Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Federal Government, National Water Agency, and others (Environmental crisis in the Grande Sertão Veredas National Park)

In November 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office filed a Public Civil Action, with a request for preliminary injunction, against the Federal Government, the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), the State of Minas Gerais, the State of Bahia, the State Environmental Foundation (FEAM), the State Forestry Institute (IEF), the Minas Gerais Water Management Institute (IGAM), and the Institute of Environment and Water Resources (INEMA). Through the lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to enable the restructuring of these environmental agencies with regard to the mismatch between the development of economic activities in the region of the Grande Sertão Veredas National Park (PNGSV) and the protection of this federal conservation unit, whose extension covers areas of Minas Gerais and Bahia.

Plaintiff argues that excessive water use for agricultural irrigation and deforestation around the PNGSV affect the water availability of the Cariranha River basin, further exacerbating the climate crisis. It argues that the defendant environmental agencies adopt outdated and non-integrated methodologies—disregarding seasonality, the effects of climate change, and changes in land use—both in relation to water-use permits and to the suppression of native vegetation. The complaint highlights the role of the veredas (wetlands) in the hydrodynamics of the Cerrado biome, acting as natural springs and regulators of the water regime.

Plaintiff requests an injunction suspending the water resource permits and suppressing native vegetation until the criteria and procedures adopted by the competent environmental agencies are reviewed. On the merits, it requests: i) the recognition and definition of the structural problem consisting of the damage caused to the PNGSV (São Francisco River Basin National Park), in addition to the elaboration of a Regional Structural Plan in collaboration with the Regional Committee of the São Francisco River Basin; ii) measures to update and integrate environmental and water management; iii) incorporate climate assessment into the procedures for granting permits and authorizing vegetation suppression.

The court denied the request for urgent relief on the grounds that the case requires in-depth analysis and qualified technical expertise to determine the proportionality or appropriateness of the measures requested.

ICMBio filed a defense requesting its participation as a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, alongside the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. It argued that the park's management has invested in conducting studies to obtain the best possible information about the potential impacts on the area resulting from processes occurring in its surroundings, and that the agency has not acted in a way that would cause the "state of non-compliance" alleged in the initial complaint. It demonstrated its interest in regularizing the structural situation of the PNGSV and pointed out two further demands from the park's leadership for inclusion in the Regional Structural Plan: (i) preventing aerial spraying of agrochemicals within a 1 km radius of the PNGSV boundaries; and (ii) establishing Ecological Corridors to prevent the complete isolation of the National Park. He requested his transfer to the active party in the action and, subsidiarily, the establishment of a minimum period of 360 days for the presentation of a regional structural plan proposal that addresses the points discussed in the action, to be undertaken by all the defendant public entities, excluding the application of any penalties against the defendants.

The State of Minas Gerais, FEAM, IGAM, and IEF filed a rdefense arguing the legality of their actions. They argued that the Grande Sertão Veredas National Park is a federal conservation unit (UC) under the administration of ICMBio, the body responsible for establishing regulations for its surroundings and policies for the unit's preservation. The defendants' competence is limited to licensing and granting water resource permits, which are state-level jurisdictions, and they are not responsible for filling gaps in the management plans of federal UCs. They argue that the requests in the lawsuit violate the separation of federal powers. It is pointed out that the state of Minas Gerais has mechanisms for suspending or reviewing the use of water resources in situations of scarcity or reassessment of availability. A technical survey was conducted which indicated that there are no new regulated uses within the Park and that in its three-kilometer buffer zone, there are only 36 regular uses, most of which are insignificant use registrations aimed at small properties, which would refute the claim of lack of control in the granting of permits. Regarding the omission in the licensing regarding the impacts of climate change, they argued that the plaintiff was seeking to impose an obligation that does not exist in the legal system and that state regulations and the General Environmental Licensing Law (Law 15.190/2025) do not establish "the control of the climate variable or carbon emissions as a binding requirement for the granting of ordinary state licenses". They requested that the claims be dismissed.

ANA (National Water Agency) filed a defense arguing the regularity of its actions in accordance with legal precepts. It argued that requiring environmental impact assessments as a condition for issuing water use permits would constitute an undue expansion of its powers and that there was no legal impediment to granting permits in the area in question. It maintained that judicial intervention in the case could encroach upon ANA's regulatory competence and violate the separation of powers. It requested that the claims in the lawsuit be dismissed.