24 Jul 2025 Brazil’s Devastation Bill – Licence to devastate the Amazon, the lungs of the Earth

Posted at 17:46h in Biodiversity, Climate change, Deforestation, ESG Rating by

On July 17, the Brazilian Congress approved Public Law 2159/211, often referred to as the “devastation bill.” Many experts see this as the most significant rollback of environmental protections since the 1988 Constitution, which established modern environmental safeguards in Brazil. Although President Lula has 21 days to review the measure, many advocates argue that its passage already represents a major setback for conservation efforts.

Since 1988, Brazil has experienced a gradual weakening of its environmental licensing system. The new law aims to streamline the approval process for activities that utilize natural resources or may cause environmental harm. While its stated purpose is to reduce bureaucracy for projects with minimal impact, critics warn that vague definitions might enable projects with moderate impacts to bypass rigorous review.

One controversial provision allows projects deemed to have low or medium environmental impact to obtain licenses through self-licensing—submitting online forms without independent technical studies, public hearings, or environmental assessments. This change would significantly curtail the authority of IBAMA (the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and ease previously strict regulations on deforestation in areas like the Mata Atlântica. Furthermore, an amendment passed by the Senate enables any “strategic” project to receive expedited approval, regardless of its environmental footprint2. These projects including oil exploration on the Amazon coast and the paving of the BR-319 highway through pristine rainforest areas would receive accelerated approval processes regardless of their environmental impact magnitude.

Supporters argue that the law will stimulate economic development and reduce red tape, making it easier for businesses to operate. However, opponents highlight that some “medium impact” projects—similar in scale to the Mariana and Brumadinho dam disasters—could now proceed with minimal oversight. Had this legislation been in effect at the time, the risks and consequences of these tragedies could have been even greater.

The law would also be devastating for the livelihoods of thousands of Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities: According to a Brazilian NGO (Instituto Socioambiental) that advocates for traditional people, 32.6% of all Indigenous territories and 80% of Quilombola communities would be excluded from future impact studies. It will basically allow extractive industries to sign off their own environmental licensing – destroying their habitat in the Amazon, Pantanal and Cerrado.

With 267 votes in favor (69.7%) and 116 votes against (30.3%), the bill was approved3. Nonetheless, there is a clear ideological split evident in the distribution of support.  With averages ranging from 60% to over 80% within respective benches, right-wing and center-right parties including PL, PP, Republicanos, União Brasil, and PSDB provided the majority of affirmative votes. Centrist parties like MDB and PSD also showed majority support (around 58–61%). While center-left groups like PDT and PSB had low levels of internal support (35% and 13%, respectively), the left-wing bloc, which included PT, PCdoB, PSOL, PV, and Rede, was nearly universally opposed, with practically zero favorable votes.
This vote trend demonstrates that the bill’s support was mostly found among the right and political center rather than the more conventional left-wing or environmentalist parties. Although some of the parties with ministerial positions in President Lula’s coalition supported the bill, it’s crucial to remember that because of the wide coalition that was created to win his election, Lula’s cabinet comprises both centrist and even right-leaning parties. The coalition’s internal differences on environmental policy might make executive-legislative alignment more difficult, especially in case the president gives a veto, given that the bill passed with enough votes to potentially override it.

In summary, while the law’s proponents emphasize economic gains and administrative efficiency, many environmental organizations and experts warn of heightened risks to Brazil’s ecosystems and public safety. As President Lula deliberates, civil society and environmental advocates are closely monitoring the situation, underscoring the need for transparent and robust environmental oversight.

For further information, see the following sources:

Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Print page