Brasília, August 18, 2026.
The Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), the national organization representing Indigenous organizations from all regions of the country, calls on the international community to pay close attention to the escalating threats facing the territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples in Brazil.
On August 12, the Federal Supreme Court (STF), Brazil’s highest judicial authority, concluded its review of the constitutionality of the Soy Moratorium, a voluntary multi-stakeholder agreement involving private companies, civil society organizations, and public institutions that prohibits the purchase of soy produced on areas of the Amazon deforested after July 2008.
The agreement establishes environmental safeguards that go beyond the requirements of Brazil’s Forest Code. While Brazilian legislation still allows private landowners in the Amazon biome to clear up to 20% of native vegetation under specific legal conditions, the Soy Moratorium adopts a zero-deforestation approach. In practice, participating companies voluntarily commit to standards that exceed the minimum legal requirements established under domestic legislation.
The agreement is also aligned with broader international efforts to eliminate deforestation from global supply chains, including the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which restricts the commercialization of commodities such as soy, cattle products, and timber originating from areas deforested after December 2020. However, the Soy Moratorium adopts a more ambitious cut-off date by prohibiting the commercialization of soy associated with deforestation occurring after 2008.
The Soy Moratorium has become one of the most significant private-sector initiatives complementing public policies aimed at combating deforestation while maintaining agricultural productivity. According to MapBiomas, the area dedicated to soy cultivation in the Amazon increased from 1.6 million hectares in 2008 to 5.8 million hectares in 2023.
Since its implementation in 2006, the mechanism has contributed to a 344% increase in soy production in the Amazon while deforestation in the biome declined by 69% between 2009 and 2022, according to Greenpeace Brazil. These figures demonstrate that increased productivity can occur without expanding agricultural activities into new forest areas.
The agreement also established a monitoring system covering 124 municipalities in the states of Mato Grosso, Pará, Rondônia, Roraima, and Maranhão, which account for a significant share of Brazil’s soy production. By encouraging producers to expand cultivation into previously converted areas, including degraded pasturelands, the agreement has reduced pressure to clear additional areas of native forest.
Despite these positive outcomes, the Soy Moratorium has been the target of increasing political and economic pressure from sectors of the agribusiness industry.
Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) initiated administrative proceedings against companies and associations participating in the agreement, arguing that it could constitute an anti-competitive arrangement that negatively affected the commercialization of Brazilian soy. Those proceedings were subsequently suspended while the STF examined the validity of the agreement.
At the same time, the states of Rondônia and Mato Grosso approved legislation removing tax incentives from companies that voluntarily adopt environmental commitments that exceed Brazilian legal requirements. These measures directly affect the Soy Moratorium and other voluntary environmental agreements designed to preserve forests and biodiversity.
The National Congress has also witnessed repeated attempts by agribusiness representatives to weaken or dismantle the agreement. In practical terms, the Soy Moratorium has functioned as one of the main barriers against the expansion of deforestation in the Amazon. Weakening the agreement creates new incentives for forest conversion and land speculation.
In an important decision, the STF confirmed the constitutionality of the Soy Moratorium and rejected allegations that the agreement violated Brazilian competition law. By a six-to-three majority, the Court recognized that voluntary commitments established by private entities do not conflict with the Brazilian Forest Code.
APIB considers this decision essential for preserving not only the Soy Moratorium but also other voluntary environmental initiatives that contribute to climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation.
However, the decision also included a troubling development. The Court upheld the constitutionality of state laws that effectively penalize companies choosing to adopt environmental standards that are more ambitious than those required by law.
This ruling establishes a dangerous precedent by creating fiscal advantages for companies that merely comply with minimum legal obligations while indirectly discouraging those willing to adopt stronger environmental commitments.
These state laws are incompatible with fundamental principles of Brazilian environmental law, including the constitutional duty to protect the environment, the precautionary principle, and the principle of prevention established under Article 225 of the Brazilian Constitution. They are also inconsistent with the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights and with internationally recognized principles of climate justice.
Instead of encouraging companies to adopt more sustainable practices and stronger environmental, social, and governance (ESG) commitments, public authorities are creating disincentives for those seeking to go beyond legal minimum standards.
From both political and economic perspectives, this decision substantially weakens the Soy Moratorium and reduces incentives for other companies and industry associations to adopt similar voluntary initiatives aimed at protecting forests, biodiversity, and the climate.
One of the clearest examples of this trend can be observed in recent changes adopted by multinational corporations operating in Brazil. Cargill, for example, modified its sustainability commitments and no longer applies the 2008 cut-off established by the Soy Moratorium, instead adopting a zero-deforestation policy aligned with the 2020 threshold established under the EUDR.
In practice, this change undermines one of the agreement’s central safeguards by allowing the commercialization of soy produced on lands deforested between 2008 and 2020.
Furthermore, investigations have already documented repeated failures in the implementation of the agreement. Reports have identified cases in which major companies, including signatories to the Soy Moratorium, purchased soy originating from embargoed areas through practices designed to conceal the product’s true origin, a process commonly referred to as “soy laundering.”
The current political and legal environment creates conditions that could further weaken monitoring mechanisms and increase the risk of non-compliance.
APIB is deeply concerned about the gradual dismantling of the Soy Moratorium as a corporate environmental commitment.
Regardless of whether participation in the agreement remains voluntary, public policies should never discourage stronger environmental protection measures. Laws that undermine initiatives promoting higher conservation standards are incompatible with the principles that govern Brazilian environmental law.
At a time marked by accelerating climate change, increasing pressure on tropical ecosystems, and significant setbacks in environmental protection, indirectly penalizing actors that voluntarily adopt more ambitious conservation measures represents a serious social and environmental setback.
The expansion of deforestation directly threatens Indigenous Peoples, who continue to experience violence, forced displacement, land grabbing, and violations of their territorial rights driven by agricultural expansion.
Weakening Indigenous territorial rights facilitates the advancement of land grabbing, illegal resource extraction, and environmental degradation.
There can be no effective response to the climate crisis without Indigenous Peoples.
There can be no protection of biodiversity without securing Indigenous territories.
And there can be no meaningful democracy while the constitutional rights of Indigenous Peoples remain vulnerable to political and legal setbacks.
The international community cannot treat these developments as a purely domestic matter.
Brazil has both constitutional and international obligations to protect Indigenous Peoples and their territories. Public policies that contribute to deforestation and biodiversity loss cannot be normalized.
The Indigenous movement in Brazil will continue to respond through advocacy, mobilization, and resistance in defense of Brazilian biomes, the promotion of zero deforestation, and the strengthening of the Soy Moratorium and other trade agreements that contribute to addressing the climate crisis.
Nothing about us without us.
Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB)