Objective: To comparatively analyze the traditional environmental licensing model, based on Law No. 6,938/1981 and regulated by CONAMA Resolution No. 237/1997, and the framework established by Law No. 15,190/2025, assessing its potential effects on dam licensing, particularly regarding the quality of technical assessments, risk prevention, and professional responsibility. Theoretical Framework: The study is grounded in the National Environmental Policy, the General Environmental Licensing Law, and the National Dam Safety Policy, emphasizing the principles of prevention, precaution, and risk management. Method: A qualitative-quantitative, descriptive, documentary, and applied approach was adopted, combining a comparative analysis of Brazilian environmental legislation with an online questionnaire completed by 28 professionals from consulting firms, public agencies or regulatory activities, and project developers. Results and Discussion: Law No. 15,190/2025 preserves the foundations of environmental licensing while expanding licensing modalities and establishing specific review deadlines. More than 70% of respondents considered that the changes may compromise the depth of technical risk assessments, while 67.8% indicated that the emphasis on procedural speed may weaken the mitigation of Potential Associated Damage. Maximum deadlines and professional accountability also received high levels of agreement. Research Implications: The findings indicate the need to balance administrative efficiency, institutional capacity, and technical rigor while maintaining integration between environmental licensing and the National Dam Safety Policy. Originality/Value: The study examines a recent regulatory framework specifically from the perspective of dam safety, combining normative analysis and professional perceptions to identify challenges associated with implementing Law No. 15,190/2025 in projects with high damage potential.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: