ISA, ABRAMPA and Greenpeace v. Brazil

This is a Public Civil Action, with an injunction, filed by ISA, ABRAMPA and Greenpeace Brasil, against IBAMA and the Federal Union, in order to determine the nullity of IBAMA's Interpretative Order 7036900/2020, which waived the need to authorization, issued by the Agency, for the export of wood products and by-products of native species. According to the previous regulation, the person interested in obtaining the export authorization of wood products would have to present, in person, at the IBAMA unit that controls the customs warehouse, a series of documents proving the legality of the goods, submitting them to inspection and release. The plaintiffs, when challenging the order, argued that the request (only) of the Document of Forest Origin (DOF) is unsatisfactory for the correct inspection, monitoring and control of wood exports. The plaintiffs explained that the composition of the DOF is based on data entered by the interested parties themselves, and not by IBAMA, and that the Agency would not be able to intervene before the shipment of cargoes goes abroad.

The plaintiffs suggests that this change is part of the deconstruction of environmental public policy in Brazil, to the detriment of protective legislation. This relate to the risk of a higher incidence of illegal deforestation, especially in the Amazon, with the new order. The plaintiffs explain the relationship between the increase in deforestation and climate change, in particular the Brazilian scenario of high GHG emissions, derived from changes in land use, and the loss of carbon sinks, resulting from the suppression of native vegetation, in addition to its deleterious effects on tropical forests, with changes in the rainy season and an increase in the risk of reaching the "point of no return" of devastation of the Amazon Forest. In this sense, the plaintiffs request, in an injunction, that the suspension of the effects of Interpretative Order 7036900/2020 be determined, which waived the need for authorization for the export of wood products and by-products of native species and, definitively, requires if its nullity is determined, combined with the obligation to take all necessary measures to restore the effects of the previous regulation, regarding the requirement of authorization for the export of native wood.

In June 2020, the court granted IBAMA's request to seal the case files, since some of the documents submitted by the agency contained enforcement strategies that needed to remain confidential to ensure the effectiveness of the actions.

The Union filed a response requesting recognition of its lack of standing as a defendant and, alternatively, the dismissal of all claims against the Union, since executive activities and environmental policing powers fall under the jurisdiction of autonomous agencies.

IBAMA filed a response requesting the complete dismissal of the claims made in the initial complaint. It argued that Interpretative Ruling 7036900/2020 was issued to analyze the expiration of IBAMA Normative Instruction 15/2011 regarding the need for specific authorization for the export of native forest products and byproducts in general. It maintained that, following the publication of IBAMA Normative Instruction 21/2014, which establishes the National System for Controlling the Origin of Forest Products (SINAFLOR), the previous regulation was tacitly revoked, and this change did not imply, in any way, a reduction or limitation of IBAMA's supervisory action. It further argued that the integration between SINAFLOR and SISDOF merely fulfilled the Principle of Administrative Efficiency, providing even greater transparency to the information, and that the Export DOF was already the administrative act (license) foreseen by article 37 of the Forest Code (Law 12.651/2012), for the purposes of customs clearance of timber products and by-products of native forest species, and the fact that it is integrated into the same system (SINAFLOR) and the same module that issues the license foreseen in article 36 of the same Law does not constitute any type of legal impediment, but rather a gain in environmental management and information by the environmental regulatory body.

A judgment was issued partially granting the requests in the initial complaint, declaring the nullity of IBAMA's Interpretative Order 7036900/2020, with retroactive effect. The court understood that the order resulted in a flagrant breach of a legal provision in the Forest Code, relating to IBAMA's power and duty to effectively control forest products for export purposes. In deciding on the suitability of the Public Civil Action for the purposes intended by the plaintiffs, it highlighted that the Public Authority is not immune to judicial review of administrative acts and decisions that may lead to deficient environmental protection or a reduction in the levels of timber protection and control. It emphasized the need to protect the Amazon Rainforest as an ecosystem of singular importance for the country's sustainable development and for fulfilling commitments to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis. He stressed that climate change is already showing unmistakable signs of its power to disrupt entire societies and economies, exacerbating inequalities and social injustices that must be combated by everyone.

IBAMA filed an appeal to partially overturn the ruling and modulate the temporal effects of the decision, declaring the nullity of Interpretative Order 7036900/2020 with ex nunc effect from May 20, 2021, the date on which the agency was formally notified of the decision issued by Minister Alexandre de Moraes in PET 8.975, which provisionally suspended the effects of the Interpretative Order.

In March 2026, the court lifted the general confidentiality of the case files, which then began to be processed publicly.

The Union appealed the judgment to request its reversal in order to uphold the preliminary objection of lack of standing, dismissing the case without prejudice solely in relation to the Union and, on the merits, to modulate the temporal effects of the decision, declaring the Interpretative Order null and void with ex nunc effect from May 20, 2021.