Environmental Law 2025 Comparisons

Environmental Protection in the Brazilian Federal Constitution

Environmental protection is a fundamental premise of the Brazilian legal system. It derives from the Federal Constitution (BFC), which lists the defence of the environment as a principle of both the economic order (Article 171, VI) and the tax system (Article 145, §3º). It also grants everyone the right to an ecologically balanced environment (Article 225), obliging public authorities and society to defend and preserve it for present and future generations.

Under the Brazilian legal framework, these constitutional principles must be detailed by infra-constitutional norms imposing specific obligations on private parties. As Brazil follows a civil law system, such obligations must be prescribed by law, in line with the legality principle (BFC, Article 5, II).

Brazilian Legislation

The Constitution grants the federal, state and municipal governments concurrent powers to legislate on:

• environmental assets;
• environmental protection (Article 24, VI); and
• environmental liability (Article 24, VIII).

Complementary Law 140/2011 sets co-operation guidelines among these entities for the exercise of such powers. Each level of government acts according to its sphere of interest:

• municipalities on local matters;
• states on inter-municipal matters; and
• the federal government on national issues or federal environmental assets (rivers, forests, etc).

In practice, these boundaries are often blurred, generating overlaps and disputes, particularly in environmental licensing processes.

Cross-Cutting National Policies and Brazilian Environmental Architecture

Federal laws form the backbone of Brazil’s environmental framework. The most relevant are as follows.

• National Environmental Policy (Law No 6,938/1981, or NEPA) – establishes guidelines for environmental protection (notably environmental licensing and corresponding studies – EIA/RIMA), and creates the National Environmental System (SISNAMA), co-ordinated by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MMA), with regulatory support from the National Council for the Environment (CONAMA) and enforcement by the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and state/municipal agencies. Decree 99,274/1990 details SISNAMA’s structure.
• Environmental Crimes Law (Law No 9,605/1998) – defines environmental crimes and penalties applicable to individuals and legal entities.
• Decree No 6,514/2008 – regulates administrative infractions and sanctions (with analogous state rules). For civil liability, NEPA’s provisions prevail, supplemented by the Civil Code when compatible.

Key Environmental Principles

In Brazil’s civil law system, written law prevails, but courts and scholars have consolidated guiding environmental principles for interpretation and policy-making.

• Prevention – activities must prioritise alternatives that avoid environmental risks (NEPA, Article 2 II–IV; Article 4 I, VI).
• Precaution – in case of scientific uncertainty, choose the option that best protects the environment (NEPA, Article 2 VI; Article 4 IV). The in dubio pro natura principle supports precautionary injunctions before Brazilian courts.
• User-pays – users of environmental resources must bear the costs of recovery or compensation for permitted impacts, as defined in environmental licences (NEPA, Article 4 VII, 2nd part).
• Polluter-pays – polluters must repair or compensate for damages, internalising environmental costs in their operations (NEPA, Article 4 VII, 1st part; Article 14 §1).
• Full reparation of environmental damage – polluters must fully restore the environment to its prior condition; when impossible, compensatory measures (preferably in kind) must ensure equivalent environmental benefits.

Key Regulatory Authorities for Environmental Policy

Brazil’s environmental governance is organised under the National Environmental System (SISNAMA), created by Law No 6,938/1981 (National Environmental Policy, or PNMA).

At the federal level:

• the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MMA) defines policies;
• the National Council for the Environment (CONAMA) issues technical norms;
• the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) handles federal licensing, inspection and enforcement;
• the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) manages federal conservation units and applies penalties within them; and
• the National Water and Sanitation Agency (ANA) regulates and grants water use rights over federal water resources.

At the state level, State Environmental Secretariats and Agencies (eg, CETESB in São Paulo, INEA in Rio de Janeiro, FEAM/SEMAD in Minas Gerais) are responsible for licensing and enforcement within their territories, alongside State Water Resources Agencies and river basin committees.

At the municipal level, Municipal Environmental Secretariats may license and supervise local-impact activities, when authorised by complementary law. Sector regulators – such as ANP (oil and gas), ANTAQ (ports), ANTT (transport) and ANEEL (electricity) – also set environment-related standards in their areas.

Licensing and enforcement powers are distributed among federative entities according to impact and location, under Complementary Law No 140/2011. Additional clarification on the participation of other agencies (eg, ICMBio, FUNAI for Indigenous peoples, FCP for Quilombola communities) may be necessary.

The Role of Public Prosecutors

The Federal and State Public Prosecutors’ Offices play a key role in enforcing environmental obligations and liabilities – civil and criminal – through civil inquiries, public civil actions, and conduct adjustment agreements (TACs). The Federal Police and State Military Environmental Police assist prosecutors in out-of-court investigations and enforcement.

Co-Operation Mechanisms With Regulatory Authorities

Co-operation between private parties and regulatory authorities occurs mainly through:

• administrative licensing procedures, which may involve public participation via hearings and environmental impact studies (EIA/RIMA);
• formal information requests and inspections by environmental agencies and public prosecutors;
• conduct Adjustment Terms (TACs) negotiated with public prosecutors to remedy environmental harm or ensure compliance with environmental licences and mitigation requirements;
• participation in River Basin Committees for water allocation; and
• adherence to due diligence and disclosure programmes.

Companies typically do the following:

• maintain environmental compliance programmes;
• submit periodic monitoring reports required by their licences; and
• use self-reporting channels in case of operational incidents.

Inter-Agency and Inter-Federative Co-Operation

Co-operation among IBAMA, ICMBio, state agencies and police forces occurs through specific protocols or joint operations aimed at addressing environmental infractions or monitoring remediation measures after environmental damage.

Within licensing procedures, such co-operation is regulated by:

• Complementary Law No 140/2011;
• CONAMA Resolutions 01/1986 and 237/1997; and
• Federal Law No 15,190/2025 (once enacted) – currently in the final stages of legislative approval. 

Environmental Protection in Practice

Environmental protection in Brazil derives from the constitutional duty imposed on the state and society to defend and preserve the environment (Federal Constitution, Article 225). This duty is primarily implemented through mandatory Environmental Licensing for activities that are actual or potential polluters or use environmental resources. Projects with significant potential degradation must undergo an Environmental Impact Study (EIA/RIMA) before approval.

