The Chamber of Deputies approved this Wednesday (8) a project that changes the Forest Code to authorize municipalities to define the size of the area to be protected around the rivers, in a text criticized by environmentalists for opening a loophole for construction in preserved strips.
From 274 to 137, deputies rejected Senate amendments that sought to impose limits on the area subject to construction. The text goes to sanction.
According to the proposal approved in the Senate, each city could create its own legislation to determine the preserved space in consolidated urban areas, as long as a minimum width of 15 meters was ensured. Deputies removed this limit. In other words, there will be no minimum footage.
Another Senate amendment that was rejected said that marginal strips of watercourses that had not been occupied by the time the law came into effect would respect the same dimensions as rural areas. The deputies also overturned an excerpt that established that municipalities and the Federal District would submit information about the new preservation areas to the Ministry of the Environment, which should maintain a database accessible to the public.
The rapporteur in the Chamber, Darci de Matos (PSD-SC), stated that the text that returned from the Senate was inappropriate, “pre-determining a minimum width band, preventing the definition, by local governments, of bands in areas not yet consolidated as urban, and creating the obligation to inform the Ministry of the Environment what municipalities and the Federal District legislate.”
According to current rules, the marginal strips considered areas of permanent preservation (APPs) vary from 30 to 500 meters, depending on the width of the water sources. In April of this year, the STJ (Superior Court of Justice) decided that these rules apply to both rural and urban areas.
Before the municipality creates the new law, the state, municipal or district environmental councils must be heard. The proposal also establishes that the definition of the protected area must follow the guidelines of the plans for water resources, basin, drainage or basic sanitation, if any.
Also according to the proposal’s rules, projects to be installed in urban permanent preservation areas must observe cases of public utility, social interest or low environmental impact. Places with a risk of collapse cannot be occupied.
The text allows properties that already exist until April 28, 2021 to continue in this occupation range, as long as the owners comply with the environmental compensation requirement determined by the competent municipal body.
The proposal classifies a consolidated urban area as that included in the urban perimeter or in an urban zone by the master plan or by a specific municipal law; that has a road system in place; that is organized in blocks and lots predominantly built and has predominantly urban use, characterized by the existence of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, mixed or service-oriented buildings.
Deputy Rodrigo Agostinho (PSB-SP) criticized the resumption of the Chamber’s text. “The Senate had established a balance allowing for the regularization of occupations and keeping the areas not yet occupied preserved,” he said. “The Chamber chose to do away with the permanent urban preservation areas. Thus, areas of springs, springs and watercourse banks could be occupied. Very bad.”
In his assessment, the absence of a minimum size will allow the occupation of areas of springs, in water reservoirs, in water courses, including streams, medium and large rivers.
“This will make it possible to occupy these areas, will make it possible for areas that are important for water production, areas subject to flooding, very sensitive areas, to be occupied”, he pointed out.
“We understand that it was a mistake. The Senate text guaranteed the preservation of areas that were not occupied, and allowed the municipalities to regularize the old occupations at their own discretion. We understand that what the Chamber did was a big mistake. text from the Senate still guaranteed the minimum range of 15 meters, in the text of the Chamber there is not even a minimum range of 15 meters.”
.
