agosto, 14 2026

By WWF-Brazil

The recognition of the constitutionality of the Soy Moratorium by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) is an important victory for the protection of the Amazon and for the zero deforestation agenda. The decision, concluded on Wednesday (12), reinforces the legitimacy of an agreement that for 20 years has contributed to dissociating soy production from deforestation in the Amazon and recognizes the autonomy of companies to establish voluntary environmental commitments that are stricter than the minimum provided for in the legislation. 

The result of the judgment of Direct Unconstitutionality Actions (ADIs) 7774 and 7775, however, also highlights an important tension from an environmental point of view. Although it recognized the validity of the Soy Moratorium, the STF upheld provisions of state laws in Mato Grosso and Rondônia that restrict access to tax incentives and other benefits by companies that participate in environmental agreements that are stricter than the requirements provided for in the legislation. In practice, these measures can discourage companies from adhering to and remaining in zero deforestation commitments and affect not only the soy supply chain, but also other agricultural products exposed to deforestation. 

For WWF-Brazil, the judgment must be understood from these two dimensions. On the one hand, it represents an important legal achievement by recognizing the constitutionality and legitimacy of the Amazon Soy Moratorium as a voluntary environmental pact and by removing challenges based on its alleged illegality. On the other hand, it maintains valid state legislative choices that can impose economic consequences on companies precisely because they adopt more ambitious environmental criteria, creating concrete obstacles to the continuity of the Moratorium, deforestation and conversion free (DCF) actions, and similar initiatives.

Supreme Court recognizes the validity of the Amazon Soy Moratorium

By majority, the STF recognized the compatibility of the Amazon Soy Moratorium with the Constitution and the legitimacy of companies to establish voluntary environmental commitments and standards in their commercial relations. The decision comes in the year that the Moratorium completes 20 years. 

The Court also ordered the closure of judicial and administrative proceedings that are based, directly or indirectly, on the alleged illegality or unconstitutionality of the Moratorium.  In practice, the decision extinguishes lawsuits in lower courts with claims for compensation to producers allegedly harmed by the agreement and determines the closure of the proceeding at the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE, Brazil’s antitrust agency) that investigated the possible formation of a cartel related to the Moratorium. 

The judgment, therefore, rejects one of the main arguments used against the Moratorium in recent years: that the commitment would be illegal or would constitute an anticompetitive practice. The recognition of its constitutionality reinforces the autonomy of the private sector to enter into agreements and assume environmental commitments that go beyond the minimum obligations established by legislation. 

During the trial, Minister Edson Fachin also cited, in his vote, the scientific article The rise and fall of the Amazon Soy Moratorium, published in the journal Science and whose authors include Tiago Reis, a conservation specialist at WWF-Brazil. The study analyzes the environmental and economic effects of the Moratorium and points out that the agreement contributed to containing deforestation associated with the expansion of soy in the Amazon without impeding the growth of production in the biome.

Created in 2006, the Soy Moratorium established criteria for signatory companies not to purchase or finance soy produced in deforested areas in the Amazon after the cut-off date established by the agreement. Over two decades, it has become an important tool to reduce the pressure of soy expansion on the forest, avoiding approximately 1.8 million hectares of forest loss and demonstrating that it is possible to expand production without reproducing the same expansion trajectory over new areas of native vegetation.

State decisions penalize companies that choose to go beyond environmental legislation

Despite the decision in favor of the constitutionality of the Moratorium, the STF upheld provisions of the legislation of Mato Grosso and Rondônia that establish restrictions on tax incentives and the concession of public land to companies that participate in agreements or assume stricter environmental commitments than Brazilian legislation. 

For WWF-Brazil, the fact that these measures have been considered constitutional does not eliminate the need to question the political choice made by the states when adopting them. Instead of encouraging companies that voluntarily take responsibility for eliminating deforestation and the conversion of native vegetation from their chains, these legislations create negative economic consequences precisely for those who decide to do more than the minimum required by law. 

In a scenario of climate emergency and accelerated loss of biodiversity, this choice goes against the efforts needed to make Brazilian agricultural production more responsible and aligned with society's demands for deforestation and conversion-free supply chains. By penalizing more ambitious environmental commitments, policies of this nature reinforce an outdated vision of agricultural development, which treats environmental protection as an obstacle, and not as a condition for the future of the sector. 

The result of the trial, therefore, combines a relevant legal advance with a challenge that remains in the political field. The recognition of the constitutionality of the Moratorium, by itself, does not ensure the continuity and strengthening of this type of agreement if state governments maintain policies that make it economically disadvantageous for companies to assume additional commitments to environmental protection. In practice, these measures may discourage companies from remaining in the Moratorium and the creation of new sectoral agreements aimed at deforestation and zero conversion. 

In a scenario of climate emergency and accelerated loss of biodiversity, public policies and economic instruments should move in the opposite direction: recognize, stimulate and expand initiatives capable of removing deforestation and the conversion of native vegetation from production value chains, especially those under the responsibility of the private sector. The protection provided for in environmental legislation should be understood as a minimum threshold, and not as a limit for the performance of companies that wish to make more ambitious commitments. The existence of public environmental protection rules should not prevent private agents from adopting additional safeguards or result in unfavorable treatment of those who voluntarily raise their socio-environmental standards. 

The recognition of the constitutionality of the Moratorium by the STF is, therefore, an important achievement. At the same time, the maintenance of the policies adopted by states such as Mato Grosso and Rondônia reinforces the need to advance public policies that value, rather than penalize, companies that make additional commitments to the protection of nature. 

WWF-Brazil will continue to work to preserve and strengthen the Amazon Soy Moratorium and other deforestation and zero conversion commitments, and so that public policies and economic instruments contribute to responsible production, free of deforestation and conversion, and compatible with the challenges imposed by the climate and biodiversity loss crises.