Leading British and European retailers are attempting to preserve the fundamental principles of the Amazon soy moratorium, following the collapse of what was once considered the world's most effective forest protection agreement. This landmark deal has been dismantled by Brazilian lawmakers and subsequently abandoned by international commodity traders, creating a significant environmental crisis.
Retailers Issue Urgent Warning to Global Soy Traders
In a strongly worded open letter, prominent high street brands including Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Lidl, Aldi, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer, and the Co-op have expressed grave concerns about the recent breakdown of the twenty-year-old agreement. They warn that this development threatens to severely damage consumer confidence in both Brazilian agricultural products and the shipping companies involved, unless new robust arrangements are swiftly implemented to guarantee that grain production remains completely disconnected from deforestation activities.
The letter is specifically addressed to the major global soy traders: Cargill of the United States, Bunge and Louis Dreyfuss of Brazil, and the Chinese state-owned firm Cofco. These corporations are all members of the Brazilian soy producers' association Abiove, which has recently removed its endorsement from the official soy moratorium website, effectively withdrawing its support.
Potential Environmental Catastrophe Looms
Without the continued participation of these key stakeholders, conservation groups are sounding the alarm about a potential free-for-all race to clear land within the precious Amazon biome. This comes despite urgent scientific warnings that the destruction of the world's largest tropical rainforest is rapidly approaching an irreversible tipping point. Supporters of the moratorium have cautioned that its abandonment could potentially open up an area for deforestation comparable in size to Portugal, unless alternative protective measures are urgently established.
The retailers' letter states clearly: "We are deeply disappointed to see that Abiove, and your company, has now voluntarily withdrawn from the moratorium. Stepping back risks weakening existing deterrents to deforestation, undermines future efforts to develop collaborative protection agreements, and threatens efforts to secure the sustainability of your investments in Brazilian soy production in the face of accelerated climate change."
Historical Context and Current Commitments
Soy represents one of Brazil's most extensively cultivated crops and historically posed a massive deforestation threat to the Amazon rainforest. This continued until 2006, when stakeholders voluntarily agreed to impose the moratorium, committing to no longer source soy from newly deforested regions. The agreement established that any detection of soybeans planted on areas cleared after 2008 would result in the farm being completely blocked from supply chains, regardless of whether the land clearance was technically legal under Brazilian law. Over the subsequent two decades, this mechanism is estimated to have prevented approximately 17,000 square kilometres of deforestation.
The participating retailers have affirmed they will continue to apply this crucial principle—not sourcing grain from Amazon land cleared after 2008. They are urgently calling upon traders and producers to clarify whether they still adhere to previous climate and environmental commitments and whether they can provide concrete assurances regarding the reporting, monitoring, and verification of their supply chains.
Political Pressure and Corporate Retreat
In recent years, the moratorium has faced intense opposition from Brazil's powerful agribusiness lobby, particularly within the soy-producing heartland of Mato Grosso. State legislators there revoked tax incentives for companies participating in the agreement. Furthermore, Brazil has threatened to penalise grain traders for their involvement in the moratorium, arguing it involves the sharing of commercially sensitive information among competitors, which allegedly poses monopoly risks.
However, analysts suggest this justification may be superficial, as Mato Grosso's subsidies were relatively modest. The administrative council indicated that traders could have independently continued to apply the 2008 cutoff date. Despite this, the firms chose to withdraw from this globally significant environmental agreement, aligning with a broader trend of major corporations, often led by US interests, reneging on commitments to environmental and social governance.
Seeking Alternatives Amid Supply Chain Uncertainty
Europe consumes roughly ten percent of the world's soybean production. In their correspondence, the retailers emphasise the necessity of finding a viable substitute for the moratorium to avoid both supply chain instability and a potential consumer backlash. Will Schreiber, director at the Retail Soy Group, emphasised: "There needs to be some sort of agreement. We need credible action to avoid fragmentation. If there are just guidelines, some soy producers will make money from destruction."
While Cargill, Bunge, ADM, and Cofco maintain their own sustainable supply chain policies against deforestation, the absence of the unified moratorium creates a risk that they will pursue divergent paths using separate criteria. An investigation by Reporter Brazil revealed that Cargill has already diluted its no-deforestation commitment in some documentation by shifting the cutoff date to 2020.
Conservation organisations, including WWF and Greenpeace, report that land speculators are already encroaching upon the Amazon, anticipating that the 2008 cutoff date will be revised. Such a move would effectively reward them for environmental destruction, reversing years of conservation progress and threatening the ecological stability of the entire region.
