EN 
PT_BR 
On the penultimate day of 2025, the Government of Mato Grosso published Decree No. 1795, regulating the provisions of Article 2 of Law No. 12709/2024, which establishes criteria for granting tax incentives and public land concessions to companies in the agro-industrial sector in that state.
The publication of this Decree anticipates the entry into force of the law that regulates it, starting on January 1, 2026, in accordance with the decision issued on April 28, 2025 by the Minister of the Supreme Federal Court, Flávio Dino, in Direct Action of Unconstitutionality – ADI No. 7774, ratified by the Plenary of the Supreme Court, as per the majority vote judgment concluded on June 6, 2025.
Although the merits of the constitutionality of Law No. 12709/2024 have not yet been judged, and Greenpeace and the Attorney General's Office recently petitioned that ADI (Direct Action of Unconstitutionality) requesting an extension of the deadline for its entry into force (alleging the risk of irreversible damage to the Amazon biome and the need to suspend its effects to allow a negotiated solution to the Soy Moratorium), the government of the State of Mato Grosso is already taking steps to ensure that the year 2026 begins with the law duly regulated for all purposes, regardless of any further developments that may occur in this matter.
Photo: Jaelson Lucas/AEN
Following 11 paragraphs of initial considerations justifying its publication, there are 16 articles clarifying the criteria for prohibiting the granting of benefits to companies that participate in agreements, treaties, or any other form of commitment that results in the imposition of restrictions, directly or indirectly, on the expansion of agricultural activity in areas not protected by specific environmental legislation, under any form of organization or alleged purpose.
It is possible to anticipate that the focus of attention regarding the Decree will be primarily on defining the circumstances under which the prohibitions apply, as outlined in articles 3 through 8. In particular, it is important to clarify that the application of the prohibitions extends to agreements, treaties, or commitments undertaken only when directly agreed upon by the company, even in cases where the agreement was made through a representative entity (unless the respective affiliation is based on an express clause of submission to the agreements made by the entity). The mere participation in the agreement or treaty, or the undertaking of the commitment, does not constitute irregular enjoyment of the tax benefit; effective proof of the imposition of a restriction, directly or indirectly, on the expansion of agricultural activity in an area not protected by specific environmental legislation, resulting from the aforementioned agreement, is required (article 7).
The most controversial points of the Decree are certainly in the sole paragraph of Article 7 and Article 9. In the first case, because the definition of the area of "expansion" of agricultural activity considers "that whose exploitation begins after the final date agreed upon in the agreement or treaty, or even in the commitment undertaken, whose The celebration will take place after December 31, 2025."whereas, in the second case, it is stipulated that the tax benefits are subject to revocation."granted "Starting January 1, 2026," indicating that the tax benefits granted until the last day of 2025 to companies that signed the Soy Moratorium are preserved.
Finally, the Decree further clarifies that the prohibitions do not apply to tax benefits granted in general, under the terms of current tax legislation, to any taxpayer classified in the same economic segment as the company, regardless of the issuance of a specific granting act, from which no requirement for accreditation and/or any counterpart to the beneficiary arises, to cases covered by non-incidence or tax immunity, to operations covered by deferral or suspension of ICMS (State VAT), and to the conduct of companies in compliance with provisions contained in international treaties, bilateral or multilateral, entered into by Brazil in accordance with Article 21, item I (initial part), of the Federal Constitution.
Photo: Disclosure/OPR Archive
In our view, the Government of the State of Mato Grosso, in issuing Decree 1795/2025, chose not to confront the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and not to anticipate the discussion on acquired rights, perfect legal acts, and the legality of the Soy Moratorium to the beginning of this year. This decision makes sense insofar as the Government of Mato Grosso, through the Mato Grosso Industrial and Commercial Development Program (Prodeic), offers tax incentives ranging from 50% to 90% for companies interested in marketing manufactured products within and outside the State (source: SefazMT). With the state program, soybean crushing companies receive tax credits and pay less ICMS (a state sales tax), allowing them to offset the logistical costs of establishing their industries in that state and thus generate jobs and contribute to the growth of the regions where they are located. This is something that Mato Grosso cannot disregard in its overall calculations, which must also consider the pressures from producers and the environment that characterize the discussion based on the three pillars (economic, social, and environmental) that define the contemporary notion of sustainability.
In this sense, we also find premature the decision by some exporting companies with industrial activities (crushing) in that state to abandon the Soy Moratorium at this time, as reported in the press in these first days of the new year.
Beyond the substantive issue, the legality of the Moratorium itself is still being questioned. sub-judice, Mato Grosso's own regulations indicate caution in penalizing companies that signed that pact, demonstrating that, as the Attorney General's Office itself advocates, there is room for a consensual solution that maintains Brazil's public and private commitments to curbing deforestation in the Amazon.
