Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. State of Pará and Municipality of Santarém (Tapajós – Xingu Logistics Corridor)

On July 2024, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a public civil action against the state of Pará and the municipality of Santarém, seeking the mandatory inclusion of environmental, climate, indigenous and quilombola impact studies in the licensing process for port and waterway projects in the region of the municipality of Santarém/PA. The author says that the municipality has been progressively incorporated into the Tapajós-Xingu Logistics Corridor, which includes commodity export corridors in the Madeira and Tocantins river basins and involves the implementation of various infrastructure projects with social and environmental risks. The lack of impact studies has caused serious environmental and social damage, such as deforestation, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, destruction of ecosystems and a threat to the livelihoods of traditional communities, including indigenous peoples, quilombolas, artisanal fishermen, riverine communities and extractive communities. The plaintiff argues that the operation of multiple ports in the same region can generate cumulative and synergistic effects, increasing pressure on the climate, and that it is essential to consider the assessment of the climate dimension of possible impacts in the environmental licensing of projects. It therefore requests that the State of Pará and the Municipality of Santarém be ordered to adapt their environmental licensing procedures for port and waterway works in Santarém/PA, with a mandatory prior environmental impact study (EIA/RIMA), a study of quilombola (ECG) and indigenous (ECI) components, a climate impact study and free, prior and informed consultation of the traditional peoples and communities potentially impacted.

In a preliminary ruling, the request for injunctive relief was granted.

In February 2025, the defendants filed their responses. The state of Pará argued that the environmental licensing of ports and waterways in Santarém/PA followed all the legal procedures, with no omissions justifying judicial intervention and without retroactively imposing new environmental requirements on projects that had already obtained a Preliminary License (LP), in respect for the principle of the perfect legal act and legal certainty. With regard to climate impacts, it pointed out that State Law 9.048/2020, amended by Law 9.781/2022, mentions the need to consider climate change in environmental licensing, but there are no specific regulations requiring the inclusion of an autonomous climate impact study. At the federal level, IBAMA also has no regulations requiring this analysis in a binding manner. In this way, climate impacts would fall within the existing regulatory limitations. It requested that the action be dismissed.

The municipality of Santarém argued that the requirement for an Environmental Impact Study (EIA/RIMA) and Prior, Free and Informed Consultation (FPIC) for all port and waterway projects, regardless of size and environmental impact, is disproportionate, making essential projects economically unviable for the riverside population and local supply. With regard to climate impact, it argued that there are no specific regulations in state or federal legislation that oblige the inclusion of this component in municipal environmental licenses. It therefore requested that the action be dismissed.

In an interlocutory decision, the court granted the request for FUNAI and the Palmares Cultural Foundation to participate as amici curiae and granted the request for the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) to join the case as an assistant to the plaintiff.

The State of Pará filed an interlocutory appeal (AI) against the preliminary injunction, which was denied. The judgment on the AI stated that the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has a consolidated understanding that there is no acquired right to pollute or degrade, which authorizes the imposition of new requirements even for licensing processes in advanced stages, aiming to avoid irreversible damage. The decision refuted the State of Pará's argument that there is no specific legislation requiring the assessment of the climate variable, stating that this obligation stems directly from the Federal Constitution and the National Policy on Climate Change. It highlighted that the Supreme Federal Court (STF), in the judgment of ADPF 708 (Climate Fund), recognized the constitutional duty to mitigate climate change and therefore the licensing of large port structures in the Amazon, a sensitive biome and climate regulator, must require studies of greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative impacts. The court affirmed that Free, Prior and Informed Consultation is a right of traditional communities as required by ILO Convention 169 and must be carried out by the State whenever there is a possibility of impacts on traditional ways of life. It further reaffirmed that the Judiciary must guarantee the effectiveness of environmental policy and prevent ecological regression, as per the thesis of ADPF 760, and that the control of omissions in environmental administrative acts does not violate the limits of the separation of powers, since it is a control of legality and constitutionality. Regarding the conflict between economic interests and the protection of the environment and the rights of traditional peoples and communities, the decision affirmed that the fundamental intergenerational right must prevail. Therefore, it fully upheld the decision suspending licensing without the necessary climate studies and consultations with the affected populations.