21 hours ago
6
Leading British and European retailers are trying to salvage the core elements of the Amazon soy moratorium after the world’s most successful forest protection agreement was wrecked by Brazilian lawmakers and abandoned by international traders.
In an open letter, high street brands including Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Asda say the breakdown this month of the 20-year-old agreement will damage consumer confidence unless new arrangements are put in place to ensure grain production is not linked to deforestation.
The letter is addressed to the major traders of soy – Cargill of the US, Bunge and Louis Dreyfuss of Brazil and the Chinese state-owned firm Cofco. They are members of the Brazilian soy producers’ association Abiove, which recently removed its name from the official website of the soy moratorium.
Without their participation, conservation groups warn of a free-for-all race to clear land in the Amazon biome despite scientific warnings that destruction of the world’s biggest tropical rainforest is approaching a point of no return. Supporters of the moratorium say its loss could open up an area the size of Portugal unless alternative measures are put in place.
The letter states: “We are deeply disappointed to see that Abiove, and your company, has now voluntarily withdrawn from the moratorium.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.”
Soy is one of the most widely grown crops in Brazil and posed a huge deforestation threat to the Amazon rainforest until stakeholders voluntarily agreed in 2006 to impose a moratorium and no longer source it from the region.
The retailers behind the letter, which also include Lidl, Aldi, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer and the Co-op, say they will continue to apply the key principle of the soy moratorium – not to source the grain for Amazon land cleared after 2008 – and urge the traders and producers to clarify whether they still adhere to previous commitments on the climate and environment and are able to make assurances about the reporting, monitoring and verification of their supply chains.
Under this voluntary agreement, any detection of soya beans planted on areas deforested after 2008 would result in the farm being blocked from supply chains, regardless of whether the land clearance was legal in Brazil. In the two decades since, this has prevented an estimated 17,000 sq km (6,564 sq miles) of deforestation.
In the past two years, the moratorium has come under fierce attack from Brazil’s powerful agribusiness lobby, particularly in the soy-producing heartland of Mato Grosso where state legislators revoked tax incentives for companies engaged in the agreement. Brazil has threatened to penalise grain traders for involvement in the moratorium on the grounds that it involves the sharing among competitors of commercially sensitive information, which poses monopoly risks.
This appears to be a fig leaf as Mato Grosso’s subsidies were modest, and the administrative council said traders could have continued to apply the 2008 cutoff date independently. However, these firms backed out of a globally significant moratorium, in line with a broader US-led trend of major corporations welching on commitments to environmental and social governance.
Europe consumes 10% of the world’s soya bean production. In the letter, the retailers say they need a substitute for the moratorium to avoid supply chain uncertainty and a backlash from consumers. Will Schreiber, a director at the Retail Soy Group, said: “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.”
Cargill, Bunge, ADM and Cofco have their own sustainable supply chain policies against deforestation, but without the moratorium there is a risk they will pursue different paths using separate criteria. An investigation by Reporter Brazil found that Cargill had already weakened its no-deforestation commitment by moving the cutoff date in some documentation to 2020.
Conservation groups including WWF and Greenpeace have said land speculators are already moving into the Amazon in the expectation that the 2008 cutoff date will be moved, which will reward them for destruction.
