Environmental Licensing in BRICS: Challenges, Opportunities, and Recommendations for Improvement

Por Pedro Campany Ferraz

Executive Summary

This paper provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of the environmental licensing processes across the BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. While these countries share the overarching goal of sustainable development, their approaches to environmental licensing differ notably, shaped by their distinct economic, social, and environmental contexts. By examining the legal frameworks, implementation effectiveness, and challenges faced, this paper aims to identify opportunities for improvement and the adoption of best practices in environmental management. At the end of this article, there is a comparative table summarizing the major differences between these countries’ systems.

1. Introduction:
The BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—exhibit varying environmental licensing processes shaped by their unique economic, social, and environmental contexts. Despite their shared goal of sustainable development, differences in legal frameworks, implementation, and effectiveness are evident. Challenges such as access to information, public participation, and enforcement persist, highlighting the need for governance reforms to balance environmental protection with economic growth. The paper aims to provide a comprehensive comparison of these licensing processes, addressing the challenges and potential opportunities for adopting best practices.
This comparative overview reveals that, while all BRICS countries require licenses for environmentally impactful activities, their systems differ in their levels of centralization, priorities, and regulatory dynamism. Public participation is recognized but varies in quality and influence, with Brazil and South Africa leading in engagement frameworks, while Russia and China encounter transparency issues. Recommendations for enhancing these processes include legal harmonization, improved enforcement, meaningful public involvement, and greater access to information.
This paper provides a systematic comparison of these licensing systems, analyzing their legal architectures, procedural nuances, and practical outcomes. It places special emphasis on transformative recent developments, most notably China’s ambitious Ecological and Environmental Code (生态环境法典), which represents a paradigm shift toward codified, integrated environmental law. Through this comparative lens, the paper identifies transferable best practices and proposes concrete reforms to enhance the efficacy, transparency, and equity of environmental licensing across the BRICS landscape.
1. Legal Framework:
Each country has a distinct legal framework, rooted in national legislation and often supplemented by specific regulations and guidelines. Brazil, India, and South Africa have detailed EIA regulations, while Russia and China rely on broader environmental protection laws with EIA components as detailed below:
Brazil: Brazil’s environmental regulatory framework hinges on Law No. 6,938/81, establishing core principles, and CONAMA Resolutions 01/86/and 237/97, which create the National Environmental System (SISNAMA) to manage licensing. Law No. 15,190/2025 introduces modernization through streamlined digital licensing, enhanced monitoring, and provisions for climate change accountability. Localization is emphasized, with state and municipal regulations complementing federal laws, enabling tailored environmental management.
Enforcement relies on fines, license suspensions, and criminal charges. Environmental agencies at federal, state, and municipal levels are responsible, with IBAMA as a key federal enforcer. Law No. 15,190/2025 aims to strengthen penalties and monitoring, indicating a shift towards more robust actions against violations.
Russia: Russia’s environmental protection is primarily governed by the Federal Law “On Environmental Protection,” (10 January 2002 No. 7-FZ), with a central component being the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This law defines fundamental environmental principles and standards and outlines responsibilities for environmental stewardship. The EIA process is crucial for ensuring project compliance and mitigating environmental risks before approval. The EIA is required for any project likely to have a significant environmental impact. It includes early notification, baseline studies, identification of potential impacts, and development of mitigation and monitoring plans. The 2025 reform of EIA introduced stricter content requirements, public discussions (both online and offline), and mandatory expert reviews as part of the State Environmental Expertise (SEE). This Federal Law is complemented by specialized natural resource laws, covering water, forests, subsoil, land, and wildlife, which together form an integrated framework for environmental and resource management.
Enforcement mechanisms include administrative fines, suspension of activities, and criminal liability for environmental offenses. Rosprirodnadzor serves as the primary federal agency responsible for overseeing the use of natural resources and enforcing environmental regulations.
Regional Environmental Protection Agencies are typically part of regional ministries focused on nature or ecology. Their primary responsibilities include ensuring compliance with environmental laws, maintaining regional registries of licenses and permits, conducting environmental monitoring, and managing regional waste systems. These agencies play a crucial role in overseeing environmental integrity at the regional level and coordinating with other local agencies.
Regional Departments of Natural Resources and Ecology are responsible for issuing permits and licenses within their jurisdictions. They collect and analyze environmental data relevant to their regions to support decision-making and regulatory enforcement. Together with regional inspectorates, which enforce laws through inspections, audits, and penalties, these departments form the backbone of environmental oversight at the regional level.
In addition, regional agencies manage natural resource inventories, maintain cadastral systems, and often coordinate with national databases. Some specialized agencies and environmental funds focus on protected areas, waste management, and project financing, while municipal authorities handle local environmental initiatives, public information access, and data collection. Combined, these entities monitor air, water, and soil quality, enforce regulations, and promote transparency through public data sharing and engagement in environmental assessments and planning.
India: India’s environmental regulations are based on the Environment Protection Act of 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006. This framework outlines procedures for environmental clearances, pollution control, and conservation efforts, with ongoing updates aimed at striking a balance between development objectives and ecological sustainability.
The enforcement system includes fines, closures of polluting industries, and imprisonment for significant offenses. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) are responsible for monitoring and enforcing regulations. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) adjudicates environmental cases.
China: China’s environmental legal framework is established by the Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China (2014 Revision), with detailed regulations issued by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE). These regulations prioritize pollution control, ecological protection, and the sustainable use of natural resources, with a focus on monitoring and compliance. Enforcement measures include fines, factory closures, and criminal charges. The MEE has significant authority to investigate and penalize violations of the law. Regular inspections and audits are implemented to promote compliance.
While notable progress has been achieved in reducing air pollution in certain urban areas, challenges remain regarding water pollution, soil contamination, and deforestation.
China’s framework has evolved rapidly under the Environmental Protection Law (2014 Revision) and regulations from the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE). The system is highly centralized, with significant power vested in the MEE and local Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs). The most groundbreaking development is the Ecological and Environmental Code, poised to become China’s second statutory code after the Civil Code, and is set to take effect by August 2026. Detailed Analysis of the Proposed Ecological and Environmental Code:
The Code, prioritized in China’s 2024-2028 legislative plan, aims to systematically integrate over 30 existing environmental statutes and 100+ administrative regulations into a coherent, three-part structure:
Pollution Prevention and Control: This section will unify laws on air, water, soil, solid waste, and noise pollution, establishing consistent standards and enforcement mechanisms across all media.
Ecological Conservation: This part will codify rules for protected areas, biodiversity, forestry, grasslands, and watershed management, strengthening the “Ecological Redline” policy that restricts development in sensitive zones.
Green and Low-Carbon Development: The most innovative section, it will encompass climate change law, circular economy promotion, energy conservation, and incentives for green technology, formally embedding carbon neutrality goals into the licensing process.
The Code is expected to address critical gaps and inconsistencies in the current fragmented system, such as overlapping jurisdictions and conflicting standards. It mandates a “license integration” approach, where a single environmental permit will cover all project-related environmental aspects. This codification represents a strategic move to elevate environmental protection to a fundamental state priority, akin to economic planning, and will likely set a new benchmark for environmental legislation among emerging economies.
South Africa: South Africa’s environmental management is governed by the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of 1998, along with its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations. This framework requires Environmental Authorizations (EA) for activities with potential environmental harm, promoting sustainable development and stakeholder consideration of environmental impacts.
Enforcement mechanisms encompass fines, compliance notices, and criminal charges. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE) manages environmental enforcement, and Environmental Management Inspectors (EMIs) are authorized to conduct inspections and investigations.
Despite their distinct national contexts, these environmental regulatory frameworks exhibit several commonalities. Each country has enacted overarching environmental laws to establish the legal basis for environmental protection.
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are widely used to evaluate potential environmental risks associated with proposed projects. Licensing and permitting processes are standard mechanisms for regulating activities with potential environmental impacts.
Furthermore, government agencies play a key role in establishing environmental standards, monitoring compliance, and enforcing regulations, reflecting a commitment to state oversight of environmental protection.
The regulatory frameworks exhibit divergence across several dimensions, often reflecting national priorities and governance structures. Some systems, such as China’s, are characterized by a centralized approach with significant authority vested in the Ministry of Ecology and Environment. In contrast, others, such as Brazil’s, incorporate decentralized elements, allowing for localized management at the state and municipal levels.
Specific priorities also vary, with China emphasizing pollution control, South Africa prioritizing sustainable development, and Brazil placing increasing emphasis on climate change accountability.
2. Activities Requiring Licensing:
All BRICS nations require licensing for activities with significant environmental impacts, but the scope and specific criteria vary. India and South Africa use categorization systems based on impact levels. China and Brazil define activities more broadly, while Russia focuses on natural resource-intensive projects.
Brazil: Brazil’s environmental licensing involves federal, state, and municipal authorities, with requirements varying based on project size and location. Key triggers include projects that impact water, air, biodiversity, or nearby communities, such as large-scale mining, hydroelectric dams, major infrastructure, and intensive agriculture. Projects typically require prior installation and operation licenses, along with an EIA/RIMA for high-impact activities, although standards vary by state.
Russia: In Russia, environmental assessments target activities that extract substantial natural resources or generate significant waste and emissions. Major triggers include oil and gas development, mining, timber harvesting, chemical manufacturing, and large industrial operations. Projects considered high impact require environmental impact evaluations and state approvals, with specific permits for emissions, wastewater, and resource use issued concurrently. All facilities with potential environmental effects are classified into four categories (I–IV) based on their level of impact, with Category I subject to the strictest assessment and permitting requirements as defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Projects typically undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and, for higher categories, a state environmental review, followed by coordination with relevant regulators and preparation of required documentation. Separately, Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) objects are categorized under Federal Law No. 187-FZ, which sets criteria of significance and mandates coordination with sectoral regulators. Overall, proper categorization, environmental evaluation, and regulatory approvals form the core of compliance for high-impact projects in Russia.
India: India’s environmental approvals are divided into Category A (national-level review) and Category B (state-level review), based on the project’s potential impact and scope. Large projects, such as power plants, major mines, and ports, require comprehensive environmental clearance, including public hearings and additional clearances for forest land and coastal zones. Smaller projects are categorized as B and undergo a simplified process, but all require environmental screening, impact assessment, and approval stages.
China: China mandates environmental impact assessments for large construction, manufacturing, and infrastructure projects that pose significant pollution or resource use. Key criteria include project scale, pollutant emissions, and the area’s environmental sensitivity. Examples include steel and cement plants, petrochemical complexes, urban development, and ecologically fragile zones, all of which are subject to evaluation and regulation.
South Africa: South Africa’s environmental approvals require full EIA and Scoping for large projects like mining, major housing developments on sensitive lands, and extensive infrastructure, such as highways and pipelines. Smaller projects, such as factories and quarries, typically only require a Basic Assessment. Common cross-cutting considerations include assessing cumulative impacts in regions with multiple projects, issuing sector-specific permits (e.g., for water use and forestry), and applying stricter scrutiny to projects near protected areas, wetlands, high-biodiversity zones, indigenous lands, or watersheds. Cross-border and social issues, such as transboundary pollution or community resettlement, require additional assessments and stakeholder engagement.
Across BRICS countries, certain issues are common: large or multiple overlapping projects often require cumulative impact assessments, especially in regions with high biodiversity or sensitive ecosystems. Sector-specific permits are often required, particularly in industries such as oil & gas, mining, and hydropower. Projects located near protected areas, wetlands, indigenous lands, or watersheds are subject to stricter rules and additional permits. Transboundary and social impacts, such as cross-border pollution or community resettlements, require specialized assessments and stakeholder engagement, guided by national laws and international commitments.
3. Types of Environmental Licenses:
The environmental licensing landscape across the BRICS nations is diverse, reflecting differing priorities and regulatory traditions. Brazil employs a distinct three-stage licensing system.India and South Africa primarily rely on a single Environmental Clearance (EC) or Environmental Authorization (EA) granted following a comprehensive impact assessment. China utilizes a combination of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approvals and permits for the discharge of pollutants.
In contrast, Russia’s system is less clearly defined, characterized by a focus on securing specific environmental permits related to particular aspects of project activity. This chapter will delve deeper into the nuances of these licensing approaches, exploring not only the types of licenses employed but also the processes governing their validity and renewal, revealing key distinctions and common threads across the BRICS nations.
Brazil: The General Environmental Licensing Law is a comprehensive framework containing outlining seven distinct types of licenses essential for verifying the feasibility of a project’s installation, expansion, and operation under the environmental licensing regime. Each license serves a specific purpose in ensuring compliance with environmental standards.
The licenses include:
Preliminary License (LP): Attests the feasibility and environmental acceptability of a proposed location, concept, and basic project, and sets the requirements and conditions (the Terms of Reference /caveats) to be observed in subsequent phases. Validity: minimum 3 years and maximum 6 years (period is set in relation to the schedule for preparing plans, programs, and projects approved by the authority). Deadlines for agency analysis: up to 10 months when an EIA is required; shorter (6 months) when other studies suffice.
Installation License (LI): Authorizes the start of construction/installation in accordance with the approved project and environmental plans (requires PBA and engineering elements; evidence of compliance with prior-phase caveats). Validity: minimum 3 years and maximum 6 years, based on the installation schedule approved by the licensing authority. If LI is issued together with LO (bifásico LI/LO), it falls in the 5–10 year band. Analysis time: typically 3 months for LI.
Operating License (LO): Authorizes commercial/regular operation after verification that installation was completed and that environmental caveats were met (requires report of compliance with caveats). Validity: minimum 5 years and maximum 10 years, adjusted if the project’s useful life is shorter; these licenses cannot be granted for an indeterminate period. Analysis time for LO: typically 3 months. The authority may extend maximum terms (up to double) where the proponent adopts superior environmental performance measures.
Single Environmental License (LAU): Single integrated license that covers location, installation (or expansion), and operation as a single permitting step, including caveats and decommissioning rules (requires RCA, PCA, and technical elements). Useful for simplifying and consolidating phases where appropriate. Validity: LAU falls within the 5–10-year range (minimum 5, maximum 10 years); analysis time for LAU is typically 3 months.
License by Adhesion and Commitment (LAC): Licensing by self-declaration plus binding commitment (RCE) to adopt specified measures and controls — intended as a simplified modality for activities of lower risk or defined categories where adhesion is appropriate. Validity: LAC validity is set to 5-10 years (minimum 5, maximum 10), based on information in the RCE. Analysis times vary by procedure, where simplified, statutorily shorter deadlines may apply.
Corrective Operation License (LOC): Regularizes activities or enterprises that are already operating without a valid license at the law’s publication; requires corrective plans and control documents (RCA, PCA) and may be subject to special procedural rules. If applied voluntarily, criminal liability for a past lack of a license can be extinguished upon compliance with the requirements. Validity: LOC is in the 5–10 year band (minimum 5, maximum 10 years); the statutory analysis time for LOC is typically 3 months
Special Environmental License (LAE): LAE is a special “fasttrack” licensing instrument (created/validated by the conversion of MP 1308 into Law 15.300/2025) for activities or enterprises designated as strategic by decree (proposed biannually by the Council of Government). The LAE is issued with caveats that the entrepreneur must meet for location, installation, and operation, and is intended to provide prioritized, expedited licensing with a dedicated technical team. Validity: Under the General Law’s rules, the LAE is placed in the same validity band as LO/LAU/LOC (minimum 5, maximum 10 years). Procedural deadline for agency decision on an LAE is longer (the General Law sets a 12-month maximum analysis period for LAE in Art. 47).

To streamline the licensing process, the General Law establishes four different procedures for environmental licensing. These are categorized into ordinary procedures, simplified procedures (which can be two-phased, single-phase, or through adhesion and commitment), corrective procedures, and special procedures for strategic activities. Notably, the law grants states the autonomy to develop their own criteria for risk classification, size, and pollution potential, and to determine which projects require licensing. This allows for local adaptation and response to various environmental concerns.
Additionally, the law delineates six types of environmental studies that must be conducted to meet licensing requirements, although states and municipalities can establish specific regulations under Complementary Law No. 140/2011. The mandated studies include the Preliminary Environmental Impact Study (EIA), Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Basic Environmental Plan (BEP), Environmental Control Plan (ECP), Environmental Control Report (ECR), and Project Characterization Report (PCE). The law highlights the importance of public participation through its definitions of four consultation methods, emphasizing public consultation, technical subsidies, participatory meetings, and public hearings to enhance community engagement in environmental decision-making.
Finally, the law specifies that certain project types may be exempt from the full environmental licensing process or could utilize simplified procedures, such as those related to water supply, sewage systems, highway expansions, and energy facilities like gas pipelines. The act shifts considerable authority to state licensing authorities, empowering them to define the criteria for environmental classification and the licensing requirements, potentially leading to variations in state practices relative to federal requirements.
Russia: Relies on permits and approvals related to specific environmental aspects (e.g., air emissions, water discharge, waste disposal, forest management, resource extraction). The licensing procedure includes submitting an application, conducting a compliance review, and issuing a license that specifies environmental protection obligations. It follows detailed regulations in sectoral acts and may incorporate results of an EIA or SEE.
Typical required permits include: construction approval (following a positive SEE conclusion), emission and discharge permits, waste management licenses, and special water-use or subsoil-use licenses. Each license defines spatial boundaries, allowed activities, and environmental protection measures. The license duration varies, often from several years to decades, and extensions require environmental reassessment and proof of compliance. Validity periods for these permits vary by permit type and activity, but are typically 1-5 years. Renewal requires the submission of updated environmental data, proof of compliance with regulations, and may involve further environmental assessments. Some licenses, particularly those for mineral extraction or water use, are long-term (10–25 years), whereas permits for emissions and waste are typically shorter in duration. Specific regulations govern the renewal process for each permit type. In 2025, updated rules introduced more frequent re-accreditation, mandatory monitoring reports, and verification of Production Environmental Control (PEC, ПЭК in Russian) programs as conditions for renewal.
Enterprises operating facilities of Category I environmental impact are required to obtain an Integrated Environmental Permit (IEP, or KER in Russian), which consolidates several prior environmental documents, such as projects on waste generation and disposal limits, air and water emission standards. This instrument, introduced as part of Russia’s ecological modernization and “Best Available Techniques” (BAT) policy, ensures compliance with unified environmental performance standards and technological norms. The permit is issued through Rosprirodnadzor, following a “one-stop” procedure, and involves coordination with several agencies, including the Ministry of Industry and Trade, Rospotrebnadzor, Rosvodresursy, and Rosrybolovstvo. The standard validity for an IEP is 7 years, after which reapplication and verification of compliance are required.
India: Environmental Clearance (EC) is the primary authorization, granted after the EIA process.
Environmental Clearance (EC): Generally valid for a specific period, often 5-7 years for mining projects and 7-10 years for infrastructure projects, although this can vary.
Renewal is now generally termed as “Amendment” or “Transfer,” which requires the project proponent to apply to the MoEFCC (or SEIAA). The process often involves an updated environmental assessment, verification of compliance with existing EC conditions, and potentially a new public consultation (depending on the nature of the changes). Significant modifications to the project may require a fresh EC.
China: Licenses include Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approval and Pollutant Discharge Permits.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Approval: Projects that are likely to cause significant environmental impacts require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Those with minor potential impacts should complete an Environmental Impact Form (建设项目环境影响评价分类管理名录), while projects with minimal environmental effects only need to fill out an Environmental Impact Registration Form. This classification helps streamline the assessment process and ensures appropriate measures are taken based on the project’s potential impact. Typically, the EIA approval itself does not have an expiration date, but it is linked to the validity of the construction permit. Any significant changes to the project or construction delays may require a re-evaluation of the EIA.
Pollutant Discharge Permits: Validity periods vary depending on the industry and the pollutants discharged, but are typically for 5 years. Renewal requires the operator to demonstrate compliance with discharge standards, implement pollution control measures, and submit a renewal application. The renewal process involves agency review and may include inspections and monitoring.
South Africa: Environmental Authorization (EA) is the primary form of approval, with different levels of assessment required.
Environmental Authorization (EA): Generally, EAs are valid for a specified period, typically 5-10 years, depending on the nature of the activity and the conditions attached.
Renewal/Amendment: The process for extending an EA or amending its conditions is governed by NEMA and the EIA Regulations. It generally involves submitting an application to the competent authority, providing justification for the extension or amendment, and potentially undertaking further assessment and public participation. The competent authority then makes a decision based on the information provided and relevant legislation. Note that material changes to the project might require a new EA application.
The validity and renewal processes for environmental licenses within the BRICS nations share key characteristics, notably the significant discretion afforded to environmental agencies. The length of time a license remains valid, and the specific steps required for its renewal, are often determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the project’s nature, potential environmental impacts, and prevailing environmental conditions. This flexibility allows regulators to tailor requirements to specific circumstances, ensuring that environmental safeguards remain appropriate over time. Furthermore, a central tenet of renewal is demonstrating ongoing compliance with existing environmental regulations and the specific conditions attached to the original license.
Beyond simple compliance verification, the renewal process presents an opportunity for adaptive management. The potential for updated environmental assessments and further public consultation during renewal allows regulators to incorporate new information, address unforeseen environmental issues, and adjust license conditions accordingly. In some BRICS countries, the term “amendment” is used rather than “renewal,” particularly when significant modifications to the project are proposed. In these cases, the process more closely resembles a new environmental assessment, acknowledging that substantive changes may necessitate a reevaluation of the project’s overall environmental impact.
4. Stages of the Licensing Process:
While the broad strokes of the environmental licensing process appear similar across the BRICS nations – application, impact assessment, public consultation, agency review, decision, and subsequent monitoring – a closer examination reveals significant variations in the specifics of each stage, particularly regarding the rigor and scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the effectiveness of public participation mechanisms.
Brazil: The main process is governed by CONAMA Resolution 237/97, requires an Environmental Impact Study (EIA) and the creation of an accessible Environmental Impact Report (RIMA) for projects with potentially significant environmental impacts. This is followed by a formal analysis by the relevant environmental agency, which may include a public hearing, the issuance of a technical opinion, and a final decision. Ongoing monitoring is crucial. The level of detail required in the EIA/RIMA and the extent of public consultation are areas where the robustness of the process can vary depending on the specific project and the enforcing agency.
Russia: The country system involves a formalized EIA process, followed by an “expert review” – essentially, a technical assessment by qualified professionals. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA, or ОВОС in Russian) is a mandatory, standalone phase of project preparation. Its key components include identifying potential environmental impacts, evaluating alternatives, developing mitigation measures, and creating monitoring plans. The findings are integrated into the project documentation and undergo a rigorous review process, which includes public hearings and a final review by the State Environmental Expertise (SEE). A project cannot be authorized until the SEE issues a formal conclusion confirming its compliance with environmental safety standards. Public consultation is legally required, although its effectiveness in genuinely influencing decisions can be limited. The 2025 procedure now requires the online submission of all EIA documents, protocols, and comments to enhance transparency and digitalization. Public discussions and publication of EIA materials are required. The law requires that the final expert opinion (SEE conclusion) confirm compliance with environmental safety standards before project authorization is granted. Despite formal guarantees, including the final approval resting with relevant authorities, the practical implementation sometimes suffers from limited publicity or insufficient incorporation of public feedback, as well as the potential for political or economic influence on decisions.
India: The EIA Notification of 2006 outlines a multi-stage process starting with screening to determine if a full EIA is necessary, followed by scoping to define the terms of reference for the EIA study. The EIA study is then conducted, and a mandatory public consultation takes place, typically involving a public hearing. An appraisal committee reviews the EIA report and public input before making a recommendation. The final decision is made by the MoEFCC (for Category A projects) or the SEIAA (for Category B projects). Monitoring is essential, but resource constraints and enforcement challenges can hamper its effectiveness. The emphasis on scoping helps to focus the EIA on the most relevant issues. Still, the quality of the EIA studies and the genuine consideration of public input remain areas of concern.
China: The Chinese licensing process encompasses a broad “assessment” phase after the initial application, which includes the development of an EIA. Public participation is formally required only for projects that involve preparing an Environmental Impact Report.. Throughout the permit application and issuance process, public involvement tends to be minimal, with the main engagement occurring after permits are granted and published. While there has been a growing emphasis on including community voices and feedback, the overall effectiveness of public participation continues to develop. Currently, it often lacks the legal protections and avenues for redress that are present in other countries, and there remains a lack of transparency regarding how public input influences final decisions. As a result, stakeholder engagement can sometimes be perceived more as a procedural requirement rather than a genuine opportunity for meaningful contribution.
South Africa: The national NEMA and EIA Regulations establish a tiered approach, beginning with screening to determine whether a Basic Assessment or a full Scoping and EIA is required. The Scoping phase helps identify key issues and focuses the subsequent EIA. Following assessment and public input, a decision is made, which can be appealed. Ongoing monitoring is crucial to ensuring compliance with the Environmental Authorization (EA). The appeal process is a key strength, providing an avenue for challenging decisions based on procedural flaws or inadequate assessment of impacts.
In summary, while the general stages of environmental licensing are similar across the BRICS nations, the details are what matter. The rigor of the EIA, the effectiveness of public participation, the level of transparency in decision-making, and the strength of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms all contribute to the overall effectiveness of the licensing process in protecting the environment and promoting sustainable development. Variations in these factors reflect different legal frameworks, institutional capacities, and cultural contexts across nations.
5. Key Authorities:
Each BRICS country has a designated national ministry or agency responsible for environmental protection, with varying degrees of decentralization to regional or local authorities. The timelines for license approvals, as well as the powers to impose fines and revoke licenses for environmental violations, vary significantly.
Brazil:
Authorities: IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) at the federal level, state environmental agencies (e.g., CETESB in São Paulo, FEAM in Minas Gerais), and municipal agencies. CONAMA (National Council for the Environment) sets standards and guidelines.
Timeline: The timeframe for obtaining environmental licenses varies greatly depending on the project complexity, the thoroughness of the EIA, and the efficiency of the agencies involved. The process can take anywhere from 6 months to several years. Delays are common due to bureaucratic hurdles, incomplete documentation, and legal challenges. There are legal requirements for maximum processing times, but they are not always adhered to.
Fines: IBAMA and state agencies have the power to impose significant fines for environmental violations, ranging from minor infractions to severe damages. Fines are calculated based on the nature and extent of the environmental damage.
License Revocation: IBAMA and state agencies also have the authority to revoke environmental licenses in cases of serious or repeated violations of environmental laws, non-compliance with license conditions, or the provision of false or misleading information during the licensing process. Legal challenges to license revocations are common.
Russia:
Authorities: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and its regional branches (Rosprirodnadzor).
Timeline: The EIA process and obtaining necessary environmental permits can take from several months to over a year. The timeframe depends on the project’s complexity and the efficiency of the expert review process. Typical stages include document preparation (1–3 months), expert review (2–6 months), and permit issuance. For complex industrial or infrastructure projects, the process can take more than a year. Applications and supporting materials can now be submitted electronically through the federal Environmental Information System. The process of obtaining an IEP typically takes between 4 and 6 months after submission. Applications are reviewed online through Rosprirodnadzor’s web portal.
Fines: Rosprirodnadzor has the power to impose administrative fines for environmental violations. Penalties cover emissions beyond established limits, illegal waste disposal, non-compliance with monitoring obligations, and late reporting. Sanctions can include administrative suspension and financial penalties. Persistent violators may face suspension or license revocation. The fines are generally lower than those in other BRICS nationsand there is debate over the effectiveness of these fines as deterrents.
License Revocation: While the Ministry and its regional branches can suspend or revoke permits for non-compliance, this power is less frequently exercised than in some other BRICS countries. In practice, revocation usually follows repeated non-compliance with environmental prescriptions. Legal appeals are possible, but success rates vary, as regional political and economic factors often influence outcomes.
India:
Authorities: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) at the national level, and State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs).
Timeline: The EIA process and obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) can take several months to several years, often exceeding the stipulated timelines in the EIA Notification. Delays are frequently caused by bureaucratic hurdles, delays in obtaining necessary clearances from other agencies, and legal challenges.
Fines: The MoEFCC, SEIAAs, and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) have the power to impose fines for environmental violations. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) also has the authority to levy penalties.
License Revocation: The MoEFCC and SEIAAs have the authority to revoke or suspend ECs for non-compliance with conditions, submission of false information, or serious environmental damage. The NGT can also order the revocation or suspension of environmental clearances. Revocation orders are often subject to legal challenges.
China:
Authorities: Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) at the national level, and local Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs).
Timeline: The timeline for EIA approval and obtaining necessary permits varies depending on the project’s scale and complexity. While the government has been working to streamline the process, it can still take several months to over a year. Local EPBs have significant influence, which can sometimes lead to inconsistencies.
Fines: EPBs have the power to impose fines for environmental violations. Penalties have been increased in recent years as part of a broader effort to strengthen environmental enforcement.
License Revocation: The MEE and EPBs have the authority to revoke permits and order the closure of polluting facilities. Local officials are increasingly held accountable for environmental outcomes, which has led to more stringent enforcement.
South Africa:
Authorities: DFFE Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) at the national level, and provincial Departments of Environmental Affairs. Provincial environmental departments implement and oversee environmental impact assessment processes at the provincial level, with titles varying by province (e.g., Department of Environment, Rural Development, and Land Reform in some provinces, or similar names). In all cases, EIA and Environmental Authorisation (EA) functions are carried out under NEMA and related regulations, with roles distributed between national and provincial authorities.
Timeline: The timeframe for obtaining Environmental Authorization (EA) depends on whether a Basic Assessment or a full Scoping and EIA is required. Basic Assessments typically take 6-12 months, while Scoping and EIAs can take 12-24 months or longer. Delays can occur due to lengthy public participation processes, appeals, and capacity constraints within the authorities.
Fines: The DFFE and provincial departments have the power to impose fines and remediation orders under NEMA and related environmental legislation..
License Revocation: The DFFE and provincial departments have the authority to revoke or suspend EAs for non-compliance with conditions, submission of false information, or significant environmental damage. Decisions are subject to internal appeals and may be reviewed by courts where legality is challenged.
In summary, the environmental licensing timelines within the BRICS nations exhibit considerable variability, spanning from several months to multiple years, influenced by project complexity, regulatory efficiency, and the likelihood of legal challenges.
All BRICS countries empower their environmental authorities to levy fines and, in more severe cases, revoke licenses for environmental infractions. However, the actual application of these enforcement mechanisms differs significantly.
The effectiveness of fines as a deterrent is tied to both their severity and the consistency with which they are applied, varying noticeably across the BRICS landscape. License revocation, generally reserved for serious or repeated offenses, often faces legal challenges, underscoring the importance of due process and substantial evidence to support such decisions. The degree of decentralization within each nation also plays a critical role, influencing the consistency of enforcement efforts.
6. Disclosure and Public Participation:
Public participation is formally recognized as a crucial element of environmental governance across the BRICS nations, aimed at enhancing transparency, accountability, and fostering public trust in decision-making.
However, the actual implementation, scope, and effectiveness of public participation mechanisms vary significantly. South Africa and Brazil generally boast stronger legal frameworks and more established practices for public engagement compared to Russia and China. India’s public consultation process, while mandated, is often criticized for being more of a procedural compliance exercise than a substantive opportunity for genuine influence.
More recently, public concerns over air and water pollution have led to increased public engagement in environmental monitoring and reporting. NGOs are playing an increasingly significant role in facilitating public participation and advocating for stronger environmental protections. While participation is growing, challenges still exist in providing effective mechanisms for communities to influence decisions and seek redress for environmental grievances.
Brazil: Public participation is legally mandated, particularly through public hearings (audiências públicas) for projects requiring an Environmental Impact Study (EIA) and Environmental Impact Report (RIMA). The RIMA document itself is intended as a public-facing summary of the EIA, encouraging feedback. However, the quality of these public hearings and the extent to which public concerns are actually incorporated into the licensing decision can be variable.

Case Example: The Belo Monte Dam project on the Xingu River is a controversial example. While public hearings were held as required, indigenous communities and environmental groups argued that their concerns about the dam’s impacts on their livelihoods, water resources, and biodiversity were largely ignored. Despite widespread opposition, the project proceeded. This case highlights the potential for public participation to be more symbolic than truly influential.

Russia: Russian legislation requires public participation in environmental decision-making, including EIAs. The right to participate in environmental decision-making is anchored in federal law, ensuring notification and involvement of citizens, NGOs, and organizations in discussions of significant projects. Public hearings and open expert reviews enable civil society to provide input on environmental protection and risk mitigation measures. These hearings must be announced publicly, held in accessible locations or online, and their results recorded in official protocols. Under the updated 2025 procedure, projects cannot proceed to expert review without evidence of completed public hearings. The protocol of consultations and a summary of received comments must be published in open registries. These reforms aim to prevent past issues of poor publicity and inadequate consideration of alternative routes. However, in practice, public participation is often limited and faces significant challenges. Access to information can be restricted, public hearings may be poorly publicized or held in inconvenient locations, and the views of affected communities are often not adequately considered.

Case Example: The construction of the Nord Stream pipelines has faced criticism for limited public consultation, particularly in relation to potential environmental impacts on the Baltic Sea. Environmental groups have raised concerns about the transparency of the EIA process and the consideration of alternative routes that might minimize environmental damage.

India: The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006 mandates public consultation as an integral part of the Environmental Clearance (EC) process, including a public hearing. However, the public consultation process in India is frequently criticized for being procedural rather than substantive, with concerns raised about the quality of EIA reports, the transparency of the process, and the genuine consideration of public input.
In addition to the foundational Environmental Clearance (EC) process, India has established specific consents required for projects, namely the Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO). The CTE is essential for obtaining approval before commencing construction, ensuring that projects adhere to environmental regulations from the outset. Following completion, the CTO provides authorization for operating facilities, tying compliance to performance standards as delineated in the EC. This structured consent process emphasizes the significance of environmental obligations throughout a project’s lifecycle, promoting accountability and sustainability.

Case Example: The proposed POSCO steel plant in Odisha faced widespread opposition from local communities who feared displacement and loss of livelihoods. While public hearings were held, community members alleged that the EIA report was inadequate, that they were not given sufficient time to review it, and that their concerns were not adequately addressed. The project encountered numerous legal challenges, underscoring the limitations of the public consultation process.

China: China has been increasingly emphasizing public participation in environmental decision-making, recognizing its importance for enhancing social harmony and improving environmental outcomes. Recent regulations encourage broader participation in EIAs, including opportunities for communities to provide feedback on proposed projects.

Case Example: In Xiamen, public outcry over a proposed paraxylene (PX) plant led to the relocation of the project. Faced with a proposed PX plant in Xiamen, citizens leveraged unconventional channels such as text messages and online platforms to generate substantial public pressure, which ultimately compelled the government to relocate the project. This case not only demonstrated the power of public opinion to alter government decision-making under specific circumstances but also exposed the ineffectiveness of official risk communication and the inadequacy of formal public participation channels. While this response reflected the government’s high prioritization of social stability and a degree of responsiveness, it failed to catalyze the establishment of a systematic, upfront public participation mechanism. The largely symbolic nature of participation procedures have not undergone substantive transformation. This case demonstrated the power of public opinion and the government’s willingness to respond to public concerns, although the broader implications for public participation in environmental decision-making remain to be seen.

South Africa: South Africa’s environmental legislation emphasizes public participation as a cornerstone of environmental governance. In South Africa, public participation is a central pillar of environmental governance under NEMA. The National Environmental Management Act and the associated EIA Regulations require that interested and affected parties (I&APs) be notified and afforded opportunities to comment at key stages of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, including before and during preparation of the basic assessment report or scoping report, during public participation on drafts, and before final decisions are made.

Case Example: The Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, has been threatened by coal mining activities. Environmental groups and local communities have actively engaged in public participation processes to challenge mining permits and advocate for stronger environmental protections. The ongoing legal battles underscore the importance of public participation and the courts’ role in protecting environmental and cultural heritage.
The cases above illustrate the spectrum of public participation practices across the BRICS nations. While formal requirements for public consultation exist in all countries, the “quality, accessibility, and influence” of these processes vary significantly.
Brazil and South Africa tend to have more robust legal frameworks and a more established tradition of public engagement. However, even in these countries, concerns persist about the effectiveness of public participation in influencing project outcomes.
In Russia and China, while legal requirements for public participation exist, their implementation is often limited by factors such as restricted access to information, a lack of resources for communities to engage effectively, and concerns about government control.
India’s process, while well-defined, suffers from criticisms of being largely a formality. A genuine shift towards meaningful public participation requires not only legal requirements but also a commitment to transparency, access to information, capacity building for communities, and a genuine willingness on the part of government and industry to consider and respond to public concerns.
7. Access to Information: Mechanisms and Remaining Challenges
Ensuring public access to environmental information is fundamental to effective environmental governance. It empowers citizens to participate meaningfully in decision-making processes, hold governments and industries accountable, and advocate for stronger environmental protections. While all BRICS nations recognize the importance of access to information, the mechanisms for providing it and the practical realities of access vary significantly.
Brazil: The Environmental Impact Report (RIMA) serves as a central document for public access. It is designed to be a plain-language summary of the more technical Environmental Impact Study (EIA), making key findings accessible to a broader audience. Other EIA-related documents are also generally available for consultation, although navigating the process and obtaining specific information can sometimes be challenging, particularly for individuals without specialized knowledge. Access is often facilitated through public hearings and government websites; however, its effectiveness depends on proactive disclosure by the relevant agencies and the availability of resources to support public inquiry.
Russia: While Russia’s constitution and environmental laws guarantee the right to environmental information, the implementation often falls short. Access to environmental information is guaranteed by federal law, including the right to request data on monitoring, licensing, and compliance. However, information is sometimes restricted due to bureaucratic delays or confidentiality rules. The government maintains official registries on pollution levels, waste handling, and natural resource use, but online accessibility remains uneven across regions. Since 2023-2025, Rosprirodnadzor has introduced electronic services for submitting documents for the State Environmental Review (SER), including publishing all EIA documents, SER conclusions, and environmental monitoring results through the user’s personal account and the Unified Public Services Portal. Federal and regional authorities must ensure the transparency of environmental data, though enforcement remains inconsistent.
India: India has made notable progress in providing online access to environmental documents. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) maintains a website where EIA reports, environmental clearances, and related information are generally available. Additionally, hard copies of documents are often available in local government offices. While this online availability represents a significant step forward, challenges remain in ensuring that the information is easily searchable, understandable, and accessible to all citizens, particularly those in remote areas or with limited internet access. Furthermore, there are concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
China: Access to environmental information in China has been gradually improving, driven by growing public awareness and pressure for greater transparency. The Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) and local Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs) are increasingly providing environmental information online, including EIA reports and pollution monitoring data. However, access remains uneven, with significant variations across different regions and sectors. Access to information on sensitive projects or those involving state-owned enterprises can be particularly challenging. While there is growing legal support for requesting information, practical barriers to access persist.
South Africa: South Africa’s environmental legislation strongly emphasizes public access to information. Environmental reports are typically made available through various channels, including public libraries, government websites, newspaper advertisements, and public meetings. The proactive disclosure of information is encouraged, and mechanisms are in place for requesting information from government agencies. However, challenges remain in ensuring that information is accessible to all citizens, particularly those who are not proficient in English or who live in remote areas with limited access to libraries or the internet.
While varying in their approaches and effectiveness, a common thread across BRICS nations is the ongoing tension between the “legal right” to environmental information and the “practical realities” of obtaining it.
India and South Africa have made significant strides in online accessibility, but concerns persist regarding digital divides and the quality of information. Russia and China face significant challenges in overcoming bureaucratic hurdles and fostering a culture of transparency. Brazil relies heavily on the RIMA document but needs to ensure broader and more proactive disclosure of supporting information.
Ultimately, realizing the promise of environmental democracy requires not only legal frameworks and technological infrastructure but also a fundamental shift in attitudes towards transparency and a commitment to empowering citizens with the information they need to protect their environment.
8. Mechanisms for Public Participation:
While public hearings and opportunities for submitting written comments are common threads across the BRICS nations, the specific nuances and effectiveness of public participation mechanisms vary significantly. South Africa distinguishes itself through a broad emphasis on stakeholder engagement, while Brazil leverages environmental councils to foster ongoing dialogue and collaboration. This section delves into a more detailed examination of the specific mechanisms employed in each country.
Brazil:
Public Hearings (Audiencia Publicas): Public hearings are a mandatory and central element of Brazil’s environmental licensing process, designed to ensure transparency, public participation, and democratic oversight of projects with potential environmental and social impacts. Convened by the licensing authority—federal, state or municipal, depending on the project’s scope—these hearings present technical information about the proposed activity, its environmental impact study (EIA/RIMA) and proposed mitigation measures, while allowing affected communities, civil society, indigenous and traditional peoples, and other stakeholders to ask questions, express concerns, and propose alternatives. Notices must be published in advance. Hearings are generally held in accessible locations or virtually to widen participation, and minutes or reports are produced to document the inputs that the agency must consider when deciding to grant, condition, or deny the license. Although intended to empower local voices and improve project outcomes, the effectiveness of hearings varies in practice due to factors such as the quality of information provided, timing relative to decision-making, logistical barriers for marginalized groups, and the degree to which authorities genuinely incorporate public contributions into final licensing decisions.
Written Comments (Consultas Públicas): Members of the public can submit written comments on EIA/RIMA documents and other relevant materials. This provides a less formal avenue for participation, but its effectiveness depends on ensuring that these comments are genuinely considered in the decision-making process.
Environmental Councils (Conselhos de Meio Ambiente): These councils, present at the municipal and state levels, bring together representatives from government, the private sector, and civil society to discuss environmental issues and advise on policy. They offer a platform for ongoing dialogue and engagement, but their influence can vary depending on their composition and mandate.
Russia:
Public Hearings (Общественные слушания): Public hearings are legally required as part of the EIA process. They are a key mechanism for citizen engagement, allowing the public to voice concerns and propose environmental safeguards. Hearings may be organized both offline and online, with the results to be published. During IEP applications that involve EIA materials, public input is also summarized in the Program for Environmental Efficiency Improvement (PPEE). Developers must indicate how citizens’ comments are reflected in the final environmental management plan, which becomes a binding annex to the permit. Without the completion of hearings and the publication of their protocol, projects cannot proceed to SEE. However, their effectiveness is often limited by factors such as poor publicity, inconvenient locations, and a lack of meaningful feedback on how public input is considered.
Submission of Comments (Представление замечаний): The public can submit written comments on EIA documentation. Developers must summarize all received remarks and indicate how they were addressed in the revised EIA report. This report becomes an official annex to the submission to the SEE. As with public hearings, the extent to which these comments genuinely influence decision-making is often questionable.
India:
Public Hearings: Public hearings are a mandatory component of the EIA process for many projects. The hearings are typically conducted by the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) or a designated authority. However, concerns persist about the quality of information provided beforehand, the management of the hearings, and the genuine consideration of community concerns.
Written Comments: Stakeholders can submit written comments on the EIA report during the public consultation period. Again, the extent to which these comments meaningfully influence the decision-making process remains a key area of concern.
China:
Public Hearings (听证会): Public hearings are increasingly used in China, particularly for projects with potentially significant environmental impacts. However, the organization and management of these hearings are often controlled by government agencies, and the degree to which public concerns influence decisions remains limited, as this type of participation often occurs relatively late in the process (typically after the EIA is largely finalized). The EPL (2014) enables public supervision, allowing citizens and organizations to report local governments or Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs) for failing to meet obligations. It also recognizes media as an important tool for raising awareness and exerting social pressure on violators, thereby institutionalizing media oversight within China’s environmental governance framework.
Environmental Reporting Hotline (1235): Commonly known and used by Chinese citizens. The public can report environmental violations from nearby enterprises via phone, dedicated websites, WeChat, and other channels. The government is obligated to process and respond to these reports.
Expert Advisory Committees (专家咨询委员会): These committees, composed of experts from various fields, provide advice on environmental issues. While they offer a valuable source of technical expertise, their composition and influence can be subject to government control.
Written Comments (书面意见): Members of the public can submit written comments on EIA documentation. As in other BRICS countries, the extent to which these comments genuinely influence decision-making is often unclear.
South Africa:
Notification of Stakeholders (Kennisgewing aan Belanghebbendes): Identifying and notifying all potentially affected parties (Interested and Affected Parties – I&APs) about the proposed activity and the EIA process is a fundamental requirement. This notification is typically done through newspaper advertisements, site notices, and direct communication with identified stakeholders.
Public Meetings (Openbare Vergaderings): Public meetings provide an opportunity for project proponents and environmental consultants to present information about the proposed activity and to answer questions from I&APs.
Written Comments: I&APs can submit written comments on the environmental reports and other relevant documents. These comments must be taken into consideration by the environmental consultant when preparing the final EIA report.
Consultation with Stakeholders Raadpleging met Belanghebbendes: In addition to formal public meetings and written comments, South Africa’s system emphasizes ongoing consultation with stakeholders throughout the EIA process. This can involve individual meetings, focus groups, and other forms of engagement.
9. Challenges to Disclosure and Public Participation:
Common challenges to meaningful public participation in environmental licensing include limited awareness, language barriers, and logistical difficulties reaching remote communities. These obstacles reduce attendance and the ability of affected individuals to engage fully with technical materials or decision-makers. In some countries, intimidation or fear of reprisal further suppresses participation, while elsewhere, weak enforcement and restricted access to information hinder transparent processes.
In Brazil, the licensing system is often criticized for its complexity, which can confuse and discourage local stakeholders. Limited access to timely, clear information, combined with the constrained technical and organizational capacity of many local communities, makes it difficult for them to analyze impact studies, propose alternatives, or follow up effectively after hearings.
Russia faces similar barriers, including low public awareness of licensing rights and processes, language differences across diverse regions, and logistical challenges that impede participation from remote or rural populations. Russia’s current policy emphasizes transparency through digital platforms and environmental education. Federal information systems are being expanded to host EIA, IEP, and SEE data, license registries, and monitoring reports. Regional outreach and community engagement initiatives are also supported under national programs on sustainable development and ecological modernization.

Digitalization efforts launched in 2025 aim to improve public participation and streamline environmental processes by enabling citizens to participate in hearings and submit comments online. However, limited internet access in rural and northern areas, along with low environmental literacy, hinders inclusivity. Experiences with implementing the Integrated Environmental Permitting (IEP) system highlighted issues, such as a limited public understanding of Best Available Techniques (BAT) principles and the new format, prompting the Ministry to launch outreach and assistance programs for the first enterprises applying for IEPs. These programs aimed to standardize and facilitate the process. These factors combine to limit inclusive engagement and localized scrutiny of proposed projects.
India has developed a progressive and robust environmental governance framework, characterized by its comprehensive legislative measures, institutional frameworks, and regulatory processes designed to manage environmental issues effectively. The various laws, such as the Environmental Protection Act of 1986, set the foundation for a dynamic system that evolves to meet the country’s unique challenges, particularly given its position as the most populous nation and the fourth-largest economy globally. This adaptability demonstrates India’s commitment to sustainable development while balancing economic growth and environmental protection.
The evolution of India’s environmental framework has been characterized by regular revisions to meet the distinct demands of a diverse and densely populated nation. Over the years, regulations have been adapted to address emerging environmental issues, such as air and water pollution, waste management, and biodiversity conservation. This ongoing refinement reflects a recognition of India’s unique socio-economic context, to ensure that its regulatory mechanisms accommodate development aspirations while safeguarding environmental integrity.
As regulatory processes are increasingly decentralized and simplified, authorities and decision-making have shifted closer to local levels. This decentralization fosters quicker responses to local environmental challenges, yet it raises concerns regarding potential misuse of regulations. Instances of lax enforcement or arbitrary decisions can undermine the robustness of environmental protections. To address this, India has been fostering expertise and capacity-building initiatives within governmental and non-governmental organizations, equipping both institutions and civil societies with the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate and enforce the environmental framework effectively.
Capitalizing on expertise available within institutions and among external stakeholders, India has expanded its environmental governance capabilities. Universities, research institutions, and civil society organizations play a crucial role in raising awareness and conducting research to inform policy. Furthermore, the involvement of civil society and the influence of judicial activism have been instrumental in shaping environmental management. Public interest litigations often bring environmental violations to light, compelling authorities to act in accordance with the law. This participatory approach reinforces the importance of community engagement in implementing the environmental framework, fostering a collective responsibility towards sustainability and environmental stewardship.
In India, common problems include low awareness, language barriers, logistical challenges, and reports of intimidation that deter open participation. China struggles with restricted access to information, limited capacity among communities and civil society to engage technically, and weak enforcement of participation requirements. In South Africa, language differences, scarce resources for meaningful engagement, and public apathy also undermine robust participation in the licensing process.
Suggested solutions focus on enhancing awareness, improving access to information, and building local capacity, enabling communities to engage meaningfully. Common measures include awareness campaigns, translating documents into local languages, simplifying procedures, and using technology (web portals, virtual hearings, mobile alerts) to widen reach and make technical materials more accessible.
Country-specific priorities align with these themes: Brazil should simplify processes, expand information access, and strengthen community capacity; Russia and India should prioritize outreach, translations, and tech-enabled access; China needs stronger legal safeguards alongside better information and capacity building; and South Africa should emphasize translation, capacity support, and proactive engagement with affected communities.
10. Specific Procedures for Infrastructure Projects:
All BRICS countries recognize the importance of environmental licensing for infrastructure projects, given their potential for significant environmental impacts. However, the specific procedures and emphasis vary. Brazil, India, and South Africa have well-defined EIA processes, while Russia and China tend to have a more centralized approach, with a focus on technical review and pollution control. Land acquisition, resettlement, and biodiversity protection are recurring concerns across all BRICS nations. Fast-tracking of projects and prioritizing economic growth often creates conflicts with communities and the environment.
This section compares the specific nuances and requirements for licensing infrastructure projects across BRICS nations. These projects often involve complex environmental and social impacts that require careful scrutiny.
Brazil: Infrastructure projects (roads, dams, ports, airports, etc.) often trigger the requirement for a full EIA/RIMA. Special attention is given to impacts on biodiversity, indigenous lands, and water resources. The licensing process may involve multiple federal and state agencies, requiring careful coordination. Specific regulations govern different types of infrastructure projects (e.g., regulations for dam construction, port development).
Russia:  Infrastructure projects, especially those involving natural resource extraction or located within or near protected areas, are subject to a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and subsequent state environmental expertise. For large industrial facilities classified under Category I of environmental impact, obtaining an Integrated Environmental Permit (KER in Russian) is required. This permit consolidates all environmental approvals (for emissions, discharges, and waste) and sets technological standards based on the Best Available Techniques (BAT). Mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented through Production Environmental Control (PEC) and Environmental Efficiency Improvement Programs (PEEP), which include regular measurements of emissions, discharges, and waste, as well as monitoring of biodiversity and water quality. Compliance is verified through state inspections by Rosprirodnadzor, while violations can result in administrative fines, suspension of activity, or criminal liability.
India: Infrastructure projects (highways, railways, ports, airports, irrigation projects, power transmission lines, etc.) are categorized under the EIA Notification based on size and location. Category A projects require clearance from the MoEFCC, while Category B projects are handled at the state level. Public hearings are mandatory, and the impact on displacement and resettlement is a major concern. There is often a fast-tracking of infrastructure projects, which can create conflict.
China: Infrastructure projects are subject to EIA requirements, with emphasis on air and water pollution control. Large-scale projects often require national-level approval. Land acquisition and resettlement issues are significant. Recent policies have focused on “ecological redlines” to protect environmentally sensitive areas from infrastructure development.
South Africa: Infrastructure projects such as roads, dams, pipelines, and energy facilities commonly trigger listed activities under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) that require either a Basic Assessment or a Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The choice depends on the anticipated significance of impacts and the regulatory category applicable to the project. Key biodiversity, water resource, and heritage site considerations drive the scope of the assessment. Increasing emphasis is being placed on integrating social impact assessments (SIAs) alongside environmental impacts, with SIAs informing stakeholder engagement, community benefits, and mitigation measures.
11. Lawsuits Involving Environmental Licenses:
Judicial systems within BRICS nations play varying roles in reviewing environmental licenses and enforcing environmental laws. Brazil, India, and South Africa demonstrate relatively active judicial engagement, while environmental litigation faces more significant constraints in Russia and, historically, China.
However, China is witnessing an increasing number of environmental public interest lawsuits. Legal challenges, overall, serve as crucial checks on environmental licensing, prompting improved environmental protection while underscoring the tension between economic development and sustainability. The courts play a vital role in ensuring accountability and transparency in BRICS licensing processes.
This section explores the legal avenues for challenging environmental licenses and the function of judicial review in each nation.
Brazil: Environmental licenses are frequently challenged in court by NGOs, local communities, and public prosecutors, alleging procedural flaws, inadequate EIAs, or insufficient consideration of environmental impacts. The judiciary is highly active in reviewing environmental decisions and enforcing environmental laws. A notable example is the Rio Madeira Dams (Jirau and Santo Antônio) in Brazil, which faced legal challenges from environmental groups and local communities over concerns about insufficient environmental impact assessments. These assessments overlooked significant biodiversity loss, deforestation, flooding, and social displacement of indigenous and local populations in the Amazon. Critics argued that the projects threatened the region’s ecological integrity and the livelihoods of those dependent on the river, leading to lawsuits that temporarily suspended the dams’ operation and prompted calls for more thorough evaluations. This case highlighted the ongoing tension between infrastructure development and environmental conservation in the Amazon rainforest.
Russia: Environmental litigation is possible through administrative and civil courts, allowing citizens and NGOs to appeal EIA conclusions, SEE results, or licensing decisions. However, the complexity of procedures and the limited transparency of state data often discourage such actions. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly affirmed the importance of environmental rights and sustainable development principles, though practical enforcement remains uneven. Currently, disputes concerning IEP issuance or revocation are rare and mostly involve procedural violations. The state may revoke an IEP if the enterprise fails to correct exceedances of emission limits within 6 months. The Sakhalin-2 project, involving oil and gas extraction near Sakhalin Island, faced criticism for its environmental impact, including risks to endangered whale populations. Litigation and international pressure led to a revised licensing approach that incorporated stricter environmental standards. Legal challenges to environmental decisions are less common in BRICS countries than in other countries due to these factors.
India: Environmental clearances are frequently challenged in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the Supreme Court, often involving allegations of environmental law violations, inadequate public consultation, and failures to protect affected communities’ rights. The Vedanta Resources faced legal challenges over its bauxite mining project in the Niyamgiri Hills, Odisha. The Supreme Court of India ruled that local tribal councils (gram sabhas) should decide if mining would be allowed, emphasizing the importance of community consent under environmental licensing. The POSCO steel plant in Odisha The case exemplifies this, where communities contested the adequacy of the EIA report’s consultation processes, leading to legal challenges and highlighting shortcomings in the public consultation procedures.
China: While legal challenges to environmental decisions are increasing, they remain constrained by civil society restrictions and the influence of local governments. One of the main constraints stems from the high threshold for qualifying as a litigant. Currently, only a small number of social organizations explicitly authorized by law have the standing to initiate environmental public interest litigation. However, environmental public interest litigation is a growing area, allowing NGOs to sue polluters and government agencies for environmental damage. The Nu River project proposals have faced multiple lawsuits and garnered international attention due to potential ecological impacts and concerns about a lack of transparency in the environmental assessment and licensing processes. Projects were suspended and delayed due to these challenges. The case in Xiamen, where public outcry led to the relocation of a paraxylene (PX) plant, demonstrates the potential for public opinion to influence decisions. However, legal mechanisms for sustained challenges are still in the development stage.
South Africa: Environmental licenses are subject to judicial review, with NGOs and affected communities frequently challenging decisions based on procedural irregularities, inadequate impact assessments, or constitutional rights violations. The Wild Coast mining case, where a community challenged a mining project, highlighted issues of environmental rights, community consultation, and sustainable development. The community relied on a range of legal and constitutional arguments. The Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape A Case illustrates this, where environmental groups and local communities have actively challenged mining permits through legal processes to protect cultural heritage and advocate for stronger environmental protections.
12. Recommendations for Legal and Institutional Improvements:
All BRICS countries face shared challenges in aligning economic development with environmental protection, seeking sustainable pathways that reduce degradation while supporting growth. Protecting biodiversity and unique ecosystems is a common priority that requires stronger safeguards in project planning and licensing. Climate change mitigation and adaptation are key considerations as nations strive to transition toward lower-carbon economies while managing climate-related risks.
Environmental justice is another cross-cutting concern: ensuring that vulnerable communities do not disproportionately bear environmental harms and that benefits from development are distributed equitably. Effective licensing must therefore integrate social safeguards, participatory mechanisms, and targeted measures to support marginalized groups in upholding their rights and livelihoods.
Recent reforms across BRICS aim to streamline licensing, promote green technologies, and strengthen environmental governance, reflecting a broader shift toward sustainability. The outlook emphasizes the need to balance development with environmental protection, with an increasing focus on climate action and justice. However, progress and implementation will vary across countries, depending on their political priorities and capacities.
To strengthen environmental licensing across BRICS, legal frameworks should be clarified, harmonized where feasible, and more rigorously enforced. This includes resolving jurisdictional ambiguities, increasing penalties for non-compliance, and ensuring consistent standards to reduce delays and unpredictability.
Public participation must be made meaningful and inclusive by creating consultation processes that enable all stakeholders, especially vulnerable communities, to influence decisions. Communication should be culturally sensitive and linguistically appropriate to reach diverse populations and promote genuine engagement.
Access to information should be improved through user-friendly online platforms that publish EIA reports, licensing decisions, and monitoring data, with proactive disclosure of environmental risks and translations of key documents into local languages. Capacity building is also essential, as it involves training officials, professionals, and communities to interpret technical information and participate in licensing processes effectively.
Technological innovation and targeted guidelines for infrastructure projects can mitigate their impacts by incentivizing cleaner technologies, supporting research and development for environmental management, and developing protocols that address the specific social and ecological challenges of large projects while promoting sustainable design.
Finally, strengthen judicial review and anti-corruption measures to ensure transparency, accountability, and protection of environmental rights. Promote environmental justice through policies that prevent vulnerable groups from bearing disproportionate harms and ensure equitable distribution of benefits.
13. Mutual Learning and Cooperation Among BRICS Countries:
The BRICS countries possess substantial experience in environmental management and have much to gain from mutual learning in areas such as EIA best practices, public participation strategies, monitoring and enforcement, legal frameworks, sustainable infrastructure development, and advancements in green technology. Exchanging methodologies for comprehensive, participatory EIAs, approaches to assessing cumulative and social impacts, and strategies to promote resource-efficient infrastructure can raise the overall quality of environmental decision‑making across the group.
Practical collaboration on monitoring and enforcement—such as technology-enabled surveillance, citizen science, and strengthened judicial review—can improve compliance and accountability. Sharing lessons on fostering meaningful public engagement and advancing environmental justice will help ensure that projects consider both social and ecological risks.
To facilitate this exchange, the BRICS countries should establish a dedicated platform that supports regular workshops and conferences, joint research projects, professional exchange programs, and a centralized online repository of resources and best practices. Such institutionalized cooperation would enable sustained knowledge transfer, capacity building, and coordinated advancement of sustainable policies and technologies.
By fostering mutual learning and collaboration, BRICS nations can enhance their environmental licensing systems and promote sustainable development, benefiting both their citizens and the planet. The challenges of environmental protection are global, and collaboration is crucial to achieving sustainable and equitable outcomes.
14. Conclusion: What is the purpose of the environmental licensing for BRICS?
The comparative analysis of environmental licensing among the BRICS nations reveals a noteworthy tension between formal alignment and practical divergence. While each country has established general environmental laws, mandates impact assessments, and acknowledges public participation, they vary significantly in institutional capacity, centralization, and responsiveness to social and judicial scrutiny. As a result, complex procedures and fragile enforcement mechanisms undermine the effectiveness of licensing in safeguarding ecosystems and communities.
To transform environmental licensing from a bureaucratic challenge into a robust governance tool, the paper emphasizes the need for comprehensive reforms rather than mere procedural tweaks. Key recommendations include simplifying and clarifying licensing processes, strengthening substantive standards and post-licensing oversight, and integrating climate risk and cumulative impacts into critical decision-making phases.
Additionally, fostering meaningful, rights-based public participation and improving access to information are essential for enhancing transparency and accountability. Promoting regional and South-South cooperation can further address capacity disparities and facilitate the sharing of best practices.
By implementing these strategic reforms, BRICS nations can enhance the effectiveness of environmental licensing, ensuring it plays a major role in balancing development goals, climate action, and environmental justice.
15. Summary Table

Feature Brazil Russia India China South Africa
Legal Framework National Environmental Policy Act; CONAMA Resolutions; Emphasis on state and municipal regulations. Law No. 15,190/2025 Federal Law “On Environmental Protection” (No. 7-FZ, 2002) Environment Protection Act of 1986; EIA Notification of 2006; Balancing Development and Ecological Sustainability. Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China; Ecological and Environmental Code; Regulations by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE). National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of 1998; EIA Regulations; Promotion of sustainable development and stakeholder consideration of impacts.
Licensing Stages 3 stages (Preliminary, Installation, Operation). Consolidated (phases) or one -stage license, and Simplified licenses for lower-impact projects. 2 stages: (1) preparation and submission of project documentation with EIA results and baseline studies; (2) State Environmental Expertise (SEE) review and subsequent permitting. For Category I facilities, an additional stage involves obtaining an Integrated Environmental Permit (IEP) that consolidates all environmental permissions and technological standards. Two stages (Environmental Clearance and Consent). 3 stages (Planning, Construction, Operation). 2 stages (Environmental Authorization, Management Plan).
EIA Requirement Mandatory for large projects. Mandatory for significant impacts. Mandatory for major projects. Mandatory for all major projects. Mandatory for significant impacts.
Focus Areas Biodiversity, deforestation. Industrial pollution, waste management, water use, and biodiversity protection. Air/water pollution, forest conservation. Air quality, carbon neutrality. Biodiversity, sustainable development.
Public Participation Mandatory hearings/consultations; Environmental Councils at municipal and state levels. Quality of hearings variable. Public consultations are legally required at the EIA stage and must occur before SEE approval. Online participation is allowed. Effectiveness remains limited due to bureaucratic and technical barriers, but is improving through reforms aimed at increasing transparency and digital access under the 2025 environmental strategy. Mandatory hearings for Category A projects; the Process is often criticized as procedural rather than substantive. Increasingly encouraged; Effectiveness evolving; Lacks legal safeguards and mechanisms for redress. Strong emphasis on consultations.
Enforcement Fines, license suspensions, criminal charges; IBAMA is the key enforcer. Limited resources and the vastness of the area pose challenges for enforcement. Administrative fines, activity suspensions, criminal liability; Rosprirodnadzor is the key enforcer; Enforcement weakened by resource limitations. Fines, closure of polluting industries, and imprisonment; CPCB/SPCBs and NGT are key enforcers; enforcement is inconsistent. Fines, factory closures, and criminal charges: MEE has broad powers; enforcement is stricter in urban areas. Fines, compliance notices, criminal charges; DFFE manages enforcement. Limited resources, illegal activities, and governance issues hinder enforcement.
License Type & Validity Three-stage licenses (Preliminary, Installation, Operation). Permits and approvals related to specific environmental aspects (air emissions, etc.). Environmental Clearance (EC). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approvals and Pollutant Discharge Permits. Environmental Authorization (EA).
License Type & Validity: Validity Periods Determined by the environmental agency and the project’s characteristics, varying depending on the license type Vary by type of permit and activity, generally in the range of 1–5 years for emissions/waste; 10–25 years for subsoil and water use, or 7 years( Category I enterprises with IEP) Generally valid for a specified period, usually 5-7 years (mining) or 7-10 years (infrastructure) EIA approvals linked to construction permit validity; Pollutant Discharge Permits typically 3-5 years Usually valid for a specified period, often 5-10 years, depending on the nature of the activity
Key Authorities IBAMA (federal), state, and municipal environmental agencies, as well as CONAMA. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Minprirody) – policy and regulation; Rosprirodnadzor – enforcement and IEP issuance; Minpromtorg – BAT and technological review; Rospotrebnadzor, Rosvodresursy, and Rosrybolovstvo – sectoral expertise for discharges and water/biological impacts. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC); State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs). Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE); Local Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs). DFFEDepartment of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE); Provincial Departments of Environmental Affairs.
Legal Challenges Frequent lawsuits alleging procedural flaws and inadequate EIA. High level of judicial activism. Environmental decisions can be appealed through administrative or civil courts; however, cases are infrequent due to the procedural complexity and economic pressures. Judicial review exists, but is limited in practice. Frequent challenges in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the Supreme Court; Allegations of violations, inadequate consultation. Legal challenges are increasing, but are limited by restrictions on civil society and the influence of local governments. Subject to judicial review; Challenges based on procedural irregularities or violations of constitutional rights.
Access to Information The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) serves as the central document; Access is facilitated through public hearings and government websites; Effectiveness depends on proactive disclosure. Constitutional and environmental laws guarantee the right; however, implementation is limited by bureaucratic hurdles and secrecy, although the 2025 reforms expanded online registries and public access systems.
Notable progress in providing online access; Challenges in ensuring information is searchable, understandable, and accessible, particularly in remote areas. Access is gradually improving; Driven by public awareness and pressure, Access remains uneven and challenging for sensitive projects. Legislation strongly emphasizes public access; however, challenges arise in ensuring that information is accessible to all citizens, particularly those who are not proficient in English or live in remote areas.

16. References
American Bar Association. (2023, Fall). Environmental Public Interest Litigation Saved Green Peafowls China. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/resources/natural-resources-environment/2023-fall/environmental-public-interest-litigation-saved-green-peafowls-china/
APFNet. (2025, April 21). Federal Law “On Environmental Protection” (RU-FZ7(2024)-ENG7667). Retrieved from https://admin.apfnet.cn/uploads/soft/20250421/RU-FZ7(2024)-ENG7667.pdf
Brazil. CONAMA Resolutions 01/86 and 237/97.
Brazil. Federal Law No. 6,938/81 on National Environmental Policy.
Brazil. Federal Law No. 15,190/2025.
Brazil. Federal Law No. 15.300/2025.
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (n.d.). Vedanta Resources lawsuit re Dongria Kondh in Orissa. Retrieved from https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/vedanta-resources-lawsuit-re-dongria-kondh-in-orissa/
China. Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China (2014 Revision). (2014, April 24). Retrieved from Lawinfochina: https://www.lawinfochina.com/Display.aspx?lib=law&Cgid=223979
Corporate Accountability Research. (n.d.). NJM Report v POSCO Odisha. Retrieved from https://corporateaccountabilityresearch.net/njm-report-v-posco-odisha
Friends of the Earth Japan. (n.d.). Sakhalin-2 Project. Retrieved from https://www.foejapan.org/en/aid/jbic02/sakhalin/050121.html
India. Environment Protection Act of 1986.
India. Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 2006.
Kruger National Park. (n.d.). 5 NGOs Appeal Mapungubwe Mining. Retrieved from https://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-times-e-5-ngos-appeal-mapungubwe-mining-25227.html
Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. (2021, December 11). Pollutant Discharge Permit Management Regulations. Retrieved from https://www.mee.gov.cn/gzk/gz/202112/t20211211_963803.shtml
NPC Observer. (2025, April 18). China’s NPC Environmental Code Plans: Private Sector Arbitration, Atomic Energy, Prisons, Development Plans, Law. Retrieved from https://npcobserver.com/2025/04/18/china-npc-environmental-code-private-sector-arbitration-atomic-energy-prisons-development-plans-law/
Pravo.gov.ru. (n.d.). Document ID 0001201407220035. Retrieved from http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201407220035
Pravo.gov.ru. (n.d.). Document ID 0001202101040010. Retrieved from http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202101040010
Rosprirodnadzor. (n.d.). Russian Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing. Retrieved from https://www.rospotrebnadzor.ru/en/
Rosrybolovstvo. (n.d.). Russian Federal Agency for Fishery. Retrieved from http://government.ru/en/department/243/
Rosvodresursy. (n.d.). Russian Federal Water Resources Agency. Retrieved from https://voda.gov.ru/en/agency/
Russia. Federal Law No. 7-FZ on Environmental Protection. (2002, January 10).
Russia. Federal Law No. 187-FZ.
Russia. Administrative Code, Article 8.47.
SAFLII. (2024, June 3). Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others v Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others (58/2023; 71/2023; 351/2023) [2024] ZASCA 84; 2024 (5) SA 38 (SCA). Retrieved from https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2024/84.html
South Africa. National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of 1998.
Zhao Y. (2021) Chinese Environmental Law. Cambridge University Press.
Zhu, Z. (2017). Backfired Government Action and the Spillover Effect of Contention: A Case Study of the Anti-PX Protests in Maoming, China. Journal of Contemporary China, 26, 1-15.

Gostou do conteúdo?

• Siga a gente no LinkedIn e Instagram;
• Acompanhe mais no nosso blog;
• Quer receber notícias ambientais direto no seu Whatsapp? Clique aqui!
• Inscreva-se no nosso canal do YouTube e fique por dentro dos debates e tendências.

Leia também:

O Legado na Construção do Espírito Santo

A relativização da coisa julgada em matéria ambiental: a aplicação do art. 62 do Código Florestal e a extinção do cumprimento de sentença em recente julgado do TRF da 6ª Região

A Desconstrução do Licenciamento Ambiental e o Paradoxo da Legitimidade: O Caso do Projeto Natureza (CMPC) sob a ótica da ACP nº 5028443-53.2026.4.04.7100