The major innovation introduced by the new law is the License by Adhesion and Commitment (LAC), which directly impacts low‑ and medium‑impact activities in the agribusiness sector.
The licensing process becomes faster, but its legal validity depends entirely (100%) on the accuracy of the information provided by the rural producer. If there is a technical error in the self‑declaration, the license is rendered null, which may constitute an environmental crime and block access to bank credit.
One critical point is that the producer no longer plays the role of a passive applicant waiting for approval; rather, they become the guarantor of the legality of the procedure. As a result, the role of environmental consultants and compliance attorneys becomes preventive and essential under this new framework.
The law also establishes maximum deadlines for environmental agencies, and administrative silence may result in automatic issuance of the license.
However, challenges have already been raised before the Federal Supreme Court (STF), distributed to Justice Alexandre de Moraes (ADIs 7913, 7916, and 7919), regarding the constitutionality of such automatic issuance. The argument is that a license obtained solely by administrative silence could be considered a fragile legal instrument, meaning that banks and trading companies—whose ESG protocols are highly rigorous—may refuse to accept such automatically issued licenses due to fear of joint liability in the event of future environmental damage.
Another important provision is the exemption from licensing for certain agricultural activities (Art. 9). This exemption, however, is conditioned on the regularity of the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR). With this, the CAR ceases to function merely as a record of legal reserve and becomes the environmental identity document enabling the use of the benefits of the new law.
Also noteworthy is the municipalization of licensing, whereby local impacts are now decided by the municipality responsible for the territory. The legal sensitivity here lies in the potential conflicts of jurisdiction, especially considering variations in regulatory rigor among neighboring municipalities.
The law also includes two highly sensitive points.
First, it requires consultation with traditional and quilombola communities when projects affect areas under their possession, domain, or traditionally occupied territories—a measure that could affect large logistics and transportation infrastructure projects.
Second, it impacts the Atlantic Forest biome, revoking specific provisions of Law No. 11,428/2006 (Atlantic Forest Law) and Law No. 7,661/1988. The adjustments aim to enable activities in areas that were previously prohibited; however, oversight of the biome will remain strict.
Far from signaling an environmental protection rollback, the law establishes a system of qualified trust. The benefit of speed is offset by heightened responsibility: the diligent producer gains agility, while the careless producer exposes their operation to possible nullities and ancillary sanctions.
With the new law, rural producers gain procedural speed, but the price of such speed is full technical responsibility. Environmental compliance becomes as important as productivity per hectare.
Autor: Fernanda Regina Negro de Oliveira • email: fernanda.oliveira@ernestoborges.com.br
