MPF and MPSP vs. Petrobras and IBAMA (Stage 4 of the Pre-Salt)

In June, 2026, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) and the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of São Paulo (MPSP) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and Petróleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras), seeking the suspension and subsequent annulment of Preliminary License (LP) No. 672/2025, granted for the Production and Flow of Oil and Natural Gas from the Pre-Salt Pole of the Santos Basin – Stage 4.

The plaintiffs start from the premise that the climate emergency is an undeniable reality and that its effects have already victimized and continue to affect millions of people, generate losses and damages, and have a tendency towards exponential escalation. They highlight scientific conclusions on the subject and the occurrence of several recurring extreme events influenced by climate change that have affected the country, as well as the possibility of exceeding the point of no return for natural systems. It is argued that the scenario can be addressed through measures that generate changes in production and consumption patterns by developing public policies and rigorously licensing the most impactful activities. The emission reduction commitments that Brazil made under the Paris Agreement and the Climate Plan are highlighted, as is the need to reduce the use of coal, oil, and natural gas to achieve the Agreement's goals. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the historical burning of fossil fuels is the central cause of the climate crisis, that current emissions would already exhaust the remaining carbon budget for meeting the Paris Agreement targets, and therefore, the exploitation of these fuels must be carried out in an environmentally responsible manner. Their impacts must be rigorously accounted for, evaluated, mitigated, and compensated. It is pointed out that the scenario of net-zero emissions by 2050 is incompatible with the opening of new fossil fuel extraction projects and that the energy sector is responsible for a large part of Brazil's emissions.

Given this, the text discusses the need to consider climate impacts in the licensing of oil and gas activities. The authors argue that the Santos Basin project has significant impacts on the climate system and that its environmental viability was not adequately demonstrated in the licensing process, especially due to the insufficient consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and scope 3 emissions. They allege that Petrobras failed to comply with technical requirements formulated by IBAMA itself regarding climate monitoring, mitigation, compensation, and adaptation, as well as the demonstration of the project's compatibility with national and international climate goals. Furthermore, they argue that the issuance of the license violated due environmental legal process, the fundamental right to a stable climate, the principles of prevention and precaution, the polluter-pays principle, climate justice, and the rights of present and future generations. Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (PC-32/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and the 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate are cited in the legal basis. The petition requests, as an urgent measure, the suspension of the effects of the Preliminary License until the requirements made by IBAMA are met by the developer; or, subsidiarily, that IBAMA not issue an Installation License until these requirements are fully met. On the merits, the petition requests the annulment of the Preliminary License; the condemnation of IBAMA to a non-issue obligation, consisting of not issuing a new Preliminary License until compliance with all requirements is proven. Subsidiarily, it requests that IBAMA be condemned to a non-issue obligation consisting of not issuing an Installation License for the project in question until compliance with the requirements is proven.