Reposição Florestal: Panorama da Regulamentação nos Estados

The report analyzes the legal landscape of mandatory forest replacement in Brazil, finding that only nine states have legislation fully aligned with current federal rules. It argues that most regulations still focus on raw material supply rather than biodiversity conservation, often allowing replacement areas to be significantly smaller than the suppressed areas. The authors recommend adopting 'no net loss' principles, ecological equivalence, and improved geospatial monitoring systems.

• Only nine Brazilian states have forest replacement legislation that is fully aligned with current federal regulations. Many states operate with outdated, complex, or deficient rules, which hinder implementation for both environmental agencies and debtors.
• Current regulations predominantly view forest replacement as a means to ensure the supply of raw materials for consumers, rather than as a tool for biodiversity conservation or the restoration of ecosystem services.
• Technical criteria in federal and most state laws often fail to ensure effective environmental compensation because they allow the use of exotic species and permit replacement areas to be smaller than the original suppressed area.
• Under IN MMA nº 6/2006, the calculation of replacement is based on raw material volume rather than ecological equivalence, resulting in replacement areas that are practically much smaller than the suppressed areas. For example, in the Amazon, a debtor may only need to restore one-third of the suppressed area.
• The Atlantic Forest Law (Lei da Mata Atlântica) prioritizes the designation of areas for conservation over active reforestation, which the report argues does not guarantee additionality since most remaining forest in the biome is already legally protected.
• Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and the Distrito Federal are identified as having innovative calculation methodologies that incorporate 'no net loss' principles and replacement factors based on the type of vegetation and location.
• Monitoring and transparency are severely lacking across most states. While Rio de Janeiro (Semar) and São Paulo (Sare) have developed systems, many states lack systematized databases for Vegetation Suppression Authorizations (ASV) with geospatial references.

APA

Lopes, C. L., Nardi, J., & Chiavari, J. (2021). Reposição Florestal: Panorama da Regulamentação nos Estados. Climate Policy Initiative. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Relatorio-Reposicao-Florestal.pdf

Chicago

Lopes, Cristina Leme, Julia Nardi, and Joana Chiavari. Reposição Florestal: Panorama da Regulamentação nos Estados. Climate Policy Initiative, 2021. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Relatorio-Reposicao-Florestal.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Lopes |first1=Cristina Leme |last2=Nardi |first2=Julia |last3=Chiavari |first3=Joana |title=Reposição Florestal: Panorama da Regulamentação nos Estados |publisher=Climate Policy Initiative |date=August 2021 |url=https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Relatorio-Reposicao-Florestal.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{lopes2021reposio, author = {Lopes, Cristina Leme and Nardi, Julia and Chiavari, Joana}, title = {{Reposição Florestal: Panorama da Regulamentação nos Estados}}, institution = {Climate Policy Initiative}, year = {2021}, month = aug, url = {https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Relatorio-Reposicao-Florestal.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }