“The Biggest Bottleneck in Mining Permitting Is Risk Assessment” Says Former Attorney General Luís Adams

In an interview with Radar Mineração, the former Attorney General advocates for stronger environmental agencies, greater cooperation between government and industry, and a clear investment policy for the mining sector.

The main obstacle to permitting mining projects in Brazil is not the legislation itself, but rather the difficulty of assessing the risks associated with mining activities and establishing adequate mitigation measures. This is the view of Luís Inácio Lucena Adams, former Attorney General of Brazil. In an interview with Radar Mineração, Adams argued for strengthening the technical capacity of environmental agencies and fostering more effective collaboration between public authorities and the private sector.

Currently a partner in the Litigation, Arbitration, and Compliance practices at Tauil & Chequer Advogados in association with Mayer Brown, Adams served as Brazil’s Attorney General from 2009 to 2016. With extensive experience in public administration, he also held the position of Attorney General of the National Treasury and played a key role in significant legal proceedings, including the environmental settlement negotiations involving the federal government, Samarco, Vale, and BHP.

During the interview, Adams analyzed the permitting pillar of the study “Unlocking Brazil’s Mining Potential,” developed by Vale in partnership with consulting firm Accenture. The report outlines 15 initiatives across four strategic agendas aimed at increasing Brazil’s mineral production from R$300 billion to R$535 billion by 2035.

He discussed the need to improve the quality of geological information, strengthen institutions such as Ibama, ICMBio, Funai, and Iphan, and provide greater certainty for technical officials responsible for permitting decisions. He also emphasized the importance of a national policy on critical and strategic minerals.

Key excerpts from the interview:

What is the importance of a study prepared by the private sector, such as the one developed by Vale and Accenture, in guiding public policies for mining?

One of the government’s greatest challenges is the quality of information and access to it. Public authorities depend on a clear, accurate, and reliable technical foundation to make decisions. Too often, those decisions are made with insufficient information. For this reason, I believe collaboration between the private sector and government is extremely important in building that knowledge base.

Of course, companies have their own interests, and the State must critically assess any studies presented. However, when grounded in concrete data, such work helps improve public decision-making. The oil and gas sector, for example, benefits from a far more structured information base. Mining, on the other hand, has historically been neglected by the State, with under-resourced agencies and insufficient information. The National Mining Agency (ANM) has made progress in addressing this issue, but much remains to be done.

Brazil has resumed discussions on the strategic importance of critical minerals and rare earth elements. Did the country take too long to recognize this potential?

The importance of rare earths and critical minerals has been recognized for decades. The problem is that Brazil missed opportunities in the past by failing to establish a clear policy for these resources. The country is now beginning to recognize this need. We have significant reserves and several initiatives underway, but we need a consistent investment policy.

Potash is a good example. We have reserves, yet we remain dependent on imports. Mining must be treated as a strategic activity. We cannot continue thinking solely in terms of raw material extraction. We need to develop knowledge, technology, and the capacity to add value to our mineral resources.

Environmental permitting is often cited as one of the main barriers to mining development. Is the problem rooted in legislation?

Brazilian legislation is already well structured and provides for different permitting frameworks, including simplified procedures. The real bottleneck is not the legislation itself but the difficulty of understanding the risks associated with economic activities and determining the measures needed to mitigate them.

Brazil has vast forest areas that require protection, as well as communities deserving of special consideration, such as Indigenous peoples and quilombola communities. These are legitimate concerns that must be addressed. The problem is that these processes often evolve into controversies and disputes that can extend permitting timelines for years. Even when significant technical studies are available, projects may become subject to political deadlock.

What could be done to make permitting more efficient without compromising environmental protection?

The main challenge is establishing a consistent permitting framework staffed by qualified, independent professionals capable of making technical decisions without fear of being penalized. This is a process that requires expertise and training.

Since the 2000s, when these issues were already being debated, there were difficulties even in defining how certain environmental impact studies should be conducted. Permitting encompasses highly diverse situations. For well-established activities, state agencies tend to have more standardized procedures. However, new projects, such as those involving potash or rare earths, may require additional learning and the development of specific criteria.

This is why collaboration between the public and private sectors is also important: it enables knowledge sharing and helps permitting authorities make consistent decisions.

Would simplifying procedures alone be enough to accelerate project approvals?

It depends on the type of project. Requirements cannot simply be reduced without considering the risks involved. In some cases, standardizing procedures can help increase efficiency. In others, particularly where new activities or environmentally sensitive areas are concerned, a deeper technical understanding is necessary.

A mine cannot be developed indiscriminately. The goal should be to make the process more efficient without compromising the assessment of impacts or the implementation of necessary protective measures.

What role should Ibama and the other agencies involved in mining permitting play?

These institutions need to be strengthened so they can respond more quickly and efficiently to demands. This requires technical capacity, adequate resources, and greater standardization of procedures. It is also necessary to clearly define the role of each institution in the process.

Strengthening environmental agencies is essential to ensuring that decisions are made with confidence and consistency. What we need is a system capable of balancing the development of a strategic economic activity with environmental protection and the rights of the communities involved.