2021 EU lobbying through trade associations
- ADM Decatur carbon storage site leaks about 8,000 tons, EPA finds United States · 2023–2024
- ADM (Company) — here: Soy trader; member of Abiove; there: operator of the Decatur storage site
- Cargill IBAMA fine (Brazil) Brazil · 2018
- Cargill (Company) — here: Soy trader; member of Abiove; there: Soy buyer fined (Cargill Agrícola); WWF-US corporate partner
- Cargill's Turkish factory kept operating despite court annulments Türkiye · 2000
- Cargill (Company) — here: Soy trader; member of Abiove; there: Operator of the Orhangazi factory
- Kariba REDD+ project (Zimbabwe) Zimbabwe · 2011–2025
- Lidl (Company) — here: Retailer that wrote to the traders; there: Credit buyer
- Killings alleged at Del Monte's pineapple farm in Thika, Kenya Kenya · 2023
- Tesco (Company) — here: Retailer that wrote to the traders; there: Supermarket reported to have halted orders
- Tesco fictional farm brands (UK) United Kingdom · 2016
- Tesco (Company) — here: Retailer that wrote to the traders; there: Retailer that launched the brands
- Turkish sugar law, starch-based sugar quota and 2018 sugar factory privatisation Turkey · 2001–2026
- Cargill (Company) — here: Soy trader; member of Abiove; there: Starch-based sugar producer; author of the 2018 privatisation scenario
- WWF-UK corporate income falls to GBP 10.6m as charity consults on 90 job cuts United Kingdom · 2024–2025
- Tesco (Company) — here: Retailer that wrote to the traders; there: Corporate partner whose partnership ended or was scaled back