In a meeting marked by offenses and confrontations between parliamentarians, irritancy and manifestation of environmentalists and ruralists, the alternative bill of Deputy Aldo Rebelo to Bill 1876/99 revoking the Forest Code (Law 4771/65) and the Law protecting forests in river sources (7754/89) was approved by 13 votes to 5. The proposal must still be voted by the Plenary.

Moratorium on deforestation

One of the most controversial points of the proposal is the prohibition to open new areas to agriculture or cattle raising in any property of the Country for Five years – a moratorium on deforestation. In return, areas which were being used for cattle raising until July 2008 will be recognized and regulated.

The Union and states will have a five-year term to elaborate their Economic-Ecological Zoning and the basin plans, install watershed committees and elaborate environmental regulation programs.

A stronger questioning from environmentalists is contained in this provision: The texts provide exception to the moratorium on deforestation in cases in which the authorization to deforest have already been issued or filed until the Law is enacted.

The reporter decreased from 30 to 20 the term for the producer reset the deforested areas. Rebelo reminded that the 20 years are summed to 5 of moratorium. In his opinion, 25 years is a reasonable term.

The report suspends the penalties to rural producers who committed environmental crimes until July 2008. Therefore, producers will be able to keep their activities in legal reserve areas prior to the elaboration of an Environmental Regulation Program in five years.

Autonomy of states

A controversial decision kept by the reporter was allowing states to decrease or increase the legal reserve areas according to technical studies and their Ecological-Economic Zoning. The Constitution determines the competence is concurrent. In other words, the Union has the power to edit general norms that must be detailed by the states. In the objectors’ point of view, the delimitation of protection areas is typical of General Law and could not be transferred to the states.

The Permanent Protection Areas (APP) of rivers (riparian forests) of up to 5 meters wide was reduced from 30 to 15 meters, and states will not be allowed to change such limits.

Small properties

Aldo Rebelo excluded the obligation to reset the legal reserve to properties of up to four fiscal modules. However, He kept the preservation percentage: Legal reserves will have to preserve 80% of native vegetation in the area of Legal Amazon Forest, 35% of Cerrado and 20% of other vegetation existing in the country. If the remaining vegetation exceeds such prevision, it can be deforested until this limit.

Deputy Dr. Rosinha proposed the use of the concept of the Law on Family Agriculture (Law 11.326/06) to characterize small properties; however, it was not accepted. Deputy Anselmo de Jesus said, however, that the opinion complied all family agriculture needs in the country and comprised suggestions from all sectors.

To Ivan Valente, the fiscal module would not also be appropriate. The parliamentarian said that the greater issue on this definition is that modules vary according to the region of the country.

Vegetation classification

As suggested by parliamentarians from the stand representing rural producers, the reporter removed classifications from different types of vegetation from the text. They were divided into grassland, forest and savanna. According to the deputies, this difference could cause appeals in court, regarding the difficulty to interpret the classification. Aldo took the definition of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), which already divides into forests, cerrados and general fields.

The deputy also disregarded the possibility to reset with exotic species, as provided in the first version of the text.

Translation-SP Language/Grupo Solucion –Thiago de Lira Capatti