Brazil has one of the greatest biodiversity in the world with approximately 200 thousand species of plants, animals and microorganisms registered in the country. In six terrestrial biomes (Amazon, Cerrado, Caatinga, Mata Atlântica, Pantanal and Pampa), in addition to the Coastal and Marine Zone, Brazil comprises around one-fifth of the world's biodiversity (Ministério da Agricultura, 2010). Despite of its nature wealth, Brazil has still not been able to develop a robust bioeconomy. Thus, this resource awakens two major concerns: sustainable exploration (Bolzani, 2016) and biopiracy. In order to regulate the access to biodiversity, Brazilian government has established legislations and polices according to its Federal Constitution. The Constitution characterizes biodiversity as a public right to the protection for both the genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge (República Federativa do Brasil, 1988). Therefore, Brazilian and international public and private institutions must fulfill proceedings to access the biodiversity aiming its sustainable exploitation and protection. The present study has the goal of systematize the required administrative process through an analysis of legal documents and specialized literature. We employed deductive approach and historical method (Gil, 2006). In 1998, the Brazilian ratification of Convention on Biological Diversity (an International Treaty that enforces protective measurements for biodiversity) and the emergency of biopiracy cases at that time led to the edition of Provisional Measure (MP) n. 2.052/2000, converted in MP n. 2.186-16/2001. However, it was only in 2015 that the National Congress approved the Biodiversity Law n. 13.123 and in 2016, regulated by the Decree n. 8.772. The interpretation of the new Brazilian biodiversity regulatory system has enabled us to elaborate a systematic basis on the fundamental steps that are obligatory when one is currently conducting research or technological development with biodiversity in Brazil. Successive steps characterize this process and the most relevant steps are the initial ones because they define the research strategy. We found that the crucial stage is to delineate whether the access will reach the traditional population knowledge or it will be restricted to the genetic patrimony. Therefore, if applicable, the next stage is obtaining an informed consent from each traditional population prior to the authorization request itself. Moreover, the step of registering in the National System for the Management of Genetic Patrimony and Associated Traditional Knowledge (SisGen) must be done before performing activities, such as: consignment; application for intellectual property rights; marketing of intermediate product; dissemination of results, final or partial, in scientific or communication means; and, notification of finished product or reproductive material developed as a result of access. Finally, we consider that a systematization will be a useful tool for researchers especially for those who are not enough familiar with administrative proceedings and have not experienced the process after the edition of the new regulatory system. We thank CAPES and CNPq for Doctorate and Master’s scholarships.