Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office vs. Federal Union and Others

In May 2026, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for provisional relief against the Federal Government (Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture), the National Foundation for Indigenous Peoples (FUNAI), the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), the Henrique Roessler State Environmental Protection Foundation (FEPAM), and CMPC Celulose Riograndense Ltda., due to alleged irregularities in the environmental licensing process of the project called "Projeto Natureza." The project aims to implement a pulp and paper industrial complex and associated logistics structures in the municipality of Barra do Ribeiro/RS. The action seeks the suspension of the environmental licensing until the Prior, Free and Informed Consultation (CPLI) of the affected communities is carried out, the environmental studies are completed, and any administrative acts issued in violation of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and other environmental legislation are halted. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) argues that the Environmental Impact Assessment and Report (EIA-RIMA) presented by CMPC contains omissions and methodological inconsistencies that prevent the adequate identification and measurement of the socio-environmental, territorial, and climatic impacts of the project on the Mbya Guarani and Kaingang indigenous peoples, quilombola communities, artisanal fishermen, and other traditional peoples and communities of the Guaíba Lake, Lagoa dos Patos, and Pampa Biome hydrographic basin. The plaintiff argues that disregarding the cumulative effects on the Pampa biome, water resources, and traditional territories compromises ecosystems relevant to regional climate balance, in addition to making invisible the disproportionate impacts borne by traditional peoples and communities. It emphasizes that these communities have special protection under the Federal Constitution and the mandates of Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (PC-32/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). It also raises arguments related to environmental and climate justice, arguing that Indigenous peoples, quilombola communities, and artisanal fishermen will bear the brunt of the environmental and territorial burdens of the project, without adequate participation in decision-making processes and without full access to the environmental information necessary for the exercise of self-determination. In summary, the preliminary injunction requests that environmental licensing be suspended until prior, free, and informed consultations are held; FEPAM refrain from issuing licenses without the conclusion of the consultations; CMPC cover the costs of consultation activities and independent technical assistance; that the conclusions of the consultations be linked to the institutional position of the competent public bodies; and the preparation of specific work plans and terms of reference for the Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples and communities components. On the merits, the request seeks confirmation of the preliminary injunctions; a declaration of nullity of any licenses issued without prior consultation; the cessation of the material activities of the Nature Project and the establishment of safeguards listed in the initial petition in relation to areas already cultivated or that will be used by the enterprise. It is requested that the Protocol for Judgment with a Racial Perspective of the National Council of Justice (CNJ) be observed in the analysis of the claim. The defendants filed their response in July and August 2026. In its defense, INCRA argued its lack of standing, since its involvement in environmental licensing processes related to quilombola lands only begins upon formal request from the licensing environmental agency (FEPAM). It argued that the MPF's request for the preparation of a Work Plan within 90 days is impossible, as it presupposes successive stages that depend on the initial request, which has not yet been made. Furthermore, it argued that the request violates Supreme Court Ruling 698 by imposing micromanagement and fixed results, including the imposition of a daily fine of R$ 100,000.00. It maintained that there was no administrative omission attributable to the agency, since the legal duty to respond was never fulfilled. It reaffirmed that it does not oppose the establishment of the CPLI, provided that the proper procedural rules are observed. Alternatively, it requested to be converted into an amicus curiae and asked for the acceptance of the passive illegitimacy, resulting in the dismissal of the case without prejudice or the total dismissal of the claims. In its defense, CMPC Celulose Riograndense Ltda. argued that the action is manifestly unfounded, claiming that the object of the licensing of the Natureza Project is specifically delimited, rejecting the ministerial thesis of a regional macro-project that would encompass forest plantations, the RS+Renda program, transmission lines, and terminals in other municipalities. The defense chronologically detailed the licensing conducted by FEPAM since May 2024 and the treatment of the indigenous component by FUNAI, with a Specific Terms of Reference and a Work Plan approved by the communities and the Mbyá Guarani Indigenous Territory, filed and under analysis. Preliminarily, it argued the lack of standing of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office to challenge the technical-administrative merits of the licensing, as well as claims that would amount to concentrated control of the constitutionality of forestry legislation, which are inappropriate for a public civil action. On the merits, it argued the regularity of the EIA/RIMA and the actions of the public bodies, the undue territorial scope sought for the CPLI, the non-binding nature of the hearing, the inapplicability of ILO Convention No. 169 to fishermen of Lagoa dos Patos, and the failure to meet the requirements for reversing the burden of proof. CMPC requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice regarding the claims affected by the lack of standing and, subsidiarily, the total dismissal of the requests. In its defense, FUNAI alleged lack of standing, arguing that it does not have licensing authority nor responsibility for conducting the CPLI (Commission for the Prevention and Control of Infections), which would be the responsibility of the licensing body, restricting its role to technical input within the scope of the Indigenous Component Study (ECI) and only after formal request from the environmental agency. The Foundation demonstrated that it has been regularly monitoring the licensing process since 2024, having issued Terms of Reference whose area of coverage already exceeds the 8 km radius stipulated in Interministerial Ordinance No. 60/2015, informing that the ECI relating to the Mbya Guarani people is under technical analysis, with a participatory methodology approved by the communities themselves, while the Kaingang component is still being developed. On the merits, it refuted the confusion between the ECI and the CPLI, dismissing any omission or inaction, and invoked STF Theme 698 to request the exclusion of FUNAI from the passive pole due to illegitimacy or, subsidiarily, its conversion into amicus curiae, and the dismissal of the requests.