MPPA vs Estado do Pará (Environmental licensing and CONANDA Resolution 215/2018)

On January 23, 2026, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Pará (MPPA) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the State of Pará, with a request for urgent relief, aiming to ensure compliance with Resolution 215/2018 of the National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents (CONANDA) to incorporate its guidelines into the licensing processes in the state. The Resolution establishes parameters and actions for the protection of the rights of children and adolescents at risk of being affected by the context of works and projects, including the environmental licensing phase.

The MPPA argues that it initiated a Civil Inquiry in which it verified the non-compliance by the State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability (SEMAS) of Pará. As an example, it demonstrates this non-compliance in the licensing of the Marituba Sanitary Landfill, where SEMAS justified that the licensing of the project preceded the Resolution, even though the corrective licensing occurred in 2020. The MPPA addresses the relationship between the implementation of the Resolution and the realization of the principle of climate justice, insofar as environmental impacts fall disproportionately on vulnerable groups. The MPPA also cites General Comment 26/2023 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the 2030 Agenda, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to support the intersection and integration between children's rights, policies, and environmental and climate protection.

The MPPA requests, as an urgent measure, a diagnosis of the implementation stage of the Resolution's Parameters and the adoption of measures for its effective implementation, including the insertion of indicators in the Terms of Reference for licensing studies (EIA/EVTEA/EIV), the holding of specific public hearings with children and adolescents, and consultation with affected traditional peoples and communities. On the merits, the MPPA requests confirmation of the injunction.

In an interlocutory decision on February 6, 2026, Judge Aldinéia Maria Martins Barros partially granted the injunction and ordered the State of Pará to: prove the inclusion of child and adolescent protection indicators in the new Terms of Reference for licensing projects with significant environmental impact; present a diagnostic schedule for adapting ongoing licensing processes; and establish a methodology for qualified listening to children and adolescents in the impacted areas. The court also set a fine for non-compliance, to be allocated to the Municipal Fund for the Rights of Children and Adolescents of Marituba.

In its defense, the State of Pará denied any state omission, arguing that SEMAS (the State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability) already adopts mechanisms to protect children in the licensing process. It argues that the Resolution is a programmatic norm, without full effectiveness, that does not generate a legally enforceable subjective right. It invokes the principle of separation of powers and the need for judicial self-restraint in structural litigation, citing precedents from the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and international climate jurisprudence (Urgenda v. Netherlands, Neubauer v. Germany, and Juliana v. United States) to support the argument that courts should not replace the Executive Branch in defining technical instruments of public policy, even those sensitive to legitimate environmental and climate demands. It requests the revocation of the preliminary injunction, the acceptance of the preliminary objections, and, on the merits, the total dismissal of the action.