Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of 70 organizations warns that a 'Super El Niño'—a phenomenon not seen since 1870—will cause extreme rainfall, floods, and droughts in Brazil. The letter criticizes the government's history of reacting only after disasters and its tendency to prioritize economically valued central urban areas over peripheries inhabited by Black, quilombola, and traditional populations. The authors demand transformational climate adaptation that prioritizes racial and gender equity, secure housing over forced removals, and the integration of community-led risk management into federal policy. Specific requests for information and meetings are directed to the Casa Civil, the Ministry of Integration and Regional Development, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, and the Ministry of Cities.

The report argues that the Amazon forest is a strategic economic asset for Brazil because it regulates the 'flying rivers' that distribute rainfall across the country. Deforestation of approximately 20% of the biome has already led to significant financial losses in the hydroelectric sector and increases vulnerability in agriculture, urban water systems, and logistics. The authors conclude that protecting the forest is a national strategic imperative to ensure economic stability and development.

The document details how illegal gold mining in the Brazilian Amazon is sustained by a complex network of corrupt politicians, logistics providers, and international smuggling routes for mercury and aviation fuel. It highlights a systemic failure of Brazilian regulatory agencies to coordinate efforts, leading to significant gold exports lacking proper documentation. The report also establishes strong links between illegal mining and other serious crimes, including drug trafficking by organizations like the First Capital Command (PCC), forced labor, and sexual exploitation. Geographically, the illicit activity extends across borders into Guyana, French Guiana, and Venezuela, with specific hotspots identified in Roraima, Rondônia, Pará, and Amapá states.

The report analyzes how Brazilian states in the Amazon biome are transitioning from federal dependence to active leadership in forest restoration. While states have successfully implemented mandatory restoration frameworks tied to the Forest Code and pioneered PES and REDD+ programs, the report identifies significant fragmentation. Key barriers include burdensome bureaucracy for native species forestry, a lack of integration with carbon markets (except in Pará), and inconsistent regulations across states that hinder landscape-scale projects. Pará is highlighted as the leader with the most comprehensive framework, including a dedicated State Plan for the Restoration of Native Vegetation.

The report analyzes the New PAC's infrastructure plans for the Amazon, finding a disconnect between project distribution and actual regional needs. It highlights contradictions between the program's green growth discourse and its inclusion of high-impact projects like the Ferrogrão railroad and BR-319 highway, as well as investments in natural gas power plants. The authors argue that the New PAC lacks transparency and fails to align with the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAM). Recommendations include creating a comprehensive regional development plan, prioritizing infrastructure in the 'Deforested Amazon', and shifting energy investments toward solar and wind power.

The report analyzes the Novo PAC's impact on the Amazon, arguing that the program lacks regional planning and fails to account for the area's socio-environmental complexity. It highlights contradictions between infrastructure projects and deforestation goals, such as the Ferrogrão railway and BR-319 paving, and criticizes the continued use of fossil fuels in energy projects. The authors recommend a comprehensive regional development plan, better alignment with the PPCDAm's zero-deforestation target, and a shift toward renewable energy and distributed generation.

The document serves as a legal reference guide, listing the specific laws and regulations used to implement the Brazilian Forest Code (Lei nº 12.651/2012). It details federal legislation and provides a state-by-state breakdown of the legal frameworks for the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA) in 26 Brazilian states and the Federal District. The listed legislation covers topics such as ecological-economic zoning, legal reserve compensation, the restoration of degraded areas, and the administrative procedures for validating rural property registrations.

The document evaluates four public-private partnership models for restoring Brazil's public lands: forestry concessions, ordinary tenders, common public service concessions, and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). While forestry concessions are the current standard due to the Public Forest Management Law (LGFP), they are limited by strict contractual requirements and high risk for the private sector. The report suggests that ordinary tenders could be effective for planting in fully protected areas, while common concessions and PPPs could offer better risk-sharing and flexibility if forest restoration is legally classified as a public service. The authors recommend legally designating restoration as a public service, improving risk management training for public agencies, and creating a specialized entity to manage environmental assets like carbon credits.

The document evaluates four legal frameworks for public-private partnerships in forest restoration: forest concessions, common tenders, common public service concessions, and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). While forest concessions are the current standard due to the Law on Public Forest Management (LGFP), the report argues that their rigid risk distribution and land category restrictions may hinder large-scale restoration. It proposes that common tenders are suitable for planting in strictly protected Conservation Units, while PPPs offer the most flexibility in risk sharing and financial support, especially for security and monitoring in high-risk Amazonian regions. The report emphasizes the need to legally characterize restoration as a public service to enable these alternative models and stresses the necessity of socio-environmental safeguards for Traditional Peoples and Communities.

