Brazil has a constitutionally rooted environmental protection regime. Article 225 of the Federal Constitution of 1988 establishes the right to an ecologically balanced environment as a fundamental right and imposes a duty on both the government and the community to defend and preserve it for present and future generations.

The Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF) has repeatedly affirmed the constitutional status of environmental protection as a fundamental and intergenerational right, recognising its binding effect on both public authorities and private actors.

The core statutory framework includes:

• Law No. 6,938/1981 (National Environmental Policy Act).
• Law No. 9,605/1998 (Environmental Crimes Act).
• Law No. 12,651/2012 (Forest Code).
• Complementary Law No. 140/2011 (allocation of environmental competences).
• Law No. 15,190/2025 (General Law on Environmental Licensing)
• Sectoral legislation on water resources, waste, biodiversity and climate change.

Brazil operates a triple liability regime, which means that violation to environment quality standards and regulations subject wrongdoers to administrative, civil and criminal sanctions:

Civil liability is strict (thus not depending on the demonstration of fault), joint and several (all parties directly or indirectly involved with the causes of the damages may be sued for the entire amount of damages, with the right to proportionally recover the losses from the other responsible parties).Civil liability is also not subject to statutes of limitation for restoration obligations. Finally, environmental obligations attach to both the activity and the property and case law has consolidated the understanding that environmental liability is propter rem in nature, meaning that the current owner may be held liable to restore the environment regardless of fault.

Administrative liability is of a subjective nature and depends on demonstration of an action or omission that violates the environmental rules. Sanctions involve fines, seizure of products or equipment, destruction of products, embargo or suspension of works or activities, demolition of work and restraint of rights, such as suspension or cancellation of permits and loss of tax benefits.

Criminal liability is applicable to individuals and legal entities and is also measured by fault. Environmental protection is implemented through the National Environmental System (SISNAMA), composed of federal, state and municipal authorities.

Environmental regulation and enforcement in Brazil are carried out through a multi-level system involving federal, state and municipal authorities operating within the National Environmental System (SISNAMA). At the federal level, the primary environmental regulator is Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA), which is responsible for environmental licensing of projects with national or cross-border impacts, enforcement of federal environmental laws, inspection of environmentally harmful activities, and the imposition of administrative sanctions such as fines, embargoes and suspension of activities. IBAMA is widely regarded as an active enforcement authority, particularly in relation to deforestation, biodiversity protection, pollution control and major infrastructure projects.

Also at federal level, the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) is responsible for the management and protection of federal conservation units and for enforcing environmental rules within those areas, including biodiversity and wildlife protection. Climate policy coordination and environmental policy formulation fall primarily within the remit of the Ministry of Environment, which sets strategic direction, issues regulations and oversees federal environmental agencies, but does not itself typically conduct frontline enforcement.

State environmental agencies play a central role in Brazil’s environmental governance, as they are responsible for most environmental licensing, monitoring and enforcement activities affecting projects and operations located within their territories. These agencies have broad powers to issue licences, impose conditions, conduct inspections and apply administrative penalties. In practice, state authorities account for a significant proportion of day-to-day enforcement actions, and enforcement intensity can vary depending on the state, available resources and local policy priorities.

Municipal authorities also have environmental responsibilities, particularly in relation to land use, zoning, waste management and local licensing, and may enforce environmental requirements within the scope of their delegated powers. In addition to administrative authorities, the Public Prosecutor’s Offices at federal and state levels play a critical enforcement role through civil and criminal proceedings. Prosecutors frequently bring public civil actions to compel compliance, seek remediation of environmental damage and challenge unlawful licensing or regulatory omissions, and their involvement significantly strengthens environmental enforcement in practice.

Overall, Brazil has a robust and active environmental enforcement framework. Environmental requirements are not merely formal or aspirational; they are regularly enforced through inspections, administrative sanctions, judicial proceedings and strict liability for environmental damage. While enforcement intensity may vary across regions and sectors, businesses operating in Brazil should expect meaningful regulatory scrutiny and a high level of legal exposure in the event of non-compliance.

Environmental permitting is one of the principal instruments of the National Environmental Policy Act and has been recently regulated at the federal level by Federal Law No 15,190/2025, which currently consists of the National Legal Framework for Environmental Licensing.

As a general rule, construction, installation, expansion or operation of potentially polluting establishments and activities that use natural resources are subject to prior licensing before the environmental authorities.
Depending on the characteristics of the activity, other prior permits may be required, such as suppression of vegetation, wildlife management and use of water resources.

The standard licensing process includes (i) a Preliminary Licence, which attests viability of the project; (ii) an Installation Licence, which allows construction of the enterprise; and (iii) an Operation Licence, which allows startup of activities.

The recent enacted Legal Framework for Environmental Licensing, however, allows the competent authorities to establish simplified licensing process, especially when the activity is simultaneously classified as small or medium-sized and low or medium-polluting potential.

All licenses usually stablish technical conditions. Failure to comply with the conditions of an environmental license, without proper technical justification, subjects the entrepreneur to criminal and administrative penalties, regardless of the obligation to repair the damage caused.

Projects with significant environmental impact require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/RIMA). Other simpler studies may also be required depending on the size and pollution potential of the activity.

The precautionary principle has been repeatedly affirmed by case law as applicable in licensing procedures, allowing suspension of activities where environmental risk is insufficiently assessed.

Environmental licences are generally transferable, provided that the new holder assumes all environmental obligations and the competent authority formally approves the transfer.

The procedure varies by each competent authority, but typically requires a formal request, updated corporate documentation, evidence of technical capacity and proof of compliance with existing licence conditions.

Note, however, that the transfer of a permit does not extinguish pre-existing environmental liabilities before authorities.

Administrative decisions may be challenged through administrative appeals and/or judicial reviews by the affected parties.

Third parties legally authorized, such as Public Prosecutor’s Offices, associations and non-governmental organizations may also challenge granted licences through public civil actions.

In Brazil, environmental impact assessments are a central and legally mandatory component of the environmental licensing process for projects and activities that may cause significant environmental degradation. The requirement for an environmental impact assessment derives directly from the Federal Constitution, which mandates prior environmental studies for potentially harmful activities, and is implemented through federal and state environmental legislation and regulations.

EIA must provide a comprehensive analysis of the project and its environmental context, including a detailed description of the proposed activity and its alternatives, identification and evaluation of direct, indirect, cumulative and synergistic environmental impacts, assessment of impacts on physical, biological and socio-economic components, and the definition of mitigation, compensation and monitoring measures. EIA procedure also includes public participation, typically through public hearings, and the preparation of the RIMA, which is a non-technical summary intended to inform the public of the project’s environmental implications.

EIAs and the resulting licensing decisions are subject to both administrative and judicial challenge. Interested parties, including affected communities, non-governmental organisations and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, may challenge the adequacy of an EIA on procedural or substantive grounds, such as insufficient assessment of impacts, failure to consider reasonable alternatives, inadequate public consultation or non-compliance with technical requirements. EIAs are frequently challenged before courts, particularly on grounds of (i) insufficient impact analysis, (ii) failure to consider cumulative impacts: (iii) inadequate public participation and (iv) procedural defects.

Courts in Brazil have demonstrated a willingness to scrutinise EIAs closely, and deficiencies in environmental studies can result in the suspension or annulment of licences, the imposition of additional conditions, or the requirement for supplementary studies. As a result, EIAs in Brazil are not merely formalities, but legally significant instruments subject to rigorous review and enforcement.

Liability for soil and groundwater contamination in Brazil is primarily governed by:

• Law No. 6,938/1981 (National Environmental Policy Act).
• Law No. 9,605/1998 (Environmental Crimes Act).
• State-level contaminated land regulations (notably in São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina).
• CONAMA resolutions addressing soil quality and remediation standards (notably CONAMA 420/2009).

Brazil adopts a strict (objective) liability regime, grounded in risk theory. Civil liability is joint and several and focused on full environmental restoration. Nevertheless, environmental authorities may accept a restoration based on the intended use of the area. Liability is allocated broadly and may attach to multiple parties. Polluters, defined as those who directly or indirectly cause contamination, may include operators, owners of facilities, waste generators, transporters and, in certain circumstances, landowners. Brazilian law recognises joint and several liability, meaning that any responsible party may be required to bear the full cost of remediation, with subsequent rights of recourse against other liable parties. Liability may also extend to successors, purchasers and, in some cases, financiers, particularly where they exercise control over the activity or property giving rise to contamination.

Regulatory oversight and enforcement are exercised by environmental authorities within the National Environmental System (SISNAMA). At federal level, the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA) has authority in cases involving federal licensing, cross-border impacts or matters of national interest, while state environmental agencies play a central role in identifying contaminated sites, imposing remediation obligations and approving investigation and cleanup plans. Several states have developed detailed regulatory regimes for contaminated land management, including requirements for site investigation, risk assessment, remediation standards and post-remediation monitoring.

The regulatory process typically involves phased assessment, beginning with preliminary site investigation, followed by confirmatory studies, risk-based evaluation of contamination and the definition of remediation objectives. Cleanup standards are often risk-based and consider current and future land use, but authorities retain discretion to require more stringent measures where necessary to protect human health or sensitive environmental receptors. Environmental licensing, land-use approvals and property transactions frequently trigger obligations to assess and address soil and groundwater contamination.

Contaminated land liability may be enforced through administrative proceedings, civil public actions brought by environmental authorities or public prosecutors, and, in severe cases, criminal proceedings. Courts have consistently upheld the strict and restorative nature of environmental liability, rejecting defences based on lack of fault or compliance with prior permits. As a result, soil and groundwater contamination represents a significant legal and financial risk in Brazil, and environmental due diligence, contractual risk allocation and proactive remediation strategies are essential components of doing business in the jurisdiction.

There is no general statutory obligation applicable to all landowners to investigate contamination. However, investigation duties arise in specific circumstances, including (i) licensing procedures, (ii) decommissioning of potentially polluting activities, (iii) real estate developments involving former industrial areas, (iv) suspicion of contamination due to spills, accidents etc., and (v) regulatory requirements under state contaminated land frameworks.
Investigation involves three phases: identification, diagnosis and intervention. Usually, environmental agencies require Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments, followed by a Risk Assessment, Remediation and Monitoring plans.

Federal guidelines stablish as a basic principle for the management of contaminated areas the generation and dissemination of information. In this sense, in regulated states (e.g. São Paulo), investigative and remediation reports must be submitted to the competent environmental authority.

In case of accidents that jeopardize human health or major environmental damages, immediate reporting to the environmental and health authorities are mandatory and this obligation is usually set forth in environmental licenses.
Failure to conduct mandatory investigations and reporting obligations may lead to administrative penalties and civil liability.

In Brazil, there is generally a duty to report contamination of land and groundwater, including situations where pollutants are migrating or pose a risk of migrating to neighbouring properties, although the scope and triggering thresholds of this duty depend on the applicable federal and state regulatory regimes and on the level of risk involved. The obligation arises from the broader principles of environmental protection, prevention and transparency that underpin Brazilian environmental law, as well as from specific regulatory requirements applicable to contaminated sites and hazardous activities.

Where contamination is identified, operators and, in many cases, property owners are expected to promptly notify the competent environmental authority responsible for licensing and supervision of the site. This obligation is particularly clear where the contamination may cause actual or potential harm to human health, groundwater, surface water, or protected environmental receptors, or where off-site migration is detected or suspected. Failure to report contamination may itself constitute an administrative offence and may aggravate civil and criminal liability.

The duty to report may also arise indirectly through other legal mechanisms. Environmental licensing conditions often require license holders to disclose incidents, non-compliance and environmental risks, including contamination events. In addition, Brazilian law imposes a general duty to prevent environmental damage, which has been interpreted by authorities and courts as encompassing an obligation to inform regulators when contamination is discovered, even if it occurred historically or was caused by third parties.

Courts and enforcement authorities in Brazil take a strict approach to non-disclosure. Concealment or delay in reporting contamination may lead to higher fines, suspension of licences, rejection of remediation plans or increased exposure in civil public actions. Accordingly, businesses operating in Brazil typically treat the discovery of soil or groundwater contamination, or evidence of pollutant migration, as an event requiring immediate legal and technical assessment and, in most cases, notification to the relevant environmental authority.

If contamination migrates to neighbouring land, the responsible party may also face civil liability towards affected neighbours, without prejudice to remediate the environmental damage.

Under Brazilian law, the owner of land affected by historical contamination generally has a private right of action against a previous owner or operator who caused the contamination, even where the contamination occurred lawfully at the time or prior to the current owner’s acquisition of the property. This private right of recourse exists alongside, and is distinct from, the owner’s ongoing obligations toward environmental authorities.

Brazilian environmental liability is based on a strict and objective regime, under which environmental damage gives rise to a duty of full remediation regardless of fault. As a result, the current landowner may be required by regulators to investigate and remediate contaminated soil or groundwater even if the contamination is historical and attributable to a former owner. However, this regulatory responsibility does not extinguish the current owner’s civil right to seek indemnification or reimbursement from the party that actually caused the contamination.

Civil claims against previous owners are typically grounded in tort law principles, unjust enrichment and contractual liability (where applicable). To succeed, the claimant must generally demonstrate that the contamination exists, that it was caused by the former owner or operator, and that there is a causal link between the historical activity and the current environmental damage and remediation costs. Brazilian courts have accepted that environmental harm is continuous in nature, which means that limitation periods are often interpreted flexibly in contamination cases, particularly where damage persists or only becomes apparent years later.

The Brazilian superior courts, including the Superior Tribunal de Justiça, have consistently recognised that while environmental obligations toward the state are propter rem (i.e. attached to the property), rights of recourse between private parties remain fully available. Accordingly, a current owner compelled to remediate contamination may pursue former owners, operators or other responsible parties for recovery of cleanup costs and related damages, subject to evidentiary proof.

In practice, these claims are common in the context of real estate transactions, corporate restructurings and insolvency scenarios, and are often reinforced through contractual indemnities and representations. Nevertheless, even in the absence of contractual protection, Brazilian law provides a clear legal basis for private actions against previous owners who caused historical contamination, reflecting the principle that environmental responsibility should ultimately rest with the polluter

In Brazil, the regulatory regime for waste is structured around a comprehensive federal framework complemented by state and municipal regulations, reflecting the country’s decentralised environmental governance model. The cornerstone of the regime is the National Solid Waste Policy, which establishes principles, objectives and instruments for the integrated management and environmentally sound disposal of solid waste across the entire waste lifecycle.

The National Solid Waste Policy is based on principles such as prevention, precaution, polluter pays, shared responsibility for the product lifecycle and sustainable development. It introduces a waste hierarchy prioritising non-generation, reduction, reuse, recycling and treatment, with final disposal of waste residues as a last resort. The regime applies broadly to household, commercial, industrial, construction, healthcare and hazardous waste, and imposes obligations on waste generators, transporters, handlers, distributors, importers and public authorities.

Key regulatory controls include requirements for waste management plans, which are mandatory for municipalities and for companies generating or handling significant volumes of waste or hazardous waste. Certain activities also require specific environmental licences covering waste storage, treatment and disposal, issued by the competent environmental authority within the National Environmental System (SISNAMA). At federal level, regulatory oversight and enforcement in relevant cases are exercised by the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA), while state environmental agencies are responsible for most licensing and day-to-day supervision.

Brazilian waste law also incorporates extended producer responsibility mechanisms through mandatory reverse logistics systems for specified product categories, such as packaging, electronics, batteries, tyres, lubricating oils and certain chemicals. These systems require manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers to organise and finance the take-back and proper disposal or recycling of post-consumer products, often through sectoral agreements or regulatory instruments.

Hazardous waste is subject to enhanced controls, including classification, labelling, transport documentation, tracking and disposal at authorised facilities. Illegal dumping, inadequate treatment or non-compliance with licensing conditions may give rise to administrative sanctions, civil liability and criminal penalties. Waste shipments, including imports and exports, are also regulated and may require prior authorisation.

Overall, Brazil’s waste regulatory regime is comprehensive and enforcement-oriented, with strong emphasis on lifecycle responsibility, environmental licensing and accountability. Compliance requires coordinated attention to federal, state and municipal requirements, and waste management represents a significant regulatory and liability consideration for businesses operating in Brazil.

Brazil adopts a chain-of-custody liability approach. Waste generators remain liable even after lawful transfer to third parties.

Case law has consistently held that environmental liability is joint and several among all parties involved in the chain of causation, including waste generators.

Transfer of waste does not extinguish liability if improper disposal results in environmental damage. The PNRS expressly states that hiring of services for the collection, storage, transportation, transshipment, treatment or final disposal of solid waste does not exempt generators from liability for damages that may be caused by the inadequate management of waste.

The PNRS and other regulatory rules establish mandatory reverse logistics systems for products such as:

• Electronics.
• Batteries.
• Lubricating oil containers.
• Pesticide containers.
• Lamps.
• Packaging (plastic, metal and glass).
• Tires
• Medication

Producers, importers, distributors and retailers share responsibility for implementing take-back schemes and must keep complete information on the actions taken under their responsibility updated and available to the competent authorities.

Reverse logistics systems are usually implemented and operationalized by means of a (i) sectoral agreement, (ii) commitment agreement or (iii) regulation issued by public authorities.

Regulatory enforcement has increased in recent years, particularly concerning packaging and electronics. In view of that, there are already several official management entities that collectively manage the reverse logistics of various sectors, to which those responsible for the life cycle of products and packaging can associate themselves.

Failure to comply may result in fines, licensing restrictions and civil liability.

In Brazil, the duties of owners and occupiers of premises regarding asbestos and other deleterious or hazardous materials derive from constitutional principles, labour and occupational health legislation, environmental law, and public health regulations. These obligations apply to commercial, industrial, and, in certain cases, residential premises, in which workers, tenants, or the general public may be exposed.

Brazilian law adopts a preventive and risk-based approach, imposing strict duties of care on those who control or benefit economically from the premises.

Brazil has adopted a near-total ban on asbestos, following a landmark decision of the Supreme Court (STF), which declared unconstitutional state and federal rules allowing the use of chrysotile asbestos. As a result, extraction, industrialization, commercialization, and use of asbestos are prohibited throughout Brazil.

Existing asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), particularly in older buildings, remain subject to strict control rather than automatic removal.

Owners and occupiers of premises containing asbestos must identify the presence of asbestos-containing materials in buildings, installations, or equipment, as well as assess the condition of such materials and the risk of fibre release, especially during maintenance, renovation, or demolition activities.

It is also necessary to adopt measures for exposure prevention, such as guarantee that asbestos materials are sealed, encapsulated, or otherwise managed to prevent fibre dispersion. It is prohibiting the unauthorized handling, cutting, drilling, or removal of asbestos materials.

When removal is necessary, it must be carried out only by licensed and specialized contractors, following technical standards for containment, worker protection, and waste disposal. Asbestos waste must be treated as hazardous waste and disposed of at authorized facilities.

In relation to human safety, it is necessary to inform employees, contractors, tenants, and service providers of the presence and location of asbestos, as well as comply with occupational health and safety rules.

Failure to comply may result in administrative fines, civil liability, and, in severe cases, criminal liability.

Brazil does not currently have a comprehensive, PFAS-specific federal statute equivalent to regimes adopted or proposed in the EU or certain US jurisdictions. However, PFAS are increasingly addressed indirectly through Brazil’s environmental, public health, consumer protection, and occupational safety frameworks, and regulatory scrutiny is clearly intensifying.

Brazilian authorities generally regulate PFAS under the broader category of hazardous or potentially hazardous chemical substances, with a strong emphasis on precaution, risk prevention, and environmental liability.

In this sense, environmental authorities may require monitoring, risk assessment, or remediation of PFAS contamination under general pollution control rules.

Also, being considered a hazardous waste, PFAS storage, transport, treatment, and disposal are subject to Brazil’s specific regulations.

Brazil does not yet impose a general ban on PFAS in consumer or industrial products. However, Brazil often aligns its chemical regulation with international conventions and standards, and regulatory initiatives may follow developments in the EU, OECD, or Stockholm Convention frameworks.

Regulatory attention to PFAS in Brazil is increasing. While Brazil has not yet adopted PFAS-specific bans or nationwide monitoring mandates, companies operating in Brazil are increasingly expected to identify PFAS risks proactively and implement preventive compliance measures.

Brazil does not have a single, integrated chemicals management regime equivalent to the EU’s REACH/CLP system or the US TSCA. Instead, chemical products are regulated through a fragmented, sector-based framework, combining environmental, health, consumer protection, and occupational safety rules.

Brazil frequently aligns its regulatory practices with OECD guidance, UN GHS standards and international environmental conventions. Legislative proposals to establish a more comprehensive national chemicals policy have been discussed, but no REACH-equivalent framework has yet been enacted.

In Brazil, regulation is use – and risk – driven, rather than based on a comprehensive pre-market registration and authorization system.

Unlike REACH there is no nationwide obligation to register all chemical substances placed on the Brazilian market, there is no central inventory equivalent to the EU REACH substance database or the US TSCA Inventory and there is no general authorization regime for substances of very high concern (SVHCs).

However, specific substances, uses, or products may require prior approval, notification, or licensing depending on sector and risk profile.

Products that may affect human health (e.g. cosmetics, sanitizers, medical products, food-contact materials) are subject to pre-market approval, composition controls, and post-market surveillance by the Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA).

Substances with potential environmental impact may be regulated under environmental laws enforced by the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA), including import and export controls, environmental licensing conditions and strictions or bans on certain uses.

Also, Brazil’s Consumer Defence Code imposes strict liability for defective or unsafe products, regardless of fault. This framework requires disclosure of risks and facilitates product recalls and collective actions, which significantly increases compliance and litigation exposure compared to some jurisdictions.

At last, Brazil has adopted the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for classification and labelling of chemicals.

Brazil regulates energy efficiency through a combination of federal legislation, regulatory programmes and sector-specific measures rather than through a single comprehensive energy efficiency statute.

The framework is driven by public policy objectives such as energy security, cost reduction and environmental protection, and is coordinated at federal level by the Ministério de Minas e Energia, with implementation shared among sectoral regulators and technical agencies.

There is no general, economy-wide obligation on private companies to carry out periodic energy efficiency audits comparable to those in certain EU jurisdictions. Energy audits may, however, be required in specific contexts, such as participation in government-funded efficiency programmes, compliance with environmental licensing conditions, sector-specific regulation, or public procurement rules. Large energy consumers may also undertake audits voluntarily to access incentives or financing.

A key component of Brazil’s energy efficiency policy applies to the electricity sector. Electricity distribution companies regulated by the Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL) are required to allocate a percentage of their annual net operating revenue to energy efficiency programmes aimed at reducing electricity consumption and peak demand, subject to regulatory oversight and reporting obligations.

Brazil also imposes mandatory minimum energy performance standards and energy labelling requirements for a wide range of products and equipment, including household appliances, lighting, motors and HVAC systems. These requirements are administered through the national conformity assessment and labelling system coordinated by the Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMETRO), and compliance is a condition for placing covered products on the Brazilian market.

Energy efficiency obligations further arise in the context of buildings, particularly public buildings and certain large commercial developments, as well as through fuel efficiency and transport-related programmes aligned with Brazil’s climate and emissions policies. Enforcement mechanisms include administrative penalties, product recalls, loss of access to incentives and, for regulated entities, contractual or regulatory sanctions. Overall, Brazil adopts a programmatic and sector-based approach to energy efficiency, with targeted mandatory obligations and increasing regulatory and market pressure to improve energy performance rather than broad, universal audit requirements.

Brazil’s approach to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and the expansion of renewable energy is anchored in constitutional principles of environmental protection and sustainable development, and implemented through a combination of climate policy, sectoral regulation and market-based mechanisms. Brazil is a Party to the Paris Agreement and has committed, through its nationally determined contribution (NDC), to reduce GHG emissions and to pursue a long-term transition to a low-carbon economy, with particular emphasis on land use, energy and transport.

The central statutory framework is Brazil’s National Policy on Climate Change (Política Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima – PNMC), which establishes principles such as prevention, precaution, polluter pays, and shared but differentiated responsibilities, and provides the legal basis for mitigation, adaptation and sectoral climate actions. The PNMC sets economy-wide emission reduction commitments and authorises the adoption of instruments such as sectoral plans, economic incentives, emissions monitoring and reporting requirements, and market-based mechanisms. While Brazil has not yet implemented a fully operational, economy-wide emissions trading scheme comparable to the EU ETS, legislation adopted at federal level provides for the creation of a regulated carbon market, and regulatory and institutional steps toward a Brazilian emissions trading system are underway.

In parallel, Brazil’s energy policy strongly favours renewable sources. The country already has a comparatively low-carbon electricity matrix, historically dominated by hydropower, and has significantly expanded wind, solar and biomass generation over the past decade. Renewable energy development is supported through long-standing public policies, including energy auctions, grid access rules and financing mechanisms, coordinated by the Ministério de Minas e Energia and regulated by the Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL). Wind power has benefited from competitive auctions and has become one of the fastest-growing sources in Brazil’s power mix.

Brazil also uses sector-specific policies to address emissions. In the transport and fuels sector, the national biofuels policy (RenovaBio) establishes decarbonisation targets for fuel distributors and a system of tradable decarbonisation credits (CBIOs), which function as a market-based mechanism linked to verified lifecycle emissions reductions. In the land-use sector, climate policy is closely integrated with forest protection and deforestation control measures, reflecting the importance of land-use change in Brazil’s emissions profile.

Emissions reduction efforts are supported by monitoring, reporting and enforcement mechanisms, including corporate and sectoral reporting obligations, environmental licensing requirements and strict civil liability for environmental damage. Although Brazil’s climate framework is still evolving, and key instruments such as a national emissions trading scheme are in the process of implementation rather than fully operational, the combination of binding climate commitments, enabling legislation and strong renewable energy policies provides a clear legal and policy signal in favour of emissions reduction and continued expansion of renewable energy sources.

Brazil does not yet have a single, standalone statute expressly establishing an economy-wide “net zero” target in the same manner as some jurisdictions. However, an overarching low-carbon and net-zero objective is embedded in Brazil’s international climate commitments and domestic policy framework. Brazil has committed, under the Paris Agreement, to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, a target formally reflected in its updated nationally determined contribution (NDC) and long-term climate strategy submitted at international level. This commitment guides federal climate policy and informs sectoral regulation, even though it has not been consolidated into a single framework law with binding, economy-wide carbon budgets.

Domestically, Brazil’s National Policy on Climate Change provides the legal foundation for emissions reduction and authorises the adoption of mitigation instruments, sectoral plans and market-based mechanisms consistent with a long-term transition to a low-carbon economy. In parallel, executive policies and planning documents adopted by the federal government incorporate the objective of long-term decarbonisation, particularly in the energy, transport, industry and land-use sectors. Responsibility for coordinating these policies lies primarily with the Ministério do Meio Ambiente and the Ministério de Minas e Energia, reflecting the cross-cutting nature of climate policy.

While Brazil’s net-zero commitment is currently expressed primarily through international undertakings and policy instruments rather than a single binding statute, it has practical legal relevance. It shapes regulatory initiatives, including the development of a national carbon market, renewable energy expansion, deforestation control measures and sectoral decarbonisation targets. As a result, although the legal architecture is still evolving, Brazil can be characterised as having an overarching net-zero objective that is politically and strategically binding, with increasing regulatory and commercial implications for businesses operating in the country.

Brazil does not have a single, standalone “green claim” or “greenwashing” statute, but the use of terms such as “green”, “sustainable”, “eco-friendly” or similar is regulated through a combination of consumer protection law, advertising rules, environmental legislation and sector-specific regulation. In practice, Brazil applies a substance-over-form approach, under which environmental claims must be accurate, verifiable and not misleading, regardless of whether they are voluntary or mandatory.

The primary legal basis is the Brazilian Consumer Defence Code, which prohibits false, misleading or abusive advertising and imposes strict liability on suppliers for information provided about products and services.

Environmental claims are treated as material information for consumers, meaning that unsubstantiated or exaggerated sustainability claims may give rise to administrative sanctions, civil liability and collective actions. Companies must therefore be able to substantiate “green” or “sustainable” claims with technical evidence, lifecycle data or recognised certification, where applicable.

From a regulatory perspective, enforcement is shared among multiple authorities. Consumer protection enforcement at federal level is coordinated by the Secretaria Nacional do Consumidor (SENACON), which operates under the Ministry of Justice and oversees national consumer policy, investigations and administrative proceedings. State and municipal consumer protection bodies (PROCONs) also play a significant role and are often the first line of enforcement in greenwashing cases. These authorities may impose fines, require corrective advertising or order suspension of misleading campaigns.
Advertising claims are additionally subject to oversight by the advertising self-regulatory body, the Conselho Nacional de Autorregulamentação Publicitária (CONAR). While CONAR’s decisions are not legally binding in the same way as administrative sanctions, its rulings are influential and frequently require modification or withdrawal of advertisements making unsubstantiated environmental claims. Many greenwashing disputes in Brazil are initially addressed through CONAR proceedings.

Depending on the product or activity, sectoral regulators may also be involved. Environmental claims connected to environmental performance, emissions, waste or pollution may attract scrutiny from the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA) or state environmental agencies, particularly where claims conflict with licensing conditions or environmental data. For regulated products affecting human health, such as cosmetics, sanitizers or food-related items, the Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) may challenge sustainability or environmental benefit claims that are misleading or unsupported.

Overall, while Brazil does not operate a pre-approval system for environmental marketing claims, the regulatory environment for “green” or “sustainable” representations is robust. Companies face meaningful enforcement risk from consumer authorities, advertising self-regulation bodies and sectoral regulators, as well as exposure to civil public actions brought by prosecutors.

As a result, environmental claims in Brazil must be carefully framed, technically substantiated and consistent with applicable regulatory and factual realities.

Brazil does not have a standalone antitrust regime specifically addressing climate change or sustainability agreements, but competition law principles apply fully to climate-related conduct and cooperation between competitors. The Brazilian Competition Act establishes a general prohibition on anticompetitive conduct and requires prior merger control for concentrations meeting statutory thresholds, without carving out an express exemption for climate or environmental objectives.

Climate-related initiatives are therefore assessed within the existing competition law framework administered by the Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE). In practice, CADE applies a rule-of-reason approach to agreements and conduct that may have both competitive and pro-environmental effects. Cooperation between competitors aimed at decarbonisation, emissions reduction, circular economy initiatives or the development of low-carbon technologies may be permissible where it is proportionate, does not involve price fixing or market allocation, and generates efficiencies or consumer benefits that outweigh any potential restriction of competition.

From a merger control perspective, CADE may consider environmental and climate-related factors as part of its competitive assessment where they affect market structure, innovation or long-term consumer welfare, but climate considerations do not replace the core analysis of competitive effects. Sustainability-driven concentrations are not subject to a distinct approval track, and environmental benefits alone do not exempt a transaction from antitrust scrutiny.

CADE has also shown openness to providing legal certainty through non-binding guidance tools, such as consultations or advisory opinions, in cases involving novel forms of cooperation, including those linked to sustainability or climate objectives. While Brazil has not adopted formal “green antitrust” guidelines comparable to initiatives in some other jurisdictions, enforcement practice indicates a willingness to consider climate-related efficiencies within the boundaries of existing law.

Overall, Brazil’s approach can be characterised as cautious but flexible. Climate change objectives do not create a safe harbour from antitrust rules, but they may be considered when assessing efficiencies, innovation and consumer benefits, provided that competition is not unduly restricted. Businesses pursuing climate-related collaboration in Brazil therefore typically seek to structure such initiatives conservatively and, where appropriate, engage with CADE to mitigate antitrust risk.

In the past three years Brazil has seen several notable developments in climate-related litigation, though much of the caselaw remains emerging and at the intersection of environmental law and climate policy rather than establishing a fully developed body of climate damage jurisprudence. One of the most significant decisions was handed down by the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), which reaffirmed that the federal government’s failure to implement and finance the National Climate Change Fund (Fundo Clima) constituted an omission inconsistent with constitutional duties and, in doing so, became the first court in the world to recognise the Paris Agreement, an international treaty, as having “human rights” status within the Brazilian legal system and a supra legal hierarchy, with implications for the enforceability of climate commitments and for the release of climate financing.

Alongside that seminal ruling, a range of other climate-focused cases has been filed or is pending that reflect the growing use of litigation to challenge government action or inaction on climate issues. Federal prosecutors have brought public civil actions against individuals or authorities for large-scale illegal deforestation activities on the basis that they contribute materially to greenhouse gas emissions and violate both environmental and climate commitments, with courts engaging scientific evidence on emissions impacts as part of their reasoning. Similarly, litigation has been pursued to compel more comprehensive environmental impact assessments, including climate impact components, in connection with major infrastructure and waterway licensing decisions, illustrating judicial willingness to integrate climate considerations into environmental licensing.

At the same time, the Supreme Court’s approach to aspects of the Amazon “Soy Moratorium” in a 2025 judgment — permitting a large producing state to withdraw tax incentives tied to a private, voluntary climate-oriented supply chain agreement — was widely viewed as a significant judicial examination of the interplay between climate-related private governance initiatives and public policy, with implications for future climate-related litigation in Brazil.

While direct climate damage claims against corporations are still rare in Brazilian courts, the existing case law and active docket of climate-linked environmental actions demonstrate a trend towards judicial engagement with climate change issues, reinforcing constitutional environmental rights and expanding the scope of environmental litigation to encompass climate mitigation and adaptation considerations.

Brazil’s climate and environmental policy landscape is widely expected to undergo substantial legislative reform in the coming years, driven by its international commitments under the Paris Agreement, evolving domestic policy priorities and legal pressures from courts, civil society and investors.

Although Brazil’s current framework already incorporates emission reduction targets and sectoral programmes, many stakeholders and government actors recognise that existing laws are fragmented and lack the coherence and enforceability seen in more comprehensive climate regimes in other jurisdictions.

As a result, legislative proposals have been circulated that would strengthen legal mandates for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, clarify the roles of federal and subnational authorities, establish more robust carbon pricing or trading mechanisms, and integrate climate considerations more systematically into environmental licensing, energy policy and industrial regulation.

The political impetus for reform is reinforced by Brazil’s commitments in successive nationally determined contributions and by global expectations tied to climate diplomacy, trade and investment flows. At the same time, the exact shape, timing and scope of any new climate-oriented legislation remain uncertain, as they depend on political dynamics within the National Congress and on broader economic and social priorities.

Nevertheless, the trend is towards greater legislative attention to climate change, including more explicit statutory backing for net-zero goals, market-based mechanisms, renewable energy expansion and adaptation measures, reflecting Brazil’s desire to align its domestic law with its international climate obligations and to provide regulatory certainty for businesses operating in a low-carbon transition.

Judicial activism in climate matters is also expected to remain significant.

(a) The company itself

Legal entities may incur civil, administrative and criminal liability for environmental damage.

Civil liability is governed primarily by Article 14 of Law No. 6,938/1981 (National Environmental Policy Act), which establishes strict (objective) liability based on risk theory. Liability is joint and several and aimed at full environmental restoration.

The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has consistently confirmed that environmental civil liability is not dependent upon fault, being only necessary demonstration of the damage and the causal link. Furthermore, the Supreme Court (STF) ruled that civil claims seeking environmental restoration are imprescriptible.

Criminal liability of legal entities is expressly recognised under Article 225 of the Federal Constitution and regulated by Law No. 9,605/1998 (Environmental Crimes Act). the Supreme Court (STF) confirmed that corporate criminal liability does not require the simultaneous prosecution of individuals.

Administrative liability arises under Law No. 9,605/1998 and Decree No. 6,514/2008, which establish fines, embargoes and suspension of activities.

(b) Shareholders

As a rule, shareholders benefit from limited liability under the Brazilian Civil Code (Law No. 10,406/2002). However, courts may pierce the corporate veil under Article 50 of the Civil Code where there is abuse of legal personality, diversion of purpose or asset commingling.

In environmental matters, Law No. 9,605/1998 expressly set forth that the legal entity may be disregarded whenever its legal personality is an obstacle to the compensation for environmental damages. The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has already upheld the disregard of legal personality in environmental cases where necessary to guarantee reparation.

(c) Directors and officers

Brazilian caselaw recognises personal liability where there is evidence of direct participation, knowledge or culpable omission. Directors and officers are subject to:

• Civil liability is generally established by Article 927 of the Civil Code where personal fault arises the obligation to repair damages caused. The National Environmental Policy Act, establishes a strict liability regime for polluters, defines polluter as any individual or legal entity, whether public or private, directly or indirectly responsible for an activity that causes environmental degradation.
• Administrative liability under Law No. 9,605/1998.
• Criminal liability where their conduct satisfies statutory requirements under the Environmental Crimes Act. Note that anyone who, in any way, contributes to the commission of environmental crimes is subject to the penalties prescribed for them, to the extent of their culpability, as well as the director, administrator, member of a board or technical body, auditor, manager, agent or representative of a legal entity, who, knowing of the criminal conduct of another, fails to prevent its commission, when they could have acted to prevent it. Such rule, thus, gives great importance to omissions.

(d) Parent companies

Brazilian law does not establish automatic parent company liability. However, liability may arise where (i) there is operational control, (ii) the corporate structure is abused, (iii) whenever the legal personality of the direct polluter is an obstacle to the compensation of environmental damages; and (iv) the economic group acts as a single enterprise.

The broad joint and several liability regimes under Article 14 of Law No. 6,938/1981 allows courts to attribute liability to entities that directly or indirectly contributed to the environmental damage. Note that caselaw applies a broad concept of indirect polluter, including those who does it, who doesn’t do it when they should, who lets it happen, who doesn’t care that others do it, who finances it, and who benefits when others do it.

(e) Lenders (e.g. banks)

Brazil does not provide for automatic lender liability comparable to the US CERCLA regime.

However, liability may arise due to the concept of indirect polluter. Case law applies such concept specially when lenders finance projects without the necessary environmental permits or profit economically from the polluting activities of a third party.

(f) Other entities

Contractors, operators and service providers may be held jointly and severally liable under Article 14 of Law No. 6,938/1981, where they contributed to the environmental damage. The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) adopts a broad causation approach, frequently recognising joint liability among all parties in the chain of environmental harm.

(a) Can a buyer assume pre-acquisition environmental liabilities?

Under Brazilian law, a buyer may assume pre-acquisition environmental liabilities. Environmental liability in Brazil is strict, objective and often characterised as propter rem, meaning that certain obligations, particularly those relating to remediation of environmental damage associated with land or facilities, attach to the property itself. As a result, a buyer who acquires contaminated land or an operation linked to historical pollution may be held directly liable by environmental authorities for investigation and remediation, regardless of whether the contamination occurred before the acquisition and irrespective of any fault.
From a regulatory perspective, this liability is not avoidable vis-à-vis the authorities through contractual arrangements. Environmental agencies and courts may require the current owner or operator to remediate contamination even where the damage was caused by a previous owner. This principle has been consistently upheld by Brazilian courts, including the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), which recognises that environmental obligations run with the property and serve the public interest in environmental restoration.

From a private law perspective, however, buyers and sellers are free to allocate environmental risk contractually. A buyer may expressly assume pre-acquisition environmental liabilities through representations, warranties, indemnities or price adjustments, or may accept such liabilities implicitly by acquiring assets “as is”. Conversely, the buyer may retain full rights of recourse against the seller or other responsible parties if the contamination was caused prior to closing. These contractual arrangements are fully enforceable between the parties but do not bind regulators.

In practice, this means that while a buyer can assume pre-acquisition environmental liabilities as a matter of commercial agreement, such assumption does not shield the buyer from direct enforcement by authorities, nor does it prevent the buyer from pursuing former owners or operators for recovery of remediation costs unless those rights are expressly waived. Environmental due diligence and careful contractual structuring are therefore critical elements of transactions involving Brazilian assets with potential environmental exposure.

(b) Can a seller retain environmental liabilities after a transaction?

Sellers may remain exposed to environmental claims and enforcement actions post-transaction, either because they contractually retained liability or because they are independently liable as polluters. Conversely, contractual retention of liability does not eliminate the buyer’s exposure to regulatory enforcement, but it does provide a basis for recourse and cost recovery between the parties. As a result, environmental liabilities are commonly addressed through detailed contractual provisions and, in some cases, insurance or financial guarantees in Brazilian transactions.

Brazil does not impose a general statutory obligation to disclose environmental liabilities in private transactions. However, the Civil Code (Articles 422 and 113) imposes duties of good faith. Moreover, the Corporations Act (Law No. 6,404/1976) and regulations issued by the Brazilian Securities Commission (CVM) impose disclosure duties on publicly traded companies.

Environmental due diligence is standard practice in transactions, particularly in transactions involving land, industrial facilities or regulated activities.
Failure to disclose material environmental liabilities may give rise to contractual rescission, indemnification claims or civil liability.
In practice, environmental risks are managed through detailed due diligence, representations and warranties, indemnities, price adjustments and, in some cases, environmental insurance. Given Brazil’s stringent liability regime and active enforcement environment, robust environmental disclosure and due diligence are considered essential risk management tools rather than optional best practices.

In Brazil, environmental risks are generally insurable, subject to standard principles of insurability, public policy limitations and regulatory oversight of the insurance market. Brazilian law does not prohibit environmental insurance, and insurers may offer coverage for a range of environmental liabilities, although coverage is typically framed carefully to address the country’s strict environmental liability regime and the potential magnitude of losses.

Environmental risks that may be covered include sudden and accidental pollution events, gradual pollution (where expressly agreed), third-party bodily injury and property damage arising from environmental incidents, cleanup and remediation costs, and certain defence costs associated with administrative or civil proceedings. Coverage may also extend, depending on the policy wording, to transportation of hazardous substances, waste management activities, and operational risks at industrial or commercial sites. Intentional acts, known pre-existing contamination (unless specifically endorsed), and criminal fines and penalties are typically excluded.

The most common forms of environmental insurance available in the Brazilian market are standalone environmental liability policies (often referred to as “pollution legal liability” or “environmental impairment liability” insurance), environmental endorsements attached to general civil liability policies, and specific policies linked to transport, construction or waste management activities. Standalone environmental policies are usually tailored and negotiated on a case-by-case basis, considering the insured’s sector, risk profile, compliance history and environmental management systems. Some insurers also offer coverage aligned with contractual or regulatory requirements, for example to support environmental licensing, decommissioning obligations or guarantees required by authorities.

From a regulatory standpoint, environmental insurance products are supervised by the Superintendência de Seguros Privados (SUSEP), which oversees the insurance market and approves policy conditions, but does not mandate the purchase of environmental insurance as a general rule. Brazilian environmental law relies primarily on strict liability, mandatory remediation and financial responsibility enforced through administrative and judicial mechanisms, rather than on compulsory insurance.

In practice, environmental insurance is not universally obtained, but its use has increased steadily, particularly among multinational companies, operators of higher-risk activities (such as chemicals, oil and gas, mining, logistics and waste management), and parties involved in mergers and acquisitions or real estate transactions where environmental risk allocation is critical.

Environmental insurance is also more frequently required contractually by lenders, business partners or in public-private projects. While it is not yet a standard feature of all business operations in Brazil, environmental insurance is increasingly viewed as a risk management and balance-sheet protection tool in a jurisdiction characterized by strict environmental liability, active enforcement and significant litigation exposure.

In certain sectors, financial guarantees are required by law. For example, Law No. 12,334/2010 (National Dam Safety Policy), as amended after major mining disasters, requires financial assurance mechanisms for dam safety and decommissioning.

Although environmental insurance availability has increased, market penetration remains moderate.

Brazil maintains a relatively extensive system of public registers and databases of environmental information, reflecting constitutional principles of transparency, access to information and public participation in environmental protection. Environmental information is held at federal, state and municipal levels by authorities that form part of the National Environmental System (SISNAMA), and much of this information is publicly accessible, either proactively or upon request.

At federal level, key environmental data are maintained by bodies such as the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA), which operates public databases covering environmental licensing, environmental infractions and fines, embargoed areas, environmental permits, and records relating to controlled activities and products. Information on conservation units and biodiversity is maintained by the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio). In addition, climate, deforestation and land-use data are made publicly available through federal monitoring systems operated by government agencies and research institutions.

State environmental agencies maintain their own registers, which typically include state-level environmental licences, permits, environmental impact assessments, contamination or remediation registers (where applicable), and administrative enforcement proceedings. Municipal authorities may also hold environmental information relevant to local land use, zoning, waste management and licensing. The scope, format and degree of digitalisation of these registers vary by jurisdiction, but there is a clear trend toward online publication and searchable databases.

Access to environmental information is governed by Brazil’s general access-to-information regime, which establishes the right of any individual or legal entity, Brazilian or foreign, to request information held by public authorities without the need to demonstrate a specific legal interest. Requests may be submitted electronically or in writing, and authorities are subject to statutory deadlines to respond. Information may only be withheld on limited grounds, such as national security or legally protected confidentiality, and environmental information is generally interpreted broadly in favour of disclosure.

In practice, many categories of environmental information are available proactively through public websites and online systems, particularly licensing status, administrative sanctions and deforestation data. More detailed or site-specific information, such as full environmental studies or technical reports, may require a formal information request, but is usually accessible unless covered by a specific confidentiality exception. As a result, Brazil can be characterised as having a relatively robust framework for public access to environmental information, although practical accessibility and consistency may vary across different states and authorities.

In Brazil, public bodies are subject to a broad and legally enforceable obligation to disclose environmental information to requesting parties, grounded in constitutional principles of transparency, publicity of administrative acts and the fundamental right to an ecologically balanced environment. Environmental information is treated as information of public interest, and disclosure obligations apply across federal, state and municipal levels of government.

The primary legal basis for this duty is Brazil’s general access-to-information regime, which grants any individual or legal entity, whether Brazilian or foreign, the right to request information held by public authorities without the need to demonstrate a specific legal interest or justification. Public bodies must respond within statutory deadlines and must either provide the information requested or issue a reasoned decision explaining any refusal. As a general rule, environmental information is interpreted expansively in favour of disclosure, reflecting its relevance to public health, environmental protection and democratic participation.

Public authorities are also subject to proactive transparency obligations, requiring them to publish key environmental data without the need for a prior request. This typically includes information on environmental licensing, permits and authorisations, environmental impact assessments, monitoring data, administrative sanctions and enforcement actions. Environmental agencies at federal and state level, including bodies such as the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA), routinely maintain online databases and portals through which such information is made available.

Refusal to disclose environmental information is permitted only in limited circumstances, such as where disclosure would compromise national security or legally protected commercial or personal confidentiality. Even in such cases, authorities are required to assess whether partial disclosure is possible and to balance confidentiality interests against the public interest in environmental protection. Decisions denying access may be challenged through administrative appeals or judicial review, and courts have generally taken a pro-disclosure approach in environmental matters.

Overall, Brazil can be characterised as having a strong legal obligation on public bodies to disclose environmental information upon request, with environmental transparency forming an integral part of environmental governance and enforcement.

Environmental Licensing Reform

Brazil recently enacted a new Legal Framework for Environmental Licensing (Federal Law No. 15,190/2025), establishing nationwide general rules for environmental permitting.

Among such general rules, it is worth mentioning that the new framework standardised licensing categories, introduced simplified and self-declaratory procedures in certain cases, reinforced competence allocation in line with Complementary Law No. 140/2011 and established timelines and procedural safeguards.

Note, however, that several provisions have been challenged before the Supreme Court (STF) through constitutional actions, especially alleging potential environmental regression. In view of that, ongoing judicial review may significantly shape the implementation of the new regime.

Mining Sector Developments

Following the two huge environmental disasters involving mining dams – Mariana (2015) and Brumadinho (2019) -, Brazil strengthened mining and dam safety regulation through amendments to Federal Law No. 12,334/2010 (National Dam Safety Policy). The new regulations prohibit upstream tailings dams and stricter monitoring and financial assurance requirements.

Solid Waste Developments

The National Solid Waste Policy (Federal Law No. 12,305/2010) has been reinforced through regulatory decrees enhancing reverse logistics implementation and sectoral agreements. Recent regulatory updates emphasise reporting obligations and compliance monitoring.

Carbon Market

Brazil implemented a regulated carbon market based on Federal Law No. 15,042/2024, that establishes the Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System (SBCE). The purpose of the SBCE is to fulfil the PNMC and the commitments made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, through the definition of environmental commitments and financial discipline in asset trading. The SBCE will be implemented in five subsequent phases comprising (i) Phase I: a period of twelve months, extendable for another twelve months, for the issuance of regulations of the Law, (ii) Phase II: a period of one year for operators to operationalize the instruments for reporting emissions, (iii) Phase III: a period of two years, during which operators will only be subject to the obligation to submit a monitoring plan and present a report of GHG emissions and removals to the SBCE management body, (iv) Phase IV: implementation of the first National Allocation Plan and the SBCE asset market and (v) Phase V: full implementation of the SBCE, at the end of the validity of the first National Allocation Plan.