In the run-up to COP30, Congress passes a bill that weakens Environmental Licensing
The approved bill represents the biggest socioenvironmental setback in decades, disregards the climate crisis, weakens oversight mechanisms and is a threat to biomes and Indigenous and traditional populations
Foto: Kayo Magalhães/Câmara dos Deputados
In the early hours of Thursday (17), the National Congress approved the Environmental Devastation Law – legislation that drastically changes Brazil’s General Environmental Licensing Law. The vote, punctuated with criticism by civil society, international bodies and environmental law experts, comes four months ahead of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), to be held in Belém, Pará. Environmentalists are calling this the biggest socioenvironmental setback in the country’s recent history.
With 267 votes in favor and 116 against, the approved bill allows for self-licensing, waives the requirement for impact studies in a number of cases, and weakens the participation of technical agencies, affected communities, and institutions responsible for inspections. The proposal, which has been under discussion since 2004 and has been subject to repeated amendments under strong pressure from the agribusiness and mining sectors, has now been passed on to the president for approval.
Environmental licensing is the main legal instrument to assess and authorize the installation and operation of ventures with the potential to impact the environment. It requires technical evaluations and the participation of public agencies, and society. Its role is to prevent damage, safeguard ecosystems and guarantee development with socioenvironmental responsibility.
Read more
“Approval of the Devastation Bill puts at risk the integrity of environmental licensing as a tool to ensure reliable assessment and the prevention of environmental impacts and damage caused by projects, through the integration of technical criteria, impact studies, social participation and respect for fundamental rights. Completely undermining this tool is a mistake,” says lawyer Gabriel Sampaio, Director of Litigation and Advocacy at Conectas.
Some critical points
One of the most critical points is the transformation of the License by Adhesion and Commitment (LAC) into the general rule. Under this model, project developers obtain authorization to start work through a simple self-declaration, without the need for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA/Rima), specific conditions or prior analysis by technical agencies. A study by the Socioenvironmental Institute shows that in Minas Gerais, 85.6% of licenses for tailings dams could be approved under this model, despite their high potential for pollution.
Furthermore, the approved bill could spark an environmental tax war between different levels of government as it allows states and municipalities to make their own licensing rules – including waiving licenses for environmentally impactful activities. This undermines legal consistency and could result in a regulatory “free for all” in the name of attracting investment.
Another problematic innovation is the creation of the Special Environmental License (LAE), which delegates the political authority to define “strategic projects” to the Presidential Government Council – to be approved within twelve months with no need for an EIA/Rima or public consultation. The new model opens the door to political favoritism, undermines the principle of impartiality and goes against Supreme Court rulings that reaffirm the need for technical and participatory stages in the licensing process.
Exemptions from licensing have also been included for a number of small-scale activities, such as agriculture, livestock farming, forestry, irrigation dams, and water and sewage treatment systems. Experts warn, however, that this lack of clearly-defined technical criteria could create loopholes that unduly benefit medium-sized, high-risk ventures – as seen in the Mariana and Brumadinho disasters, which led to the deaths of 19 and 272 people respectively, as well as the contamination of rivers and other natural resources.
The proposal also undermines public participation, by simplifying and automating the licensing process. It sidelines the role of organs such as ICMBio, Funai, Iphan and the Ministries of Health and Agriculture, who have lost the power to veto and are no longer guaranteed a role in decision-making. The absence of input from these bodies is no longer an obstacle to granting a license, violating the precautionary principle.
Another critical point is the exemption from responsibility of financial institutions for environmental damage resulting from ventures they fund. The bill considers that presentation of an environmental license as proof of compliance is sufficient, disregarding the fact that Brazilian law recognizes the joint responsibility of financial backers.
The bill also paves the way for amnesty for illegal ventures by means of corrective licensing without sanctions, completely disregards the climate crisis by omitting the terms “climate” and “climate change,” and places water resources at risk by allowing licensing without requiring a water use permit. The repeal of provisions from the Atlantic Forest Law is another point of concern, as it authorizes the clearance of sensitive areas without any technical assessment.
Presidential veto
According to Sampaio, “the coalition of interests behind this proposal insists on challenging STF rulings and the protection of fundamental rights in favor of an exploitative model that dates back to the colonial period”. The Conectas director also states that “the impact of this goes beyond the economic sphere and affects the social contract set out in the Constitution around the minimum democratic guarantees of the rule of law.
“Given this scenario, it is important to express to the President of the Republic the need to veto the bill, so that rational grounds for legislative and societal debate on this matter can be restored,” he adds.
Socioenvironmental organizations advocate for a full veto of this project. However, whether the President decides to veto the text in whole or partially, there is a high risk that the Congress will override the vetoes as it is composed predominantly of ruralists.
If the vetoes are overridden, the only alternative will be to appeal to the Supreme Federal Court. Legal experts have pointed to unconstitutional aspects in the bill, such as the waiver of mandatory technical steps and social participation, and warn that the new model fragments the national licensing system, creating legal uncertainty and paving the way for a flood of lawsuits.
The international response
During the legislative process, international bodies have expressed concern. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and six UN mandate holders have issued warnings to the Brazilian government regarding the risks of human rights violations and irreversible environmental degradation due to the changes in environmental licensing. The UN Special Rapporteur, Astrid Puentes Riaño, stated that the proposal “is a threat to the right that all people have to a healthy environment” and violates the principle of non-regression in environmental matters.
At the beginning of June, at the UN Human Rights Council, Conectas presented a warning regarding the risks associated with the possible approval of the bill by the National Congress. At the time the organization stated that the bill compromised Brazil’s socioenvironmental protection system and could cause irreversible harm to traditional populations, ecosystems and the global climate.