The state also protects the environment by:

• creating specially protected areas such as Environmental Protection Areas (APAs), Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs), and Legal Reserves on rural properties; and
• regulating and monitoring the production, commercialisation and use of substances or techniques that pose environmental risks.

Key statutes include the following.

• Forest Code (Law No 12,651/2012) – protects APPs and Legal Reserves, registered in the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR).
• National System of Conservation Units (SNUC – Law No 9,985/2000) – governs conservation areas with specific zoning and restrictions.
• National Water Resources Policy (Law No 9,433/1997) – ensures basin planning, water rights, and charges for use.
• CONAMA resolutions – set National Air Quality Standards and emission limits for stationary and mobile sources.
• National Solid Waste Policy (PNRS – Law No 12,305/2010) – requires waste management plans, reverse logistics for priority products, and proper disposal.
• Environmental licensing and EIA rules (CONAMA Resolution 01/1986 and 237/1997) – regulate projects with significant impacts.
• Biodiversity Law (Law No 13,123/2015) – governs access and benefit sharing of genetic resources.

Together, the following form the core of Brazil’s environmental protection system, supported by civil, administrative and criminal liability, and active prosecutorial oversight:

• the constitutional right to an ecologically balanced environment;
• the PNMA/SISNAMA framework;
• the environmental crimes and sanctions regime; and
• thematic codes on forests, protected areas, water, air, waste, licensing, and climate.

Consequences of a Breach

Environmental infractions trigger administrative sanctions under Federal Decree No 6,514/2008 and analogous state rules:

• warnings;
• daily and fixed fines;
• seizure of goods;
• embargo/suspension of activities; and
• demolition orders.

In addition to administrative sanctions, the party will also be subject to:

• environmental civil liability (for damages, including caused to third parties); and,
• if an environmental crime was committed, criminal liability (which, differently from general criminal liability, applies to both individuals and corporations).

Enforcement and Regulatory Powers of Environmental Authorities

Environmental authorities may conduct inspections, request information and documents, collect samples, access facilities (including, where necessary, with police support), seize equipment used for infractions, collect the product of said infractions, and impose suspension or embargoes of the activity. They can open administrative proceedings, issue infraction notices, demand corrective measures and even suspend or revoke environmental licences and permits.

Public prosecutors may open civil inquiries, require expert assessments, and seek court orders for access, evidence production, and injunctive relief. In incidents like oil spills, authorities such as IBAMA, ICMBio, ANP, and maritime authorities co-ordinate response at the federal level (with corresponding environmental authorities at state and municipal levels), with emergency plans activated and mandatory communications.

Environmental Licensing in Brazil

Activities that may cause environmental degradation require licensing, generally granted in three stages:

• Preliminary Licence (LP) – assesses environmental feasibility and authorises the project to proceed to licensing, without permitting construction;
• Installation Licence (LI) – authorises physical construction and project implementation according to approved environmental plans; and
• Operation Licence (LO) – allows operation, confirming implementation of mitigation and control measures.

Variants such as simplified or concurrent licensing exist for specific sectors under state rules. There is also the Corrective Operation Licence (LOC), which regularises activities initiated without proper licensing.

Federal licensing applies when impacts cross state borders, occur in federal areas or facilities, or are otherwise under federal jurisdiction. In other cases, states or, for local impacts, municipalities are competent to license. This distribution follows Complementary Law No 140/2011, CONAMA Resolution 237/1997 and, once enacted, Federal Law No 15,190/2025, which will unify and update licensing rules nationwide.

At the federal level, IBAMA Normative Instructions 184/2008 (licensing) and 6/2009 (vegetation suppression and use of forest raw materials) regulate procedural aspects.

Licensing applications must include baseline studies. For projects with significant potential impact, EIA/RIMA are mandatory; otherwise, simplified studies or control reports may suffice.

Public participation through hearings is required when applicable. The licensing agency must also engage other authorities when the project affects traditional communities (FUNAI for Indigenous peoples, FCP for Quilombola communities) or federal conservation units, endangered species, or caves, as per ICMBio Normative Instruction 16/2025.

Projects involving vegetation removal require a specific Authorisation to Suppress Vegetation (ASV), supported by studies and a plan for suppression, disposal and compensatory measures. If the vegetation is to be used, an Authorisation for Use of Vegetable Raw Material (AUMPF) must also be obtained.

Decisions by licensing authorities may be appealed administratively within the agency and, once exhausted, through judicial review. Courts, however, review only the legality, not the technical merits, of administrative decisions. Judicial challenges must therefore demonstrate violation of legal norms or procedural defects, not mere disagreement with regulatory discretion.

The pending Federal Law No 15,190/2025 aims to establish a unified national licensing system, enhancing legal certainty, efficiency and transparency while maintaining environmental protection and public participation. It introduces licence types, such as:

• the Single Environmental Licence (LAU) – one-step licence authorising installation and operation with all conditions;
• License by Adhesion and Commitment (LAC) – simplified licence based on the applicant’s declaration of compliance with pre-set requirements;
• Corrective Operation Licence (LOC) – regularises unlicensed operations with compensatory obligations; and
• Special Environmental Licence (LAE) – applicable to “strategic” projects defined by federal decree upon proposal by the National Council of Government.

Although the proposed law seeks to streamline bureaucracy and reduce judicialisation, it faces criticism from environmental scholars and civil society, who argue it weakens protections. The controversy reflects Brazil’s long-standing struggle to balance environmental preservation with economic development and to ensure that efficiency reforms do not undermine the constitutional duty to protect environmental assets.

Strict Approach

Brazilian regulators and enforcement authorities adopt a strict approach to environmental policy and compliance. Oversight increasingly relies on risk-based monitoring, guided by the precaution and prevention principles, and technology is used to detect:

• deforestation;
• illegal mining and resource exploitation;
• invasion or misuse of conservation areas; and
• non-compliance with environmental licence conditions.

Once a violation is identified, authorities typically impose significant sanctions, including fines and embargoes on the underlying activity.

In addition to administrative penalties, if environmental damage occurs, operators are obliged to repair it. Priority is given to full recovery of the affected asset to its original condition; compensatory measures are accepted only when recovery is not possible. Authorities may also impose additional mitigation measures for ongoing impacts.

