ONDE ESTAMOS NA IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO CÓDIGO FLORESTAL?

This 2020 report by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) analyzes the implementation of the Brazilian Forest Code (Law No. 12.651/2012) across Brazilian states, focusing on the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA). It identifies significant disparities in progress, noting that while CAR registration is widespread, the analysis and validation phase remains a critical bottleneck. The report details state-level regulations for restoring Permanent Preservation Areas (APP) and Legal Reserves (RL), the role of the Brazilian Forest Service (SFB) in providing technological infrastructure, and the legal uncertainties surrounding the potential implementation of a Federal PRA.

• The analysis and validation of the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) is the primary bottleneck in the implementation of the Forest Code. While most states have started this phase, progress varies wildly: Espírito Santo is the most advanced with approximately 70,000 validated registries (72% of its total), whereas states like Maranhão, Goiás, Rio de Janeiro, and the Distrito Federal have only validated between 25 and 150 registries.
• Mato Grosso and Pará significantly increased their CAR analysis capacity in 2020 by hiring specialized teams. Mato Grosso increased its monthly analysis rate from 300 in 2019 to 5,500 in 2020. Pará reached 3,500 analyses per month in 2020, with expectations to reach 7,000. Pará also implemented a decentralization strategy, enabling 17 municipalities to perform analyses.
• The implementation of the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA) is lagging in most states. Only six states have effectively implemented the PRA with operational systems, signed commitment terms, and active restoration projects. Acre, Pará, and Rondônia have between 100 and 200 signed terms, while Mato Grosso has over 500.
• There is a significant gap between the number of validated CARs with environmental liabilities and the number of producers who actually sign a commitment term to regularize them. In Rondônia, 88% of validated registries (2,397 out of 2,721) have liabilities, but only 113 have signed a commitment term. In Mato Grosso, 2,064 validated registries have liabilities, but only 528 have signed terms.
• The Brazilian Forest Service (SFB) is developing a 'dynamic analysis' module for the CAR to increase efficiency using remote sensing. This system involves a review stage using reference maps, a rectification stage where the producer can agree or disagree with suggestions, and a final regularity analysis. The SFB also developed the Environmental Regularization Module (MRA), which integrates with Embrapa's WebAmbiente to suggest recovery methods.
• Legal uncertainty exists regarding the 'Federal PRA' introduced by Law No. 13.887/2019, which allows producers to adhere to a Union-led program if states fail to implement their own PRA by December 31, 2020. The report notes that the Federal PRA remains unregulated and contradicts the original Forest Code logic, which assigns implementation to the states.
• State regulations for restoring Permanent Preservation Areas (APP) vary significantly in terms of deadlines. Rondônia has the shortest deadline (5 years), while Bahia, Goiás, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo impose a 20-year deadline. For Legal Reserves (RL), most states follow the federal 20-year deadline, though Maranhão and Tocantins use tiered deadlines based on property size (3 to 5 years).
• Compensating for Legal Reserves through the donation of areas within public Conservation Units (UC) is the most widely implemented modality, regulated in 12 states. São Paulo's 2020 'Programa Agro Legal' explicitly prioritizes this method.
• The application of Article 68 of the Forest Code, which exempts producers from restoring Legal Reserves if they followed the laws in effect at the time of suppression, is complex and lacks uniform application. São Paulo established specific legal milestones in state law, but this is currently being challenged in the Supreme Federal Court (STF) via an extraordinary appeal by the Public Prosecutor's Office.
• The report identifies several recurring challenges for CAR validation: insufficient or low-resolution reference maps, lack of robust hydrography data, poor quality of self-declared registries (leading to high re-analysis rates), and difficulties in communicating with property owners for corrections.

APA

Chiavari, J., Lopes, C. L., & de Araujo, J. N. (2020). ONDE ESTAMOS NA IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO CÓDIGO FLORESTAL? Climate Policy Initiative. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Onde-estamos-na-implementacao-do-Codigo-Florestal-radiografia-do-CAR-e-do-PRA-nos-estados-brasileiros.pdf

Chicago

Chiavari, Joana, Cristina Leme Lopes, and Julia Nardi de Araujo. ONDE ESTAMOS NA IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO CÓDIGO FLORESTAL? Climate Policy Initiative, 2020. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Onde-estamos-na-implementacao-do-Codigo-Florestal-radiografia-do-CAR-e-do-PRA-nos-estados-brasileiros.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Chiavari |first1=Joana |last2=Lopes |first2=Cristina Leme |last3=de Araujo |first3=Julia Nardi |title=ONDE ESTAMOS NA IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO CÓDIGO FLORESTAL? |publisher=Climate Policy Initiative |date=2020 |url=https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Onde-estamos-na-implementacao-do-Codigo-Florestal-radiografia-do-CAR-e-do-PRA-nos-estados-brasileiros.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{chiavari2020onde, author = {Chiavari, Joana and Lopes, Cristina Leme and de Araujo, Julia Nardi}, title = {{ONDE ESTAMOS NA IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO CÓDIGO FLORESTAL?}}, institution = {Climate Policy Initiative}, year = {2020}, url = {https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Onde-estamos-na-implementacao-do-Codigo-Florestal-radiografia-do-CAR-e-do-PRA-nos-estados-brasileiros.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }