top of page
Search

STF Confirms Environmental Compensation in Same Biome and Landfills in Preservation Areas

The Supreme Court has allowed sanitary landfills to continue in Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs), as long as the environmental licensing conditions are respected.



In a recent judgment (in plenary session), the Federal Supreme Court (STF) partially upheld the motions for clarification filed by the Federal Attorney General's Office (AGU) in Direct Action for Unconstitutionality (ADI) 4901, regarding provisions of the Forest Code, Law No. 12.651/2012


In this judgment, the Supreme Court confirmed that article 48, paragraph 2, of the aforementioned law, which determines that environmental compensation for areas with a Legal Reserve deficit must be made in regions of the same biome, is constitutional In the judgment of the lawsuit in 2018, the STF had used the term “ecological identity” as a criterion, but has now adjusted the interpretation to focus on “biome” as a compensatory criterion, in harmony with the provisions of the Forest Code.


In addition, the decision favored the continuation of sanitary landfills already installed in Permanent Preservation Areas (APP), or in the process of being installed, as long as they follow the previously stipulated deadlines and environmental licensing rules It was also determined that, once the landfills have been closed, it will not be necessary to remove the deposited material, as there is the possibility of reforestation on the site


In 2018, the Court had ruled that it was unconstitutional for landfills to remain in these areas, which could generate a significant economic and social impact with the closure of these operations


Thus, it will be possible to maintain landfills in these areas, but it should be emphasized that for new developments, it is essential to respect the preservation of APPs in accordance with Law No. 12,651/2012.


It is worth remembering that ADI 4901 is linked to other actions (ADI 4902, 4903, 4937 and ADC 42), all of which discuss the constitutionality of the Forest Code rules.


 
 
 

Comments


PIVA ADVOGADOS 2.jpg
  • alt.text.label.Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Youtube
  • Whatsapp

©2024 by Piva Advogados. 

bottom of page