These obligations are often formalised in Conduct Adjustment Terms (TACs) with competent authorities, usually involving public prosecutors (federal or state, depending on the asset affected). TACs set deadlines, deterrent sanctions, and may include independent audits to verify compliance.

Brazilian regulators emphasise transparency, stakeholder engagement in licensing, and integration with climate and biodiversity goals. Federal and state agencies frequently conduct joint enforcement operations in priority biomes and sensitive areas.

Environmental licences are generally linked to the project and operator. Changes in ownership or corporate control typically require prior communication and, in many jurisdictions, formal transfer approval by the competent environmental agency to ensure continuity of compliance to the obligations set on the licence and, if necessary (as per the agencies’ purview), update of conditions. Transfer is not automatic; the transferee must demonstrate technical and legal capacity and assume outstanding obligations, including remedial duties.

Breaches of an environmental approval/permit in Brazil may lead to a tri-sided liability:

• administrative (if an infraction took place);
• civil (if damages are caused); and even
• criminal (if a crime has been committed).

On the administrative side, an infraction may lead to:

• fines;
• suspension or cancellation of licences;
• embargoes on works or operations;
• seizure of assets to cover eventual damages’ recovery or compensation; and
• mandatory corrective measures.

Civil liability for non-compliance may include:

• court-ordered performance;
• daily coercive fines; and
• recovery/compensatory measures for the damages caused, including to third parties.

Recurrent or serious breaches may result in criminal charges against the company and responsible individuals, as well as harder administrative sanctions such as ineligibility for public financing or incentives.

Triple and Simultaneous Liability System

Brazilian environmental law establishes three independent and concurrent forms of liability: civil, administrative, and criminal (Federal Constitution, Article 225, §3).

Civil Environmental Liability

Civil liability is set by Law No 6,938/1981 (NEPA), complemented by the Civil Code where consistent. It is strict, joint and several, and based on direct and immediate causation between the act or omission and the damage. Under the Integral Risk Theory, traditional exemptions (such as victim fault or third-party acts) do not apply, as polluters are deemed to have accepted environmental risks inherent to their activity.

Civil liability requires full redress, prioritising recovery of environmental damage or, when impossible, compensation. It is often enforced through public civil actions under Law No 7,347/1985. Regarding the circumstances in which a civil claim for compensation can be brought, see 10.1 Civil Claims.

Criminal Liability

Criminal liability is governed by the Environmental Crimes Law (Law No 9,605/1998) and applies to both individuals and legal entities. As in general criminal law, it is subjective, requiring proof of fault or intent. Penalties include:

• fines;
• restrictions of rights;
• partial suspension of activities;
• temporary debarment from public contracts; and
• imprisonment for individuals.

Administrative Liability

Administrative liability for environmental infractions is regulated by NEPA (Articles 70–76) and Decree No 6,514/2008, complemented by state and municipal rules.

The prevailing interpretation in doctrine and case law (notably the Superior Court of Justice – STJ) is that it is also subjective, as sanctions are punitive in nature. A minority view argues that administrative liability should be strict, except in cases expressly requiring fault (Decree No 6,514/2008, and Law No 9,605/98, Article 72, §3, I–II), such as failure to correct irregularities or obstructing inspections.

For liability to apply, there must be: (i) an infraction expressly defined by law (legality principle), and (ii) a direct and immediate causal link between conduct and violation.

Sanctions, applied by SISNAMA agencies (federal, state or municipal) and certain port authorities, include:

• warnings;
• fines;
• licence suspension;
• loss of government benefits;
• equipment seizure or destruction; and
• partial or total embargoes on the activity.

Liability for historical contamination and damage can be imposed on current landowners based on strict, joint and several civil liability and the propter rem nature of these obligations (eg, that they transmit along with the respective title).

Successor liability extends to acquirers by merger, acquisition of the company or the establishment/industrial plant where the activity is operated, or other types of corporate succession, particularly where environmental liabilities are inherent to the asset or activity. Due diligence on these operations does not eliminate environmental liability but informs risk allocation and indemnities contractually; however, such private arrangements do not bind authorities or third parties.

Civil environmental liability in Brazil is strict and focused on full reparation of environmental damage. Under the Integral Risk Theory, those who perform an activity assume all risks of environmental harm resulting from it. Consequently, traditional defences such as exclusive victim fault, third-party acts or force majeure do not apply. The main defence available concerns the absence of causal link between the activity and the damage, as liability still requires direct and immediate causation (NEPA, Article 14, combined with Civil Code, Article 403).

As to administrative liability, the prevailing understanding is that it is subjective, requiring proof of:

• conduct with fault or wilful misconduct;
• correspondence between the facts and the legal infraction; and
• direct and immediate causality between them.

Typical defences challenge one of these elements or raise procedural objections, such as due process violations, lack of jurisdiction, or improper sanctioning authority. Parties may also argue disproportionality between the infraction and the penalty, or present evidence of compliance and mitigation efforts to seek sanction reduction.

The existence of environmental compliance programmes, use of best available techniques, and prompt remediation or mitigation of damages can reduce penalties, particularly when formalised through Conduct Adjustment Terms (TACs) with public authorities.

The rules and requisites for the triple simultaneous and independent system of liability (administrative, civil and criminal), as explained in 5.1 Key Types of Liability, also apply for corporate entities.

In case of criminal liability, the necessary adjustments on potential sanctions are made when the acting party is a corporate entity: imprisonment will not apply but (as per Article 24 of the Federal Law No 9,605/98) the corporation can be subject to the following:

• suspension of activities;
• embargoes on its establishments;
• prohibition to contract with public authorities; and even
• forced liquidation if it is proved that the company was created or used preponderantly to make viable, facilitate or conceal environmental crimes.

Activities subject to federal environmental licences will have to pay the Environmental Control and Inspection Fee (TCFA), a tax charged by IBAMA to compensate for the oversight costs of the activity. State and municipal environmental agencies also charge corresponding taxes from the activities that fall within their areas of competence. Although not strictly taxes, licensing fees are also paid as part of the respective licensing proceedings.

Another relevant tax for environmental preservation is the Environmental Preservation Tax (taxa de preservação ambiental, or TPA), charged on tourists/visitors for access to certain specially preserved areas, usually by the respective municipality where it is located (for the well-known Fernando de Noronha island, the preservation tax is charged by the Pernambuco State, as per State Law No 10,403/1989). These taxes are used to finance costs related to conservation, cleaning and maintenance of the preserved area.

Similar conservation fees are also charged for access to National Parks maintained by ICMBio.

Although not strictly a tax (as a tax presupposes a corresponding service to be provided by the respective governmental authority), the use of some natural resources is also subject to specific charges – as a “compensation” for the consumption of such resource. This is the case for water consumption, for example, as per the Federal Law No 9,433/97 (that establishes the National Policy for Water Resources).

Sector contributions and price mechanisms (eg, fuel CIDE) can also have environmentally-related purposes (eg, part of the resource from these contributions should be directed to environmental conservation projects by the respective authority).

Incentives for sustainable practices in Brazil can include:

• tax benefits, such as reductions in IPI (tax applicable over industrialised products) for recyclable goods, tax credits for companies investing in environmental technology, and ICMS (tax applied to the circulation of goods and services), or tax exemptions for renewable energy equipment; and
• financing opportunities for projects with positive environmental performance through development banks (such as BNDES), and preferential conditions for participation in public procurement proceedings for sustainable projects.

Deterrence measures are those related to administrative penalties (addressed in 5.1 Key Types of Liability, “Administrative Liability”), with sanctions varying from fines, suspension of activities, embargoes, restrictions from public funding and even public procurement debarment in case of serious/recurrent violations.

Under Brazilian law, corporate separateness is a cornerstone principle (Law No 6,404/1976, Article 1; Civil Code, Article 49-A). Accordingly, shareholders are not personally liable for environmental damage caused by the company, unless the corporate veil is pierced.

In general civil liability, veil piercing requires abuse of legal personality, evidenced by fraudulent acts (desvio de finalidade) or asset commingling (confusão patrimonial) (Civil Code, Article 50). However, in environmental matters, liability may extend to shareholders if the company is unable to fulfil its environmental recovery obligations, pursuant to Law No 9,605/1998, Article 4.

Some scholars and lower court decisions recognise liability for shareholders as “indirect polluters”. This concept applies to those who, although not directly performing the damaging activity, have a specific legal or contractual duty of safety towards the operator and breach it, thereby contributing, with direct and immediate causal link (Civil Code, Article 403), to the environmental damage. See 10.1 Civil Claims.

However, Brazilian law does not assign shareholders a legal duty of safety over their investee’s environmental conduct. Such a duty does not arise merely from corporate control or group affiliation. Even controlling shareholders are not indirect polluters solely by virtue of ownership.

If shareholders, acting within the company’s governance, commit unlawful or abusive acts or omissions that lead to environmental harm, they may incur liability towards the company itself under Law No 6,404/1976 (for corporations) or the Civil Code (for limited liability companies), but not as indirect polluters.

This interpretation, limiting shareholder liability to cases of veil piercing or direct unlawful acts, is endorsed by leading scholars and upheld by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) as the prevailing understanding of Brazilian environmental law.

Companies are increasingly expected to show their engagement with ESG practices and targets on licensing proceedings, PNRS obligations, anti-deforestation controls, labour and human rights frameworks, and securities market disclosure of material risks.

Publicly traded companies must disclose material environmental contingencies and risks; regulators and stock exchanges have promoted sustainability reporting frameworks on a “comply or explain” basis, with a trend towards alignment to international standards. Some sector regulators also impose specific climate and environmental risk management rules in regulated sectors, such as the financial services market.

There have not been significant court cases or relevant judicial decisions discussing breach of ESG compromises (eventual breaches are usually described as background in lawsuits discussing specific environmental accidents/incidents and related damages), but this is a global litigation trend that should rapidly reach Brazil.

There is no universal norm for environmental audits across all sectors. However, audits may be required:

• as a condition of licences;
• in compliance programmes;
• in applications for loans;
• within supply chain standards; or
• under TACs signed with public prosecutors – including via the engagement of third-party auditors, paid by the interested company, for the technical support of the public prosecutors in assessing compliance.

Specific sectors must also prepare and maintain environmental and waste management plans subject to review and verification by the respective regulatory agency.

Directors and officers can be personally liable for criminal offences if they engage in, authorise, consent to, or omit to prevent environmental infractions in their sphere of responsibility within the relevant governance bodies of the company (as per Article 2 of Federal Law No 9,605/98). Such liability will be subjective. Criminal sanctions can range from fines to imprisonment, with alternative sanctions such as community service and other restrictions of rights.

For administrative liability, directors and other officers may face liability (ie, be considered “offenders”) only if they were co-authors of the acts considered as the administrative infraction, via their own direct acts or omissions, and not merely due to their capacity within the company’s governance.

Directors’ and officers’ liability insurance (D&O) is available in Brazil and may cover defence costs and certain civil liabilities related to environmental matters, subject to policy terms and exclusions. Specialised environmental liability insurance products (eg, environmental impairment liability, third-party liability for pollution) exist in the Brazilian market. Coverage of administrative fines and criminal penalties is typically excluded or highly restricted due to public policy constraints.

Corporate Insurance for Environmental Accidents

As for companies, environmental risk insurance is available, including:

• policies for sudden and gradual pollution;
• third-party bodily injury and property damage;
• clean-up costs; and
• transportation-related pollution.

Some licensing authorities may require financial guarantees for decommissioning of operational structures (covering the costs of remediation) in specific sectors. There is no general compulsory environmental insurance nationwide, but contractual and licensing requirements can make coverage effectively mandatory for certain activities. Punitive fines and criminal sanctions are generally uninsurable; coverage usually focuses on remediation of damages, third-party damages compensation, and (eventually) costs of the defence.

Under Brazilian law, financial institutions and lenders may, in certain circumstances, be held liable for environmental damage as indirect polluters, particularly when they fail to comply with a legal duty of safety under statute or contract.

Governmental financing institutions have a statutory duty to verify that the projects they fund are duly licensed by the competent environmental authority (Law No 6,938/1981 and Law No 6,803/1980). For private financial institutions, Article 2 of the Biosafety Law (Law No 11,105/2005) requires verification of compliance when financing activities involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Public financial institutions, such as the Central Bank and BNDES, also operate specific agribusiness financing programmes with strict environmental compliance standards. Financial intermediaries must check that borrowers meet licensing and performance requirements before credit is granted. Non-compliance can lead to administrative sanctions, early termination of financing, or joint and several liability.

In large infrastructure and project finance transactions, lenders face higher scrutiny and liability exposure depending on their level of involvement and the extent of environmental due diligence performed. Outside these situations, however, courts generally avoid imposing liability on financial institutions absent a clear duty of safety and causal link to the environmental damage.

To mitigate environmental liability risks, public and private financing institutions always require borrowers to demonstrate compliance with all valid environmental licences and applicable regulations before and throughout the financing relationship.

In sectors with higher environmental exposure, such as infrastructure, energy, mining and agribusiness, lenders conduct enhanced environmental due diligence and background checks prior to financing. These projects also include more detailed contractual provisions on representations, warranties and the allocation of environmental risks and responsibilities between the parties. Although such clauses are not enforceable against third parties or public authorities, they help to mitigate potential exposure and may support recourse actions among the contracting parties in case of environmental damage.

Civil Claims for Compensation or Other Remedies

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (Law No 6,938/1981), civil claims may be brought whenever a polluter’s activity causes environmental damage. Liability is strict, applying regardless of fault, and traditional defences such as force majeure or third-party acts are not accepted.

The direct polluter is the party that performs the activity causing the damage, whether directly or through contractors. It remains responsible even if third parties execute parts or all of the activity.

The direct polluter also includes the holder of the environmental licence or sector-specific authorisation, such as mining rights (Federal Constitution, Article 176, §1; Mining Code, Decree-Law No 227/1967, Article 6-A). This party bears primary responsibility for remediation, independent of fault.

Under NEPA, civil claims for compensation or other remedies may be brought whenever a polluter’s activity causes environmental damage. Strict liability applies, meaning liability regardless of fault, and polluters cannot rely on traditional defences such as force majeure or third-party acts.

Indirect Polluter

Brazilian case law and doctrine developed the concept of the indirect polluter, interpreting Article 3(IV) and Article 14(§1) of NEPA. An indirect polluter is a party that, while not directly performing the activity or holding its licence, has a legal or contractual duty of safety related to that activity and, by breaching this duty, contributes – with direct and immediate causation – to the environmental damage.

Although the law allows such contractual duties of safety, case law examples are rare. The most frequent cases involve public authorities failing to comply with legal oversight duties regarding private activities.

Examples of statutory duties of safety include:

• Law No 6,803/1980, Article 12, combined with NEPA, Article 12 – requiring government entities that grant industrial incentives or financing to demand proof of environmental licences and compliance before approval;
• Law No 11,105/2005 (GMOs), Article 2, §4, combined with NEPA, Article 14, §1 – requiring financiers or sponsors of GMO projects to verify possession of a Biosecurity Certificate issued by CTNBio; and
• Forest Code (Law No 12,651/2012), Article 36, §3 – requiring buyers of native forest products to retain a Document of Forest Origin (DOF) to ensure lawful sourcing.

To establish civil liability, claimants must prove:

• an act or omission by the alleged polluter;
• environmental damage; and
• a direct and immediate causal link between them.

For indirect polluters, liability arises from breach of a specific duty of safety designed to prevent environmental harm.

Landowner Liability

Civil liability also extends to landowners, based on the propter rem nature of environmental obligations. According to Precedent 623 of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), landowners are jointly and severally liable for remediation, even if the damage was caused by third parties before acquisition. The duty to restore the environment transfers with the property.

Brazilian law does not provide for exemplary or punitive damages. Compensation under civil law is limited to the actual extent of the damage and may (BCC, Article 944), in some cases, be reduced (eg, BCC, Articles 944, sole paragraph, and 945).

For moral (non-pecuniary) damages, courts have recognised that compensation, while remaining proportionate, also has a pedagogical purpose. Awards take into account factors such as:

• the seriousness and consequences of the act;
• the degree of fault;
• any contributory fault by the victim; and
• the parties’ economic conditions.

A bill pending before Congress would amend the Civil Code to allow courts to impose an additional pedagogical monetary sanction in cases of special gravity involving intent, gross negligence or repeated misconduct, which could affect environmental civil claims.

Collective actions are available for environmental civil claims in Brazil, primarily through the civil public action (ação civil pública), governed by Law No 7,347/1985. Such actions may be filed by the federal, state or municipal governments, the public prosecutor’s office, the public defender’s office or duly qualified associations, and are intended to protect collective or diffuse interests, including the environment. Citizens may also bring a citizen action (ação popular) under Law No 4,717/1965 to annul or seek compensation for acts harmful to public property, including environmental assets.

Collective actions that protect the same rights and interests arising from the same factual context are generally consolidated for joint adjudication, and the resulting decision extends to all related proceedings, ensuring uniformity and efficiency in the resolution of collective environmental claims.

In addition, civil associations may file ordinary lawsuits to recover damages affecting specific groups (eg, workers or local communities impacted by pollution). Individuals, however, have no standing to claim compensation through ordinary lawsuits for collective environmental damages.

Several landmark decisions have shaped Brazil’s framework for environmental civil liability.

The Petrobras case (REsp 1.114.398/PR, 2012) and the Cataguases case (REsp 1,374,284/MG, 2014) of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) consolidated the full risk theory, confirming that environmental civil liability is strict and excludes exculpatory defences such as third-party fault or force majeure.

On indirect polluter liability, in Jacupiranga (REsp 1,071,741/SP, 2009), the STJ held the state liable as an indirect polluter for failing to fulfil its legal duty to supervise and protect the environment, establishing that the state acts as a subsidiary debtor, jointly liable but with preference order. The Vicuña cases (REsp 1,596,081/PR and 1,602,106/PR, 2017) became the leading precedent on private indirect polluter liability, holding that such liability arises when an entity breaches a statutory or contractual duty of safety, directly and immediately causing environmental harm.

The Supreme Federal Court (STF), in Theme 999 (RE 654,833/AC, 2020), ruled that environmental claims for restoration or compensation involving diffuse and intergenerational rights are not subject to any statute of limitations.

The STJ has also issued key binding precedents (súmulas) that guide environmental litigation:

• Súmula 613 – the fait accompli theory does not apply to environmental matters;
• Súmula 623 – environmental obligations are propter rem and joint, allowing liability for current and former owners or possessors; and
• Súmula 629 – environmental harm gives rise to concurrent obligations to repair or abstain (do or not do) and to pay compensation.

More recently, large-scale environmental disasters – the Mariana dam collapse (2015), Brumadinho dam collapse (2019) and Maceió geological subsidence (2023) – have influenced judicial practice. Though mostly resolved through settlement agreements rather than rulings, they have become benchmarks for judicial management and mass environmental redress, shaping procedural approaches. The individual claims arising from these cases continue to raise key debates before the STJ, particularly on reversal of the burden of proof in mining accidents and limitation periods for individual environmental claims.

Indemnities and other contractual arrangements may be used to allocate or apportion environmental risks among private parties, as Brazilian law recognises contractual autonomy in risk allocation. However, such agreements are effective only between the contracting parties and do not limit or exclude the liability of polluters before regulators or third parties. Under Brazil’s strict and joint-and-several environmental liability regime, each polluter remains fully liable for the environmental damage.

Depending on the contractual allocation of risks and obligations, a party that is not the operator of the environmentally relevant activity may incur liability as an indirect polluter if, by virtue of the contract, it assumes and fails to comply with a contractual or legal duty of safety related to that activity.

The main federal laws governing environmental contamination in Brazil are the National Environmental Policy (Law No 6,938/1981), which imposes on polluters and degraders the obligation to recover or compensate for environmental damage, and the National Solid Waste Policy (Law No 12,305/2010), which sets criteria for the management and licensing of hazardous waste operators.

At the regulatory level, the National Environmental Council (CONAMA), a federal advisory and normative body that co-ordinates environmental policy implementation, has issued key rules on the subject. The most relevant is CONAMA Resolution No 420/2009, which establishes:

• soil quality standards;
• guiding values for chemical substances; and
• procedures for managing contaminated sites resulting from human activities.

Based on these federal parameters, federative states develop their own frameworks, the most advanced being São Paulo’s State Law No 13,577/2009, often used as a model by other jurisdictions.

Regulatory authorities adopt a pragmatic approach to remediation. Under Resolution No 420/2009, remediation aims to eliminate or reduce risks to human health and the environment, restoring soil quality to levels compatible with its intended use, rather than requiring full restoration to pre-impact conditions. The process typically involves identification, investigation, intervention and monitoring stages, which determine whether a site is declared suspected, under investigation, under intervention, under monitoring, or rehabilitated for declared use.

Contamination of soil triggers civil, administrative and criminal liabilities. Administrative penalties may include fines of up to BRL50 million for first-time offences, while criminal sanctions range from one year’s to four years’ imprisonment. Both may apply cumulatively with civil obligations to remediate or compensate for environmental damage.

Environmental authorities may require remediation from any person or entity directly connected to the contaminated site, including the polluter, the owner, the tenant and the possessor of the area, all of whom may be held jointly and severally liable. In practice, the landowner is typically the primary party targeted by enforcement actions, given the propter rem nature of environmental obligations and the ease of identification. Liability may be contractually allocated among responsible parties, but such arrangements do not restrict the authorities’ power to demand remediation from any of them. The party that bears the costs may later seek recourse from others who contributed to the contamination.

When a contaminated property is sold, the buyer assumes joint and several liability for existing contamination, even if not responsible for causing it. This principle is consolidated by the Superior Court of Justice’s Súmula No 623, which classifies environmental obligations as propter rem (attached to the property). In this context, under CONAMA Resolution No 420/2009 and State Law No 13,577/2009 of São Paulo, once contamination is identified, the landowner must submit a remediation and recovery plan for approval by the environmental authority.

Remediation activities may be carried out by third parties engaged by the liable party, but ultimate responsibility before public authorities remains with the polluter(s) or other jointly liable persons, who must ensure that all recovery measures are properly executed.

When more than one party contributes to contamination, environmental liability in Brazil is determined under a strict, joint and several liability regime. Environmental authorities may claim damages and other remedies from any or all responsible parties, regardless of their individual degree of contribution.

Although liable parties may contractually allocate responsibility among themselves, typically based on the volume or nature of contaminants released, such agreements have no effect vis-à-vis public authorities. The party that bears the remediation costs may later seek judicial recourse against others who also contributed to the contamination. Consequently, contribution disputes are generally resolved through civil actions between polluters.

In real estate transactions, buyers often conduct preliminary and confirmatory site investigations, and purchase agreements commonly address the allocation of potential environmental liabilities and post-closing remediation duties. If previously unknown or undisclosed contamination is discovered, the owner or possessor may seek indemnification for remediation costs, provided responsibility for the contamination can be attributed to another party.

Private agreements that fail to ensure compliance with regulatory orders to investigate or remediate contaminated sites are generally disregarded by environmental authorities for liability purposes.

Under Brazilian law, locus standi to bring proceedings against polluters, landowners or occupiers is broadly defined. Any person or entity directly affected by land contamination has locus standi to file civil claims seeking compensation for the losses and damages personally suffered. Such individual claims may also request injunctive relief, including orders compelling the polluter to cease harmful activities and to restore the affected environment.

As to collective measures, as explained in 10.3 Class or Group Actions, the public prosecutor’s office, the public defender’s office, and the federal, state and municipal governments, as well as duly qualified non-profit associations, may bring public civil actions (ações civis públicas) seeking remediation or compensation for environmental damage, including contamination cases. Citizens may also file citizen actions (ações populares) to challenge acts harmful to public property, including environmental assets, and seek compensation. In addition, civil associations may file collective claims to protect the specific groups or interests they represent.

The process for investigating environmental contamination in Brazil is generally guided by CONAMA Resolution No 420/2009, which establishes soil quality standards, guiding values for chemical substances, and procedures for managing contaminated sites resulting from human activities. Based on these federal parameters, federative states have developed their own frameworks, the most advanced being São Paulo’s State Law No 13,577/2009, which, as mentioned above, often serves as a model for other jurisdictions.

In general, investigations follow a three-stage process led by environmental authorities:

• identification;
• diagnosis; and
• intervention.

