The risk of litigation could jeopardize the Environmental Licensing Law.

O The National Congress overturned 52 presidential vetoes to the General Law on Environmental Licensing., significantly altering its final text. The decision reinstated provisions that relax requirements, expand the use of simplified licenses, and reduce the involvement of federal agencies in the analysis of projects.

Second Poder360 reportThe overturning of the vetoes reactivated central points of the proposal, such as the authorization for activities classified as having medium polluting potential to be subject to a simplified procedure, in addition to expanding the use of the License by Adhesion and Commitment (LAC). In this model, the entrepreneur assumes a formal commitment and obtains the license without a detailed prior technical analysis by the environmental agency. Changes that restrict the mandatory nature of studies such as the Environmental Impact Study (EIA) and the Environmental Impact Report (RIMA), and provisions that weaken the influence of opinions from federal agencies responsible for indigenous areas, quilombola territories, and conservation units, were also reinstated.

Consulted by Insper Agro Global, Leonardo Munhoz, an agro-environmental lawyer at VBSO and researcher at FGV, assessed that the expansion of the LAC (Environmental Licensing Authorization) to medium-impact activities is the most vulnerable point of the new legislation. "There are no national or international precedents for the use of the LAC at this level of impact," he stated. According to him, this type of license is adopted exclusively for low-risk activities, both in Brazil and in European countries. "This opens the door to legal challenges," he assessed.

Another critical aspect, according to Munhoz, is the alteration of the Atlantic Forest Law, incorporated into the new text through the Licensing Law. This change removes the federal environmental agency's authority to authorize the suppression of vegetation in the biome. "The wording creates legal fragility by modifying a special law within a general law—a practice that can be associated with 'riders' (unrelated provisions added to existing legislation)," he explained. The alteration could also intensify conflicts between the Atlantic Forest Law and the Forest Code, which already generate legal disputes in several states.

Regarding the argument of environmental regression, frequently cited by socio-environmental entities, Munhoz believes it should not be effective in any eventual actions before the Supreme Federal Court. "The Supreme Court tends to apply this thesis in cases of evident nullity of constitutional law, not in cases of updating or altering technical environmental criteria in laws," he stated. According to him, the application of the principle of environmental regression is, in practice, restricted.

In the agricultural sector, the overturning of the vetoes had a direct impact. Congress reinstated the provision that waives licensing requirements for rural activities on properties with a Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) that has not yet been approved—a provision previously vetoed by the government for fear that it would legalize irregular situations.

Munhoz, however, considers that requiring a certified CAR (Rural Environmental Registry) is unfeasible in the current scenario. “Many states are facing difficulties in validating registrations. This could generate legal uncertainty and lead small producers to litigate licensing requests,” he observed. In this case, he believes that overturning the veto tends to reduce conflicts, preventing farmers from being left in a regulatory limbo.

The new law also reduces the decisive weight of opinions from federal bodies responsible for protecting indigenous peoples, quilombola communities, and traditional communities. Although consultation remains mandatory, its binding force is weakened. “While decentralization can be positive in some contexts, many states lack the technical capacity to replace federal action, which could compromise the protection of vulnerable territories,” warned Munhoz.

The lack of clear definitions regarding what constitutes small, medium, and large impact is cited as the greatest structural weakness in the legislation. Without objective technical parameters, environmental disputes tend to be resolved politically—and subsequently in the Judiciary. Munhoz cites the example of the Forest Code, whose constitutionality took eight years to be judged by the Supreme Federal Court. “During this period, licenses granted were at risk of retroactive invalidation, requiring modulation of effects to avoid economic losses. The same could happen now: licenses issued while the litigation continues could be annulled, generating significant insecurity for investors and entrepreneurs,” he concluded.

By relaxing requirements and redistributing responsibilities, the new Licensing Law seeks to simplify processes and accelerate projects. However, the absence of solid technical criteria, the inclusion of disconnected provisions, and the weakening of environmental safeguards create an environment of uncertainty that, paradoxically, may result in more paralysis—not agility. The challenge now is to balance regulatory predictability, socio-environmental protection, and administrative efficiency. Without this balance, the law risks becoming yet another chapter of prolonged litigation—with high costs for agriculture, biomes, and populations that depend directly on environmental integrity.