EN 
PT_BR 
SÃO PAULO (Reuters) – Ministers of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) formed a majority on Monday to uphold the Mato Grosso law that prohibits tax benefits for soybean trading and processing companies that are part of the Soybean Moratorium.
Five ministers sided with the case's rapporteur, Minister Flávio Dino, with one of them agreeing with reservations, while the other two dissented.
The consensus surrounding Dino's decision could represent a blow to the Soy Moratorium, a voluntary initiative by traders to reduce damage to the world's largest rainforest.
Under the moratorium, soy traders and processors pledged not to buy soy grown in areas deforested in the Amazon biome after 2008.
But the agreement between traders is coming under pressure from the government of Mato Grosso, Brazil's largest soybean producer, and from producers who believe the moratorium limits the use of their land – the Brazilian Environmental Code allows deforestation on part of rural property.
In September, the plenary session of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade) decided, by majority vote, to suspend until the end of the year a preventive measure against the Soy Moratorium, partially accepting an appeal from companies that purchase the oilseed.
The decision postponed for a few months the possibility of the antitrust agency heeding the demands of soybean producers, who consider the private agreement to represent a cartel, thus allowing more time for negotiation between the parties.
The deadline given by Dino, similar to that of Cade, also allows "time for private parties and public agents to engage in dialogue on terms they deem appropriate."
In his decision, Dino allowed the reinstatement of Article 2 of the law, which prohibits the granting of tax benefits and public land to companies that participate in trade agreements that impose restrictions on the expansion of agricultural activity.
The minister emphasized that, while adherence to private agreements such as the Soy Moratorium is legitimate and voluntary, the government is not obligated to grant incentives to companies that adopt criteria beyond those required by national legislation.
(By Roberto Samora)
