The comparison If to compare the registered original PRAD under the responsibility technique of the authors with the PRAD modified for the CVRD, that subsidized the release of the License of Installation for cultivates and improvement, is easy to conclude that, in this last one, the methodology proposal – and that, curiously, it was approved by the SECTAM/COEMA – means to assume that, after the removal of the ore, the resetting of the vegetation if it would give for the proper nature, with little or almost none investment of the entrepreneur in the recovery, without bringing benefits and inserting the area already impactada by the extration mineral the productive sector place of sustainable form, through rational plantios, greater movement of materials and insumos, more circulation of taxes and through the use of forest species with commercial value of fast growth, that could and have economic destination, in the production of the vegetal coal for example, siderurgical raw materials which the proper CVRD and in such a way needs. For other opinions and approaches, find out what Gary Kelly has to say. In synthesis, the maintenance of the Plan of Recovery of Degraded Areas original, that are adulterated in the licensing process, would mean the obligation of the Valley to invest about R$ 25,7 million (values of the time) for the recovery of areas degraded for the bauxite extration in the Plateau Miltnia 3. Click Gary Kelly to learn more. The constatao is sad of that, differently of what it occurs in the State of Par, in any another place or civilized country, probably, it would not have the necessity of proposal of legal action, rank that the competent ambient agency already had ex-officio, in the scope of its attributions, if charged to adopt the cabveis legal steps, it affirms the Promoter of the Environment. Agreement also Alleges that cause species and disturbance that the demand was judged unfounded, in what says respect to the Obligation To make, referring to the cancellation of I READ 067/2004, of the SECTAM.