NOTA TÉCNICA O NOVO CÓDIGO “FRANKENSTAL”

This technical briefing by the Climate Policy Initiative analyzes the Brazilian Supreme Court's (STF) rulings on the constitutionality of Law 12.651/2012 (the new Forest Code). The authors argue that by judging legal provisions separately rather than addressing the core issue of the July 22, 2008, time limit, the court has created contradictory rulings that threaten legal certainty and the effective implementation of environmental regulations.

• The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) has produced contradictory rulings regarding the July 22, 2008, time limit, which distinguishes between the general regime for Permanent Preservation Areas (APP) and Legal Reserves (RL) and a more flexible special regime for consolidated areas. While Minister Luiz Fux upheld the constitutionality of the legal regime for consolidated areas (Articles 61-A onwards), he simultaneously declared the phrase "realizada após 22 de julho de 2008" in Article 7, §3 and Article 17, §3 to be unconstitutional, arguing there is no "justificativa racional para o marco temporal apresentado pelo legislador".
• The court's decisions create an antinomy regarding Legal Reserve (RL) restoration: one ruling requires the immediate suspension of activities and full restoration of vegetation on the property regardless of the deforestation date (Article 17, §3 and §4), while another validates compensation options for deforestation that occurred before July 22, 2008 (Article 66, §5 and §6).
• There is a potential inconsistency regarding the Environmental Reserve Quote (CRA). While ten ministers upheld the constitutionality of Article 44 (creating the CRA), some ministers suggested that CRA compensation should only occur between areas with "identidade ecológica" (ecological identity) rather than the broader "bioma" (biome) criterion. If the stricter ecological identity criterion is applied to Article 48, §2, but the broader biome criterion remains for other compensation methods under Article 66, §6, the CRA market could be weakened.
• The rulings on the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA) are fragmented. While the majority of ministers upheld the constitutionality of Article 60 and Article 59, §5 (relating to the extinction of punishability for crimes), Minister Marco Aurélio considered Article 59, §4 (which prevents producers from being fined for infractions committed before July 22, 2008) to be unconstitutional. This may result in only part of Article 59 being declared unconstitutional, making the application of PRA rules "obscuras".

APA

Chiavari, J., & Lopes, C. L. (2018). NOTA TÉCNICA O NOVO CÓDIGO “FRANKENSTAL”. Climate Policy Initiative. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Nota_Tecnica_O_Novo_Codigo_Frankenstal.pdf

Chicago

Chiavari, Joana, and Cristina Leme Lopes. NOTA TÉCNICA O NOVO CÓDIGO “FRANKENSTAL”. Climate Policy Initiative, 2018. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Nota_Tecnica_O_Novo_Codigo_Frankenstal.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Chiavari |first1=Joana |last2=Lopes |first2=Cristina Leme |title=NOTA TÉCNICA O NOVO CÓDIGO “FRANKENSTAL” |publisher=Climate Policy Initiative |date=February 2018 |url=https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Nota_Tecnica_O_Novo_Codigo_Frankenstal.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{chiavari2018nota, author = {Chiavari, Joana and Lopes, Cristina Leme}, title = {{NOTA TÉCNICA O NOVO CÓDIGO “FRANKENSTAL”}}, institution = {Climate Policy Initiative}, year = {2018}, month = feb, url = {https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Nota_Tecnica_O_Novo_Codigo_Frankenstal.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }