Brazil is entering a critical week for socio-environmental issues. Congress will debate President Lula da Silva’s vetoes of Bill 2159/21, which became Law 15190/25 and is known as the “Devastation Bill.” The first attempt to examine the presidential vetoes took place on 16 October 2025 but was suspended after the government pushed for more time to convince lawmakers about the damage caused if the law comes into force.
Now, exactly one week after the end of COP30, Congress has chosen November 27 to examine the president’s vetoes, raising a red flag since the context does not appear favourable to preventing the relaxation of procedures as important as environmental licensing. The Devastation Bill, as its name suggests, faces strong resistance from civil society organizations and environmental experts that believe it threatens the effectiveness of regulations protecting the environment and society.
Repórter Brasil has been monitoring the bill as it moves through Congress and has expressed concern about several points of the proposal, especially those raised by the Senate-Chamber Environmental Caucus[1]1 and other civil society organizations that call for the vetoes to be fully upheld. The many potential setbacks included the following concerns:
Disregard for the precautionary principle, which requires the adoption of measures to avoid serious or irreversible environmental damage whenever there is scientific uncertainty about an activity, and neglect towards risks, contradicting the urgent demands posed by the climate emergency. The Caucus points to the Special Environmental License (LAE, regulated by executive order 1308/2025) as an example. It created a “single-phase procedure that condenses all licensing stages into 12 months for high-impact developments. The design goes against good practices, puts pressure on government technicians, and shifts the licensing focus from prevention to political pressure”.
Creation of the Special Environmental License (LAE). As mentioned above, the LAE was created by an executive order and simplifies licensing procedures. According to the Environmental Caucus, this is a dangerous shortcut. LAEs require Environmental Impact Studies but compress hearings, analyses and reviews into a single unrealistic deadline. In practice, it institutionalizes “licensing by political pressure” and clashes with the Constitution (Article 170, section 4, and Article 225).
Undermining participation of traditional peoples and commun