The recent development law enacted in Brazil has raised alarms due to fears it may severely threaten the Amazon's environmental integrity and human rights, as articulated by a UN expert. Astrid Puentes Riaño, a UN special rapporteur, highlighted the potential for "significant environmental harm and human rights violations" in a statement to BBC News. This law follows Brazil's preparations to host the COP30 climate summit, and lawmakers endorsed the initiation of simplified environmental licenses for various infrastructure projects, including roads and energy facilities, earlier this month. The president has yet to formally endorse the legislation.
Critics have labeled the proposed legislation as the "devastation bill," warning it could pave the way for environmental infractions and heightened deforestation. Advocates for the law claim that a simplified licensing process would streamline bureaucratic hurdles, allowing for quicker evaluations of proposed developments. However, some developers would now have the option to declare their environmental impact via an online questionnaire for smaller projects—a move viewed with skepticism by opponents.
Puentes Riaño shared her apprehension that the relaxed regulations could have direct implications for mining initiatives, impacting the delicate Amazon ecosystems. She cautioned against plans for the automatic renewal of licenses for existing projects, as this could hinder comprehensive environmental assessments, potentially resulting in unchecked deforestation. Even as illegal agricultural and mining practices have contributed to large-scale deforestation, Puentes Riaño argued that this law would regress the advancements made toward environmental protection.
Her warning follows new reports showing alarming rates of deforestation in wide areas of the Amazon amid drought conditions exacerbated by climate change. Under the proposed law, environmental agencies would have a set window of 12 months—extendable to 24—to make licensing decisions on strategic developments, with automatic approvals if deadlines are missed. While proponents argue that this will eliminate delays for critical infrastructure projects, Riaño emphasized that proper assessments must be both comprehensive and scientifically grounded.
Additionally, the bill would ease requirements for engaging indigenous and traditional quilombola communities—descendents of Afro-Brazilian slaves—unless directly impacted by projects. UN experts have expressed concerns that accelerated assessments may inhibit community engagement and infringe upon human rights. Advocates maintain that the legislation will spur economic growth, especially in renewable sectors, and cut costs for businesses and the state.
Nonetheless, critics warn that diluting environmental safeguards could precipitate ecological disasters and violate indigenous rights, with the potential for constitutional challenges tied to rights for an ecologically stable environment. Having gained approval from the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, the bill now awaits the president’s endorsement by August 8. The Environment and Climate Change minister, Marina Silva, has voiced significant opposition to the legislation, branding it a "death blow" to environmental protections, though tensions between her and the president on related matters have surfaced previously. Should the president veto the bill, politically aligned sectors within Congress may still seek to resurrect it.
Brazil's Climate Observatory has characterized this legislation as the most consequential rollback in environmental protections since the era of military dictatorship, which saw rampant deforestation driven by infrastructure projects. Experts estimate that the bill could roll back protections covering nearly 18 million hectares—an area roughly equivalent to that of Uruguay—indicating profound consequences ahead.
Critics have labeled the proposed legislation as the "devastation bill," warning it could pave the way for environmental infractions and heightened deforestation. Advocates for the law claim that a simplified licensing process would streamline bureaucratic hurdles, allowing for quicker evaluations of proposed developments. However, some developers would now have the option to declare their environmental impact via an online questionnaire for smaller projects—a move viewed with skepticism by opponents.
Puentes Riaño shared her apprehension that the relaxed regulations could have direct implications for mining initiatives, impacting the delicate Amazon ecosystems. She cautioned against plans for the automatic renewal of licenses for existing projects, as this could hinder comprehensive environmental assessments, potentially resulting in unchecked deforestation. Even as illegal agricultural and mining practices have contributed to large-scale deforestation, Puentes Riaño argued that this law would regress the advancements made toward environmental protection.
Her warning follows new reports showing alarming rates of deforestation in wide areas of the Amazon amid drought conditions exacerbated by climate change. Under the proposed law, environmental agencies would have a set window of 12 months—extendable to 24—to make licensing decisions on strategic developments, with automatic approvals if deadlines are missed. While proponents argue that this will eliminate delays for critical infrastructure projects, Riaño emphasized that proper assessments must be both comprehensive and scientifically grounded.
Additionally, the bill would ease requirements for engaging indigenous and traditional quilombola communities—descendents of Afro-Brazilian slaves—unless directly impacted by projects. UN experts have expressed concerns that accelerated assessments may inhibit community engagement and infringe upon human rights. Advocates maintain that the legislation will spur economic growth, especially in renewable sectors, and cut costs for businesses and the state.
Nonetheless, critics warn that diluting environmental safeguards could precipitate ecological disasters and violate indigenous rights, with the potential for constitutional challenges tied to rights for an ecologically stable environment. Having gained approval from the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, the bill now awaits the president’s endorsement by August 8. The Environment and Climate Change minister, Marina Silva, has voiced significant opposition to the legislation, branding it a "death blow" to environmental protections, though tensions between her and the president on related matters have surfaced previously. Should the president veto the bill, politically aligned sectors within Congress may still seek to resurrect it.
Brazil's Climate Observatory has characterized this legislation as the most consequential rollback in environmental protections since the era of military dictatorship, which saw rampant deforestation driven by infrastructure projects. Experts estimate that the bill could roll back protections covering nearly 18 million hectares—an area roughly equivalent to that of Uruguay—indicating profound consequences ahead.
