Controvérsia entre Lei da Mata Atlântica e Código Florestal: TRF-4 privilegia estabilidade no campo

This technical noteC note by Climate Policy Initiative/PUC-Rio analyzes a February 11, 2026, decision by the Tribunal Regional Federal da 4ª Região (TRF-4) regarding a legal conflict between the Atlantic Forest Law (LMA) and the Forest Code. The TRF-4 extinguished a public civil action without judging the merits, effectively maintaining the application of the Forest Code's 'consolidated areas' regime in Paraná and avoiding the immediate imposition of the more restrictive 1990 temporal milestone for environmental regularization.

• A significant legal conflict exists between the Atlantic Forest Law (Law No. 11,428/2006) and the Forest Code (Law No. 12,651/2012) regarding the rules for Permanent Preservation Areas (APP) and Legal Reserves in the Atlantic Forest biome. The dispute centers on whether to apply the more flexible 'consolidated rural areas' regime of the Forest Code—which uses a July 22, 2008, milestone—or the more restrictive LMA regime, which some argue should use a 1990 milestone based on Decree No. 99,547/1990.
• On February 11, 2026, the TRF-4 unanimously extinguished a public civil action brought by the Federal and State Public Ministries in Paraná without judging the merits. The court ruled that the conflict between the LMA and the Forest Code could not be resolved through that specific procedural route, meaning the court did not definitively decide which law prevails.
• The TRF-4 decision prioritizes administrative stability and predictability in the implementation of the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA). By extinguishing the action, the court prevents the immediate requirement for full recovery of environmental liabilities for areas deforested between 1990 and 2008, which would have disrupted CAR analyses already performed by state environmental agencies and affected producers who joined the PRA.
• The decision has specific implications for Paraná, where previous judicial oscillations had paralyzed CAR analyses for nearly a year in 2020. The TRF-4 ruling maintains current criteria for CAR validation and PRA adherence, protecting recent investments in the automation of these processes achieved in 2025.

APA

Climate Policy Initiative (2026). Controvérsia entre Lei da Mata Atlântica e Código Florestal: TRF-4 privilegia estabilidade no campo. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/pt-br/publication/controversia-entre-lei-da-mata-atlantica-e-codigo-florestal-trf-4-privilegia-estabilidade-no-campo/

Chicago

Climate Policy Initiative. Controvérsia entre Lei da Mata Atlântica e Código Florestal: TRF-4 privilegia estabilidade no campo. 2026. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/pt-br/publication/controversia-entre-lei-da-mata-atlantica-e-codigo-florestal-trf-4-privilegia-estabilidade-no-campo/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Climate Policy Initiative |title=Controvérsia entre Lei da Mata Atlântica e Código Florestal: TRF-4 privilegia estabilidade no campo |date=13 February 2026 |url=https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/pt-br/publication/controversia-entre-lei-da-mata-atlantica-e-codigo-florestal-trf-4-privilegia-estabilidade-no-campo/ |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{climatepolicyinitiative2026controvrsia, author = {{Climate Policy Initiative}}, title = {{Controvérsia entre Lei da Mata Atlântica e Código Florestal: TRF-4 privilegia estabilidade no campo}}, institution = {Climate Policy Initiative}, year = {2026}, month = feb, url = {https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/pt-br/publication/controversia-entre-lei-da-mata-atlantica-e-codigo-florestal-trf-4-privilegia-estabilidade-no-campo/}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }