Amazon: the battle over soy cultivation in Brazil
Environment — di Andrea Barolini
A moratorium has protected the Amazon from soy cultivation for years, but it is now the subject of a legal battle.
Amazon: the battle over soy cultivation in Brazil
A moratorium has protected the Amazon from soy cultivation for years, but it is now the subject of a legal battle.
The Brazilian Amazon is the battleground of a fight waged through rulings and appeals. On 18 August, one of the most important measures for protecting the rainforest — the moratorium on soy cultivation — was suspended by the authorities of the South American nation. The decision was taken, specifically, by the Administrative Council for Economic Defence (Cade). The news immediately caused surprise and alarm, as it had the potential to open the door to the deforestation of an area the size of Portugal by agribusiness industries.
The risk of deforestation of an area the size of Portugal in the Amazon
The news also came less than three months before the thirtieth United Nations world climate conference, COP30, which will be held in Brazil itself, in Belém, this coming November. A decidedly negative signal at a time when the nation led by Lula is seeking to act as a bridge to build international consensus in the fight against global warming.
Brazil's 'soy moratorium' site offline after antitrust ruling setback reut.rs/3UB4crS reut.rs/3UB4crS
The issue is fundamental when one considers that Brazil remains to this day the world's largest soy exporter: a herbaceous plant used primarily to feed livestock and fish, but whose cultivation underlies an enormous share of deforestation. For this reason, in 2006 work began on a moratorium within the Amazon region.
Major industrial players also signed up to the moratorium: 17,000 square kilometres of forest saved
Starting two years later (from 22 July 2008), numerous large agricultural companies — including giants such as Cargill, Bunge and Louis Dreyfus — agreed to stop producing soy in the area where the forest stands. A victory not only for the defence of the Amazon, but also confirmation that it is possible to work together even when interests are significantly different, if not opposed.
It is no coincidence that the moratorium is considered a success: in the 19 years since then, it has on the one hand helped avert devastating deforestation, and on the other has allowed numerous companies to improve their reputation. It is estimated that around 17,000 square kilometres of forest have been saved. Between 2009 and 2022, moreover, deforestation fell by 69 per cent in areas covered by the moratorium.
A federal court reinstated the moratorium after just a few days, but a cultural problem remains
Fortunately, just a few days later, on 25 August, following the abrupt suspension, a federal court in Brazil ordered the reinstatement of the agreement. Technically, Cade — which operates as an antitrust body in Brazil — had argued that the halt to production "harms free competition". It had therefore ordered companies to withdraw from the agreement within ten days, otherwise sanctions would be imposed.
Brazil judge grants injunction against soy moratorium suspension reut.rs/45QlTZD reut.rs/45QlTZD
The judges' decision was welcomed with satisfaction by Greenpeace Brazil, which spoke of "relief" at the prospect of "dismantling such an effective agreement". The most extraordinary aspect is that the appeal had been brought by the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries, a body closely aligned with producers' interests. The court ruled in its favour, stressing that the suspension had failed to take into account all the relevant technical and legal issues, and that it would have interfered with national environmental policies.
An important victory, then, but the legal battle may not be over. And, in any case, it reveals how much ground still needs to be fought on another front: the cultural one. Placing a hypothetical guarantee of free competition above the need to protect one of the most important places on earth for mitigating global warming and defending biodiversity shows just how poorly the gravity of the climate crisis is still understood.