Ministério Público Federal vs. IBAMA e Petrobras (Suspension of the licence for the Pre-Operational Assessment in the Amazon River mouth area)

In September, 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and Petróleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras), due to the granting of authorization for Pre-Operational Assessment (APO) in Block FZA-M-59, located in the Foz do Amazonas Basin, a stage prior to the license for drilling offshore oil wells. The objective is to annul Decision Order No. 33/2025/Gabin, issued by the President of IBAMA, which granted the authorization and the non-issuance of an operating license for well drilling until the licensing irregularities are remedied. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) argues that the aforementioned Decision Order is null and void because it contradicts environmental licensing regulations, international obligations, and a technical opinion from the agency itself, which recommended the denial of the license due to serious flaws in the Oiled Fauna Protection and Care Plan (PPAF). Furthermore, the nullity is based on the absence of an Environmental Assessment of the Sedimentary Area (AAAS), the failure to conduct prior, free, and informed consultations with the affected indigenous, quilombola, traditional fishing, and riverside communities, and the failure to consider some of these communities in the environmental studies, despite the prediction of various impacts on them, in violation of ILO Convention No. 169 and the Federal Constitution. It further argues that the licensing documents do not consider extreme weather events, violating IBAMA regulations, the National Policy on Climate Change, and the Forest Code. The argument is that the authorization granted violates the precautionary and preventive principles, representing a serious risk to the populations and coastal ecosystems of the Amazon River mouth, a region that shelters mangroves and reefs. It maintains that IBAMA's decision ignores the global climate emergency and the international commitments undertaken by Brazil, such as the Paris Agreement, and that the expansion of oil exploration goes against the energy transition and decarbonization policy, perpetuating an unsustainable model based on fossil fuels, which affects Brazil's credibility on the international climate agenda, especially on the eve of COP-30. Thus, the authorization granted without climate impact studies and without AAAS would put Brazil in breach of its commitments to mitigate climate change. In provisional relief, it requests (i) the immediate suspension of Order No. 33/2025/Gabin, or, subsidiarily, the prohibition of granting the Operating License (LO) until the necessary environmental and climate studies are carried out, as well as free, prior and informed consultation with the affected communities; (ii) the prohibition of Petrobras or related companies from entering the villages located in the Uaçá, Galibi and Juminã Indigenous Territories without prior authorization from FUNAI. On the merits, it requests the definitive annulment of the order and the acts resulting therefrom and the suspension of the licensing until the identified nullities are remedied. The preliminary injunction was partially granted by the 1st Federal Civil Court of the SJAP, which upheld the authorization of the APO, but ordered Petrobras to refrain from direct contact with indigenous and traditional communities without the presence of FUNAI. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office filed an interlocutory appeal with the TRF1 (1025450-83.2025.4.01.0000), seeking the complete suspension of the authorization. In its defense, IBAMA requested the complete dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, with recognition of the legality of Decision Order No. 33/2025/Gabin and the regularity of the environmental licensing. It argued that the challenged act was technically sound and without any illegality. Finally, it requested the full maintenance of the licensing and the denial of the injunction sought by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. Petrobras, in its defense, requested that the claims be dismissed due to a lack of factual and legal grounds to support them. The defense was based on the legality of the environmental licensing process conducted by IBAMA, the absence of procedural irregularities or violation of indigenous rights, and finally, it maintained compliance with all applicable legal and technical requirements. In December 2025, a judgment was issued dismissing the claims. The court held that the absence of an Environmental Assessment of Sedimentary Areas (AAAS) does not impact the preparation of the environmental license, arguing that IBAMA's decision in the environmental licensing should be upheld, and there is no need to correct the absence of an AAAS for the Amazon River mouth. It further argued that the allegation that there was no presentation and analysis of meso- and microscale phenomena and extreme climatic phenomena for the project is unfounded, since the report presented by the plaintiff acknowledged that the mathematical models used by Petrobras were the most appropriate currently available. It decided that there is no direct environmental impact on indigenous, quilombola, and artisanal fishing communities, given that the project is located 179 km off the coast of Amapá, so there is no obligation to prepare studies on indigenous and quilombola components. Thus, the environmental impacts of the project on traditional communities were considered indirect and would not have drastic consequences for the communities' traditional way of life. It was argued that the project could bring economic development, opportunities, and expansion of social infrastructure to these communities, and that the precautionary principle cannot be taken as an absolute principle so as to frustrate the legitimate expectation regarding the use of natural resources, with the generation of wealth and development. The conflict between oil exploration and environmental protection was weighed according to the specific situation, and thus economic development was prioritized, understanding that there is no greater environmental risk than the explorations that occur in the seas around the world. Finally, it was considered that, due to the energy transition, oil will become worthless and, therefore, Brazil should take advantage of the historical and technological window to immediately benefit from its natural resources.