Ministério Público Federal vs. Município de Natal and others (Environmental legislation and licensing on the Natal Coastal Highway)

In December 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Municipality of Natal, the Natal City Council, the Rio Grande do Norte Institute for Sustainable Development and the Environment (IDEMA), and the Rio Grande do Norte Legislative Assembly (ALRN). The MPF intends to protect the Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs) along Natal’s coastal strip and the associated coastal ecosystem, consisting of dunes, sandbars, and coastal plains—natural barriers against erosion and the ongoing advance of the sea.

The MPF argues that the recently approved set of regulations—comprising the Natal Master Plan (Municipal Complementary Law 208/2022), Municipal Law 7,801/2024, State Law 12,079/2025, Normative Instruction 002/2025-GS/SEMURB, and the legislation approved by Bill 662/2025—has relaxed land use and occupation regulations along the Rio Grande do Norte coast, allowing mixed-use and multifamily residential developments to be established in areas of high ecological sensitivity, which were previously considered non-buildable areas under federal law. It is argued that the contested municipal and state regulations improperly set aside the protective framework established at the federal level, notably the Forest Code, the Atlantic Forest Law, and the National Coastal Management Plan, and violate the principles of prevention, precaution, and the prohibition against environmental degradation. According to studies conducted by experts from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) and the technical unit of the MPF, land use within these APPs intensifies erosion processes and increases the risk of flooding during extreme weather events, a situation exacerbated by legislative changes and the climate emergency the regulations have ignored. The MPF argues that the legislative process contains irregularities because it disregards the requirement for free, prior, and informed consultation with potentially affected traditional communities, thereby violating ILO Convention No. 169; it also lacks public participation and compromises the assessment of environmental and social impacts, especially along the Natal coastline, a region that includes territories occupied by traditional coastal communities, recognized by the Master Plan as Special Areas of Social Interest (AEIS). In this regard, the MPF maintains that the local relaxation of restrictions on occupation of the Coastal Road is invalid and increases the population’s exposure to the impacts of climate change, putting them at risk.

Plaintiff requests, as a preliminary measure: (i) the suspension of the effects of the contested provisions and of the environmental permits issued in the area since the new Master Plan took effect; (ii) that the defendants refrain from issuing new regulatory or administrative acts that disregard or violate the status of the Natal Coastal Road as a Protected Area (APP); (iii) that the defendants monitor, prevent, and issue fines for any new interventions in the Natal Coastal Road area that disregard the site’s status as a Protected Area (APP). On the merits, the Court is requested to annul the contested regulations, the environmental permits issued for the Natal Coastal Strip during the term of the Natal Master Plan that are not accompanied by an EIA/RIMA and are in violation of the Forest Code, and the inter-agency development of an Environmental Protection and Management Plan for the Natal Coastal Strip that considers, among other points, mitigation and adaptation measures to address erosion processes in the region.