Rapporteur of Brazil’s General Environmental Licensing Law and the Provisional Measure on Special Environmental Licensing (LAE), approved yesterday in the Chamber (see more in the box below), Federal MP Zé Vitor (PL-MG) says the new rules, which NGOs have criticized for relaxing protection standards, will in fact increase “rigor” around the subject. For example, the LAE sets special rules so that projects deemed “strategic” by the government can be analyzed within one year. The parliamentarian also rejects that the License to Accession (LAC), which allows a kind of self-declaration for the advancement of medium-sized enterprises, poses risks.
- Miriam Leitao: The special environmental permit was approved by a joint congressional committee and institutionalizes the low-control model for high-impact work.
- looks: Lula says Ganga asked him to fight a “harder battle” in the war against “men’s violence against women.”
What are the main changes in your LAE MP report?
Improving the text, so as not to leave room for interpretations. We have shown, for example, that LAC is unfit for mining, to dismantle this narrative once and for all. This issue has taken on such dimensions that we were forced to clarify it. In addition to approving the Labor Code, we have added some supplements to the Common Law.
Doesn’t LAE constitute excessive political interference in technical analysis?
There are no flexible rituals at all. All studies continue, and the analysis period does not begin until all studies are duly submitted. The deadline has not been accelerated by one year, I think it is enough. In this case, the text is proposed by the federal government itself.
This change is considered, by entities and sectors in Planalto, as a “dismantling of national environmental policy.” How do you respond to this?
It is not being dismantled because the rigor is greater now. For the first time, we are introducing a mandatory environmental risk analysis for projects that have a higher potential for deterioration. All environmental impacts must be known in order for a license to be issued.
But did it need to change much to update the license?
I think what is necessary has changed to achieve rationality. I have not seen a change that would bring environmental risks, a point that would endanger the environment.
Wouldn’t expanding LAC into medium-sized projects make licensing more fragile? The majority of this file works.
Today, 90% are already using LAC. The name is not standardized, but occurs frequently. I don’t think it will expand because of the restrictions we have put in place. Mining dam cannot be used. It is not a self-declaration, but rather requires proof of a series of criteria. It’s not just about going there, announcing and leaving. The entrepreneur takes on a series of obligations, respecting the specifics of the use of the area, and there are several rules. We do not handle vegetation removal permits. We did not discuss anything about licensing suppression, nor did we change any standards for environmental control procedures. All quality standards for waste, oil and air management…continue.
But there was, for example, a change in the no-plant rule in the Atlantic Forest, which many considered unconstitutional.
Only for the Atlantic Forest. Because if the state body has already analyzed it, with the technicians, there is no need for a double analysis with Ibama.
Is it not necessary to maintain the analysis of indirect environmental impacts, one of the points of the new law, even for proposals for compensation measures?
The indirect effect is a conceptual issue. If it’s in an area directly related to the project…that’s very personal. How to evaluate? All studies and measures must be adopted if the effect is proven. But most members of Congress, and even institutes, argued that only direct effects should be taken into account in the analysis.
But in the past we have seen actions that brought long-term and indirect effects, as in the case of Transamazónica.
Today, deforestation occurs in areas that do not have infrastructure (works). It is not the license that allows this.
Another point considered unconstitutional is the cancellation of the participation of indigenous people in consultations on actions affecting their lands, as well as bodies such as Ivan.
Funai and Ivan can express their opinion, but it is no longer a binding opinion. Where is this environmental loss? If their argument is convincing, it will be taken into account.
Ibama says licensing does not affect infrastructure development, but rather for reasons such as the quality of projects.
In their opinion, part of the inability to analyze and end operations is hidden. Many of the existing barriers are due to deadlocks in the environmental licensing process. Will they say no? Is the inadequate structure the fault of the law or the organization’s management?
How do you view the announced judiciary of the case?
Unfortunately, it has become a principle. Parties that do not have sufficient votes or mobilization capacity in Congress resort to STF.