Authorities first assess suspected contamination through preliminary and confirmatory investigations, which are carried out at the expense of the responsible party. If contamination exceeds legal thresholds, the site undergoes further analysis through a detailed risk assessment to determine the extent of pollution and support the preparation of a remediation plan. Finally, remediation and monitoring measures are implemented to eliminate or reduce risks to acceptable levels, with the environmental authority reviewing the plan and intended land use to ensure compliance with environmental and zoning standards.

Brazil’s climate change framework is primarily governed by the National Policy on Climate Change (Política Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima, PNMC), established under Law No 12,187/2009. The PNMC aims to reconcile economic and social development with climate protection, guided by the following principles:

• prevention;
• precaution;
• citizen participation;
• sustainable development;
• climate justice; and
• common but differentiated responsibilities.

It provides for sectoral plans for mitigation and adaptation, setting emission reduction targets across key sectors such as:

• energy;
• transport;
• agriculture;
• mining;
• health; and
• industry.

Complementing the PNMC, Law No 12,114/2009 created the National Climate Change Fund (Fundo Clima), further regulated by Decree No 9,578/2018, which finances mitigation and adaptation projects.

In 2024, two major laws modernised Brazil’s climate governance. Law No 14,904/2024 introduced national guidelines for climate adaptation plans, while Law No 15,042/2024 established the Brazilian Emissions Trading System (Sistema Brasileiro de Comércio de Emissões, SBCE), a cap-and-trade carbon market that allows the trading of emission allowances (Cotas Brasileiras de Emissão, CBEs).

At the subnational level, 21 of Brazil’s 27 states have enacted their own climate change laws and policies, aligning local actions with federal initiatives.

Brazil’s targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are set under the National Policy on Climate Change (Política Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima, PNMC – Law No 12,187/2009), which aligns national action with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. Under its updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), Brazil has committed to reducing net GHG emissions by 59% to 67% by 2035, compared with 2005 levels, and to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

A major development to reduce GHG emissions was the enactment of Federal Law No 15,042/2024, which created the Brazilian Emissions Trading System (Sistema Brasileiro de Comércio de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa, SBCE). The SBCE establishes a regulated cap-and-trade market that sets emission limits for major sectors and allows the trading of Brazilian Emission Quotas (CBEs). Entities emitting more than 25,000 tons of CO₂e will be subject to emission caps and required to report annually to the SBCE’s managing body. Companies exceeding their limits may purchase CBEs or Certificates of Verified Emission Reduction or Removal (CRVEs). The law also regulates REDD+ projects, recognises the voluntary carbon market, and requires government authorisation for international transfers of mitigation outcomes under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Further regulation is still required for the law’s full effectiveness and applicability.

Brazil has progressively advanced towards a total asbestos (amianto) ban. The country ratified ILO Convention No 162 on the Safe Use of Asbestos in 1991, and Law No 9,055/1995 subsequently prohibited the extraction, production, use and sale of all amphibole varieties and asbestos spraying, while temporarily allowing chrysotile. This exception was declared unconstitutional by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in 2017 and reaffirmed in 2023, establishing a complete nationwide ban.

Although Brazil lacks specific federal rules on asbestos removal (desamiantagem), certain municipalities, such as Florianópolis (Law No 10,607/2019), have enacted local bans and replacement obligations. Labour safety regulations, including NR-15 and its Annex 12, govern occupational exposure, while NR-7 requires long-term health monitoring for exposed workers. Environmentally, CONAMA Resolution No 348/2004 and Law No 12,305/2010 classify asbestos waste as hazardous and impose strict handling and disposal requirements.

Regarding polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the use, production and marketing of these substances have been restricted in Brazil since the 1980s. Interministerial Ordinance No 19/1981 banned the manufacture and commercialisation of PCBs and established transitional rules for the gradual elimination of contaminated equipment in the electrical sector.

To align domestic law with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (promulgated by Decree No 5,472/2005), Federal Law No 14,250/2021 now mandates the controlled elimination of PCBs and their residues, as well as the decontamination and disposal of transformers, capacitors and other contaminated equipment. Holders of PCBs must register with the Federal Technical Registry of IBAMA, prepare inventories of contaminated materials and ensure their environmentally sound final disposal through licensed facilities.

Non-compliance may trigger civil, administrative and criminal liability, in addition to the obligation to remediate environmental damage.

Solid waste management in Brazil is governed by the National Solid Waste Policy (Law No 12,305/2010), further regulated mainly by Decree No 10,936/2022. It establishes principles for integrated management and shared responsibility among producers, importers, consumers and public authorities, prioritising prevention, reduction, reuse, recycling, treatment and environmentally sound disposal. Hazardous waste is subject to stricter controls.

Liquid waste is regulated by CONAMA Resolution No 430/2011, which sets national standards for effluent discharge into water bodies.

States and municipalities share competence to legislate and act on waste management, and have issued extensive local regulations to address regional realities, promote selective collection, and monitor compliance. This further reinforces regionalised services and establishes additional rules on the final disposal of waste.

Under the National Solid Waste Policy (Law No 12,305/2010), responsibility for waste management is shared across the product life cycle among manufacturers, importers, distributors, traders, consumers and public authorities. Each party’s duties are set out in management plans, generally tailored to specific sectors or type of waste.

Depending on the type and volume of waste generated, certain activities require the preparation and execution of a waste management plan, covering all stages from generation to final disposal and subject to approval by the competent authority. Waste generators remain responsible for full compliance with their approved plans, even when outsourcing activities such as transport or final disposal to third parties. Contracting third parties does not exempt them from liability for environmental damage resulting from non-compliance.

For particular waste streams, such as pesticides, batteries, tyres, lubricants, lamps and electronic products, producers must also establish and operate further reverse-logistics systems to ensure the proper return and environmentally sound disposal of post-consumer waste.

Under the National Solid Waste Policy (Law No 12,305/2010), producers, importers, distributors and traders share responsibility for the full life cycle of products. They must design goods and packaging to minimise waste generation and enable reuse or recycling.

Certain sectors, such as pesticides, batteries, tyres, lubricants, lamps and electronic equipment, are legally required to establish and operate reverse-logistics systems for the take-back, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of post-consumer products. More recently, Decree No 12,688/2025 introduced Brazil’s first national framework for plastic packaging recycling, setting progressive recovery and recycled-content targets up until 2032. These systems may be implemented individually or through sectoral agreements, and non-compliance may trigger administrative, civil and criminal liability.

In May 2025, the government also approved the National Circular Economy Plan (PLANEC), which sets 18 objectives and over 70 strategic actions across five pillars:

• regulation;
• innovation;
• waste reduction;
• finance; and
• inter-federative co-ordination.

The PLANEC aims to promote reuse, remanufacturing and recycling, while fostering innovation and social inclusion. The plan still requires further regulation to define implementation mechanisms and co-ordination among different competent authorities.

In Brazil, waste operators include any entities that generate, transport, treat, store or dispose of waste. They may be held jointly and severally liable where their actions or omissions cause environmental damage. In specific sectors, such as industrial, commercial, construction, transport and agricultural activities, waste producers must prepare, implement and comply with approved waste management plans covering all stages from generation to final disposal. Outsourcing collection, treatment or disposal does not exempt them from liability for improper management. The waste producer has the right to subsequently bring a recourse action (ação de regresso) against the actual perpetrator of the damage.

Failure to comply may lead to administrative fines, civil liability for environmental damage and, in severe cases, criminal sanctions.

In case of an accident or incident causing harm to the environment, an adequate, immediate and complete reporting with competent authorities is paramount for the maintenance of a credible and collaborative relationship with these stakeholders. Such collaboration will help ensure business continuity with less impacts – including those that might arise from eventual judicial measures that might be brought by the public prosecutors following said incident, or administrative measures and sanctions from regulatory authorities.

In Brazil, the duty to report environmental incidents generally applies depending on the nature, gravity and potential impact of the event. Several federal and state regulations, including, for example, CONAMA Resolution No 420/2009 (referring to contaminated land) and IBAMA Normative Instruction No 15/2014, may require prompt communication to environmental authorities and, in certain cases, to potentially affected third parties. Water users may also need to report abstraction and discharge to water resources agencies under their grants. For higher-risk activities, Law No 12,608/2012 establishes additional duties, such as contingency planning and immediate notification of changes that may affect safety conditions.

In these cases, failure to report may result in administrative, civil or criminal liability. Nonetheless, regardless of the specific legal requirement, timely communication and co-operation with regulators are recommended to mitigate risks and potential liabilities.

As for reporting routines, operators must also comply with monitoring and reporting obligations established in their licences, including the submission of environmental performance reports, emissions inventories (where applicable), and waste management reports under the PNRS.

The public has a constitutional and statutory right to access environmental information under the Federal Constitution and the Access to Information Law (Law No 12,527/2011). This right applies to information held by federal, state and municipal environmental bodies as well as by private entities performing public functions.

Information may be obtained upon request or through open databases, which vary in scope and level of detail depending on the authority. Federal agencies such as IBAMA, ANM, ICMBio and ANA generally maintain more comprehensive public databases. Access may be restricted in cases involving:

• national security;
• ongoing investigations; or
• personal data protection.

Listed companies in Brazil have recently been required to disclose environmental and climate-related information as part of their sustainability reporting. These disclosures must address material environmental and climate risks and opportunities, as well as governance, strategy and risk-management processes relevant to sustainability.

In January 2023, the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM) adopted its Sustainable Finance Policy, which established a multi-year plan to integrate sustainability considerations into capital markets regulation. One of its key outcomes was Resolution CVM 193/2023, which introduced voluntary sustainability reporting based on the ISSB’s IFRS S1 and S2 standards.

In October 2024, the CVM issued Resolutions Nos 217, 218 and 219, formally endorsing these standards through the Brazilian Committee for Sustainability Pronouncements (CBPS) and making their adoption mandatory for the 2026 fiscal year. The new framework aligns Brazil with the ISSB’s global sustainability reporting structure, strengthens ESG transparency, and mitigates greenwashing risks.

Brazil has shown strong commitment to expanding green and sustainable finance. The country has progressively developed a range of instruments, including:

• green, social and sustainability-linked bonds;
• green loans;
• investment funds;
• sustainability credits; and
• payment for environmental services (PES).

Public development banks have taken the lead in this agenda. In 2024, the government launched Eco Invest Brasil in partnership with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to attract international capital through blended finance and hedging mechanisms supporting reforestation, clean energy and low-carbon infrastructure. Notably, the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) also plays a central role by issuing green bonds and financial bills, offering credit lines, and managing thematic funds such as the Amazon Fund and the Climate Fund.

Private actors are also expanding their participation in green finance, driven by new sustainability disclosure requirements and governmental benefits. Financial institutions and companies have increased the issuance of green and sustainability-linked instruments and the structuring of blended finance operations aligned with international standards.

For listed companies and entities supervised by the Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM), the accuracy of sustainability-related disclosures, greenwashing and compliance with environmental and climate reporting obligations are monitored directly by the authority. In other arrangements, monitoring obligations depend on contractual terms. The issuer or lender typically retains rights to verify compliance and may terminate or adjust contractual conditions in the event of non-compliance by the recipient of the funds.

Environmental due diligence is commonly conducted in M&A, finance and property transactions. In M&A and real estate deals in particular, pre-existing environmental liabilities or non-compliance may transfer to the buyer. To address this, environmental due diligence focuses on investigating environmental non-compliance and potential liabilities. In addition, sellers often provide representations, warranties and indemnities covering environmental risks.

The seller is not expressly required to disclose environmental information. Nonetheless, given the strict approach to environmental liability in Brazil, buyers typically require sellers to provide representations and warranties regarding potential environmental risks and liabilities. Subject to the specific contractual terms, any omission or misrepresentation, reinforced by the principle of good faith under Brazilian law, may entitle the buyer to seek indemnification from the seller.

The most common environmental issues identified in due diligence include:

• the absence of or non-compliance with environmental licences;
• irregularities in waste management and effluent treatment;
• contamination of soil and groundwater; and
• potential liabilities arising from past activities.

Depending on the sector, deforestation, interference with protected areas and non-compliance with environmental compensation or restoration obligations may also be relevant.

Given Brazil’s strict liability regime, even historical or third-party environmental damage can result in joint and several liability for the buyer, making a detailed assessment of legacy risks a central aspect of transactional environmental due diligence.