Brazilian Supreme Court hands down a decision on a law that makes environmental licensing more flexible
Protesters demonstrate on Sunday afternoon on Paulista Avenue in Sao Paulo, Brazil, against the bill that aims to end the requirement for environmental licensing, paving the way for more destruction, more disasters, and less protection for forests, rivers, and communities. (Photo by Cris Faga/NurPhoto) (Photo by Cris Faga / NurPhoto via AFP)
The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) is beginning to judge actions that put into question provisions of the new General Environmental Licensing Law. The actions challenge, among other aspects, measures that make analysis stages more flexible and expand hypotheses of dismissal or simplification of the licensing process.
This piece of legislation, passed by Congress in 2025, was criticized by socio-environmental organizations and celebrated by sectors of the economy that defend lower requirements for developments. Civil society organizations and members of the scientific community point out that the changes may weaken one of the main instruments of environmental data prevention in the country.
Flexibilization risks
Read more
The risks of this flexibilization process had already been pointed out when the legislation was under discussion. In a technical note published in May 2025, the Climate Observatory (OC) warned of the expansion of the exemption of licenses and self-licensing, in addition to the flexibilization of studies, conditional factors, and monitoring mechanisms. According to the analysis, the changes could intensify environmental degradation, affect water resources and living means, and increase risks to the population’s health and life.
The document also criticized the absence of a climate dimension and the restriction to the participation of bodies responsible for protecting indigenous peoples, quilombolas, and other traditional communities. The most critical aspects included the License by Adherence and Commitment (LAC), which could allow licenses based on the independent declaration of the developer and no prior technical analysis in specific situations.
INCLO points to risks to human rights
Six organizations that are part of the International Network of Civil Liberty Organizations (INCLO), including Conectas, analyzed the new legislation in light of judicial decisions by multiple countries. The document states that environmental licensing is a core mechanism for human rights protection and cannot be reduced to a bureaucratic procedure.
According to the statement, potentially harmful situations should be submitted to prior authorization and effective control, regardless of their economic or strategic importance. INCLO also warns that categories created to accelerate licensing may contradict the principle of environmental non-regression.
Community participation and rights
The participation of populations affected by major developments is another core topic. For INCLO, it should occur in a prior, transparent, and inclusive manner. The statement mentions a decision by the South African Supreme Court that invalidated licenses to explore oil after noticing flaws in the consultation with affected communities.
The organizations also question the possibility of conditioning the protection of indigenous peoples and traditional communities to the formal recognition of their territories by the State. The statement further mentions a decision by the Colombian Constitutional Court that determined that climate impacts should be considered in environmental assessments.
SBPC and ABC bring scientific evidence to the STF
The Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science (SBPC) and the Brazilian Academy of Sciences (ABC) also asked the STF to join the actions as amici curiae. The entities defend that the debate should consider scientific evidence on the formation, accumulation, and possible irreversible nature of environmental impacts.
In an editorial, SBPC and ABC warn that relevant impacts may result from the interaction between different pressures over time and the territory. The entities claim that reducing the scope of assessments does not eliminate these impacts, but could make them be no longer considered before decisions.
The institutions also question autonomous declaration and sampling mechanisms when there aren’t enough transparent criteria, control, and institutional capacity, defending that decisions on environmental assets take into account the accumulated scientific knowledge and its effects on future generations.
As for an article published in the Jornal da Ciência journal, published by SBPC, “environmental licensing is more than a bureaucratic instrument. It is the preventive tool par excellence to protect the right to a healthy environment”. The text is signed by Marcela Madrid Vergara and Kirill Koroteev, respectively the coordinator of Climate and Environmental Justice and the coordinator of Litigation of the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO); and Thales Machado, Socio-environmental Rights Defense advisor at Conectas.
What is at stake
According to INCLO, a weaker form of licensing could hinder the right to a healthy environment, public participation, and the rights of communities affected by major developments. Environmental protection, according to these organizations, should also incorporate the climate dimension.
The decision by the STF is therefore a debate on the constitutional limits to the flexibilization of environmental protection and social participation mechanisms – and whether changes could reduce guarantees established to prevent damages before they occur.
