Ministério Público Federal vs. Estado do Pará and others (Dredging in the Tapajós River)

On March 29, 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a preliminary injunction proceeding against the National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT) and the State of Pará. Initially, Plaintiff sought the suspension of dredging in the Tapajós River, in the stretch located between the municipalities of Santarém and Itaituba. The activity had been authorized by the Pará State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability (Semas) through Authorization 5776/2025, without observing the legal requirements relating to environmental licensing and the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, quilombola communities, riverside communities, extractive communities, and other potentially affected traditional communities, including free, prior, and informed consultation (FPIC). It was alleged that the authorization was granted without an Environmental Impact Study (EIA/RIMA), without an assessment of the cumulative and synergistic impacts of the project, and without free, prior, and informed consultation. It was also alleged that there was a violation of the Federal Constitution, environmental legislation, and ILO Convention 169.

The MPF mentioned that similar protection to that sought was granted in the case of ACP 1014317-12.2024.4.01.3902 (in Sabin Center’s Database as Federal Public Prosecutor's Office and INCRA vs. State of Pará and Municipality of Santarém (Tapajós-Xingu Logistics Corridor)). It highlighted that the licensing process should include an analysis of climate impacts, with an assessment of cumulative and synergistic effects and measures for mitigation, adaptation, and protection of carbon sinks. In addressing this issue, the MPF argued that climate justice must be considered and that the population of the Northern region, in general, experiences the effects of drought unequally and suffers more intensely from climate change, a finding framed within the concept of environmental racism. It was also argued that dredging is part of a set of interventions aimed at consolidating the Tapajós Waterway, whose socio-environmental impacts must be assessed in an integrated manner, especially given the increasing occurrence of extreme hydrological events in the Amazon region.

In preliminary proceedings, the following was requested: (i) the suspension of the authorization for dredging and the prohibition of new interventions until the necessary environmental studies and prior consultation with the affected communities are carried out; and (ii) a requirement that the environmental licensing include a climate impact study and an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the project.

On May 8, 2025, a conciliation hearing was held between the parties, at which time the court denied the request for preliminary injunction and ordered the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office to amend the initial petition. Subsequently, the minutes of the hearing were rectified to clarify that the commitment made by the public authorities at the hearing was to inform the court, and not directly the communities, about any need for new emergency dredging, without prejudice to conducting a free, prior and informed consultation, if feasible in the specific case. The MPF filed an interlocutory appeal (AI) 1016216-77.2025.4.01.0000 against the decision.

The MPF amended the initial petition to file a Public Civil Action. It stated that the object of Environmental Authorization 5776/2025, the emergency dredging, was completed in March 2025, acknowledging the supervening loss of the object of the request to suspend that specific intervention. Therefore, the initial request for an order to perform an action was partially converted into a claim for damages, without prejudice to maintaining the other requests related to the environmental licensing of future dredging planned for the Tapajós Waterway, the prior consultation with traditional communities, and the preparation of the necessary environmental and climate studies. It is argued that the project produces impacts that extend beyond the directly dredged area and affect aquatic ecosystems, biodiversity, water quality, artisanal fishing, food security, and the way of life of local populations. The addendum also reports new elements, such as information from Funai (National Indian Foundation), the Navy, Ibama (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), and ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation), in addition to accounts from the affected communities, which would indicate the lack of a technical statement from Funai authorizing the adoption of a simplified procedure, the occurrence of irregular dredging, and the environmental risks resulting from the resuspension of sediments contaminated by mercury, impacts on biodiversity, and the food security of traditional populations. The MPF further argues that carrying out the dredging without environmental licensing, EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report), and prior consultation has already caused diffuse and collective damage to the environment and the affected communities and requests, among other things: (i) the granting of wide publicity to the process, in order to enable knowledge and participation by the impacted indigenous peoples and traditional communities and the holding of a public hearing; (ii) the condemnation of the defendants to pay compensation for collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 500,000,000.00, as well as the partial allocation of these resources to projects aimed at potentially impacted traditional communities.

The National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT) filed a rebuttal, arguing the legality of the emergency dredging carried out on the Tapajós River. It stated that the waterway licensing is part of the Annual Waterway Maintenance Dredging Plan (PADMA), an annual intervention program that executes dredging engineering works and services for waterway maintenance. It argues that, given the critical state of navigability on the Tapajós River and the lack of time to conduct a bidding process, emergency action was necessary to contract a company to perform the dredging and maintenance services. It claims that the licensing was carried out according to the Terms of Reference (TR) issued by Semas, which did not require an assessment of climate impacts, and is currently in the preparatory process for contracting a specialized company to conduct environmental studies and consult with traditional communities, as per the issued TR. DNIT argues that waterways are the most sustainable alternative for transportation, consuming less fuel and emitting fewer greenhouse gases, with dredging having a negligible effect on climate change. DNIT maintains the presumption of legitimacy of administrative acts and challenged the existence of collective moral damages, due to incompatibility with the idea of transindividual harm, as well as the amount sought as compensation. DNIT requests the dismissal of the preliminary injunction and the complete dismissal of the claims.

The State of Pará filed a defense arguing the legality and proportionality of Emergency Environmental Authorization 5776/2025, due to the water crisis affecting the Tapajós River. It maintains the material impossibility of carrying out the CPLI (Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment) in the emergency context, emphasizing that this requirement will be fully observed in the ordinary licensing of PADMA (Environmental Management Plan), already underway, in accordance with the Terms of Reference issued by Semas (State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability) requiring an EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report) and CPLI. It challenges the claim for compensation for collective moral damages, due to the lack of technical evidence of the damage and causal link, and highlights the formal commitment made in court to give prior notice of any new emergency dredging operations, therefore requesting the dismissal of the claims made by the MPF.