The report finds that while agrarian reform settlements occupy only 8% of the Amazon biome, they accounted for 24% of forest loss in 2023. Deforestation is highly concentrated, with 5% of settlements responsible for 65% of the deforested area between 2017 and 2023. Evidence suggests that large-scale clearing is driven by external actors rather than resident settlers, as the scale of deforestation is incompatible with family farming. The report recommends that INCRA, IBAMA, and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change prioritize strategic interventions in these high-impact settlements and specific regional superintendencies, particularly those in Santarém, Amazonas, and Southern Pará.

The report finds that while agrarian reform settlements occupy only 8% of the Amazon biome, they accounted for 24% of its forest loss in 2023. Deforestation is highly concentrated, with 5% of settlements responsible for 65% of the loss in settled areas between 2017 and 2023. The analysis suggests that large-scale clearing is likely driven by external actors rather than smallholder farmers. Geographically, 63% of this deforestation is concentrated in three Incra Regional Superintendencies: Santarém, Sul do Pará, and Amazonas. The authors recommend that the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MMA), Ibama, and Incra implement focalized interventions in these priority settlements to enhance conservation.

The report finds that while agrarian reform settlements occupy only 8% of the Amazon biome, they accounted for 24% of its forest loss in 2023. Deforestation is highly concentrated, with 5% of settlements responsible for 65% of the deforested area between 2017 and 2023. Evidence suggests that forest loss is driven by external actors rather than resident settlers, as 75% of vegetation loss in these areas involves plots larger than 6.25 hectares, a pattern inconsistent with small-scale family farming. The report highlights that three INCRA regional superintendencies—Santarém, Amazonas, and Southern Pará—account for 63% of deforestation in settled areas. It recommends that the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MMA), IBAMA, and INCRA implement targeted action plans for these priority settlements to enhance conservation effectiveness.

This document is an annex listing the federal and state legislation consulted for a 2024 report titled "ONDE ESTAMOS NA IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO CÓDIGO FLORESTAL?" (Where are we in the implementation of the Forest Code?). It provides a comprehensive bibliography of laws, decrees, normative instructions, and resolutions related to the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA) across various Brazilian states.

The report provides a snapshot of the implementation of the Brazilian Forest Code in 2023, highlighting the roles of the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and the Environmental Compliance Program (PRA). While some states like Minas Gerais, Pará, and São Paulo have made significant strides through automated analysis tools and improved communication with landowners, the overall process remains bottlenecked at the analysis stage. The document also details the registration of traditional territories and the introduction of a specific module for agrarian reform settlement plots.

The report examines the implementation of the Public Forest Management Law (LGFP) in the Amazon, highlighting that federal and state concessions have fallen short of 2006 targets. Focusing on Pará, the study identifies governance failures—including frequent annulment of bidding processes, non-concession of areas, and contract terminations—driven by poor technical capacity and restrictive legal limits on the size and number of areas a single company can manage. It recommends enhancing staff training and removing legal restrictions on concession scale to attract more qualified operators.

The report analyzes how the Brazilian Judiciary can combat land grabbing in the Amazon through two primary functions: the administrative control of land registries and the judicial resolution of possessory actions. Using Pará as a case study, it highlights the effectiveness of administrative cancellations of fraudulent titles but notes a lack of transparency in data and a failure to coordinate with the Executive branch for land restitution. The document also critiques the prevalence of a 'civilist' view of possession in courts, which often ignores the specificities of agrarian and ethnic possession, potentially legitimizing illegal occupations. It concludes by examining strategic litigation, including climate damage claims and the protection of conservation units, as tools to deter land grabbing.

The document analyzes the legal and practical consequences of Minister Luiz Fux's vote in the STF, which proposes replacing the 'biome' criterion with a stricter 'ecological identity' requirement for all Legal Reserve compensation mechanisms. The authors argue that applying this criterion retroactively, without modulating effects, creates significant legal insecurity for landowners and government agencies, potentially delaying the overall implementation of the Forest Code.

The report analyzes forest replacement policies in the Amazon and Cerrado, arguing that current regulations are outdated because they treat forests as biomass stocks for market supply rather than ecological systems. It highlights that while financial mechanisms like replacement fees exist, funds are rarely directed toward actual restoration. The document specifically criticizes a 2022 law in Goiás for creating exemptions that undermine environmental compensation for agribusiness.

The report identifies that deforestation in the Amazon biome is heavily concentrated in federal public areas and private properties, with a significant acceleration in both since 2019. It argues that the federal government should prioritize rural settlements and the regularization of undesignated public forests, while state governments should focus on implementing the Forest Code on private lands. The analysis emphasizes that coordination between these two levels of government is essential for territorial ordering and effective environmental enforcement.

The report assesses the progress of the Brazilian Forest Code's implementation in 2022, highlighting a heterogeneous landscape where registration (CAR) is advanced but analysis and regularization (PRA) remain significant bottlenecks. While states like São Paulo and Espírito Santo show leadership in analysis, only 2% of national registries have completed analysis. The document identifies critical gaps in the registration of traditional territories and the slow adoption of the PRA, while noting that some states are integrating CAR data with deforestation alerts to enforce compliance.