Local fatigue and a shift in global food security are bad news for deforestation in Amazonia

Recently, some of the world’s biggest companies have withdrawn from a voluntary agreement in the Amazon that prohibited the use of soy grown on land deforested after 2008. Fábio Zuker investigates the conflicting data behind the agreement and explores how this shift is connected to changes in global food security.

 

First, you are looking at deforestation in the Amazon. Is it slowing down or increasing?

This is an interesting question, and it has many layers, with data telling completely different stories. Compared to the Bolsonaro presidency (2019–2022), deforestation is definitely slowing down. But the big question is what is going to happen as China is investing more and more in infrastructure for soy exports all over South America, as it turns away from its dependence on US soy amidst a trade war and growing military tensions in the Pacific. I'm interested in how deforestation is measured, particularly those related to soy. The story changes completely depending on which data we look at. I'm trying to find answers because they have a huge impact on policy, on the future.

 

What explains these conflicting accounts of deforestation?

One of the reasons is that there are plenty of loopholes—one being 'deforestation displacement,' where the destruction is shifting to other areas, such as the savannah-like Cerrado, to bypass environmental regulations and avoid affecting the data negatively. And it is important to remember that those biomes don't exist alone; the Amazon doesn't exist without the Cerrado, and vice-versa. But a more fundamental reason is the data that is being used to measure deforestation. Companies often go out to find answers to specific needs, so the data ends up reflecting those goals. In other words: hard facts aren't as hard as people sometimes think—there are political and social interests baked into them.

 

The so-called Soy Moratorium has been known as a bulwark against this. Correct?

Well, there is a strong global storyline about how the Soy Moratorium helped stop deforestation. The moratorium was signed by global companies - McDonald’s being one of them – who pledged not to use soy sourced from areas deforested after 2008. And there are really good studies showing the effectiveness of the moratorium. The problem is that local actors disagree about how much it actually worked, since their reality on the ground shows indirect deforestation related to soy: as soy expands into previously deforested areas for cattle, the cattle operations, in turn, move into the forest. But from what I can gather, despite the loopholes, it’s better to have this agreement, this mutual understanding, than not. Which is why it’s problematic that companies like Cargill (the world’s biggest grain trader) are showing signs that they are leaving the moratorium.

 

Why is Cargill leaving the agreement?

Cargill has offered little explanation, but now indicates it wants to move its tolerance date from 2008 to 2020. This local maneuver is deeply tied to broader geopolitical shifts in the global soy trade. Over the past 12–13 years, driven by food security concerns, China has sought to reduce its reliance on U.S. soy and redirected most of its demand toward South America. Against this backdrop, Brazil’s antitrust agency (Cade) made a deeply concerning move in late August, giving major grain traders—Bunge, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, and Cofco—just ten days to suspend the Soy Moratorium or face financial penalties. Analysts warn that ending the moratorium could open up an area of rainforest the size of Portugal to destruction. Chinese demand, combined with the lack of enforcement, and political and economic pressure is what allows regulation to stay loose. That demand, combined with the lack of enforcement, and political and economic pressure is what allows regulation to stay loose. It’s difficult to say “no” when a purchasing power like China wants to buy. There are tons of political and financial interests from soy farmers, local elites, and politicians.

 

What is needed to stop deforestation? Better data and technology?

I think we need to restart and get back to on-the-ground-engagement. Today, data collection methods collection and technological solutions don’t take local realities into account, which means that they just repeat the same mistakes. Take the forest carbon credit markets, where 90% is basically greenwashing, according to The Guardian. If it’s all invented by a guy in New York who has never been on the ground, it won’t work. You just cannot build a carbon-free economy if you don’t ask local communities what they really want and what they see. But stopping deforestation can work, I believe, if the realities on the ground are taken into consideration by public authorities and companies.

 

What are your expectations for COP30 in Belém?

A COP held in the Amazon has enormous potential to be a landmark event, but due to decisions by Brazilian politicians, my already low expectations have further declined over the last few months. There is an incredible amount of work being done by civil society leaders, NGOs, and representatives of Indigenous, Quilombola (afro-brazilian communities with a history of anti-racism) and riverine communities (of mixed Indigenous and European descent). There was a cautious optimism growing among researchers and activists because a summit in the Amazon is different from the last three summits in countries where the oil industry holds immense power. Yet, this hope is being eroded by a series of political decisions authorizing preliminary studies for oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon River, precisely in the region where the conference will take place. At the same time, new measures from Congress and the Brazilian government are weakening environmental licensing and undermining Indigenous rights to their territories. Lastly, with COP30 in the Amazon, we are likely to see many images of both the forest and Indigenous peoples, but without their substantial and meaningful participation, which I fear will be lacking, all of this might be nothing but symbolic gestures.

 

About Fábio Zuker

Anthropologist, author, and journalist, focusing on deforestation, soy production, and the use of agrochemicals in the Global South. He is a researcher at the Pensi Institute (José Luiz Setúbal Foundation) and at the University of São Paulo. Has been a postdoctoral researcher at Princeton University and the Collège de France. Past work published in The Guardian, National Geographic, Wired, Reuters, and most leading media in Brazil. Four-time Pulitzer Center scholarship holder.

 

August 25th, 2025.