Observatório do Clima e outros vs. IBAMA, Petrobras e União Federal (Revocation of the Operating License for drilling at the mouth of the Amazon River)

On 22nd October 2025 the NGOs Observatório do Clima, Greenpeace Brazil, WWF Brazil, Arayara Institute of Education and Culture, National Commission for the Strengthening of Extractive Reserves and Coastal Marine Extractive Peoples (CONFREM), Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon (COIAB), National Coordination of Articulation of Rural Quilombola Black Communities of Amapá (CONAQ-AP) and the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, against IBAMA, Petrobras and the Federal Government. The objective is to suspend and subsequently annul the Operating License (LO) 1,684/2025 for the Offshore Drilling Activity in Block FZA-M-59, located at the mouth of the Amazon River, due to technical weaknesses and irreparable flaws in the environmental licensing process. The request aims to determine that the environmental agency IBAMA refrain from issuing environmental licenses for oil projects without a complete assessment of their environmental viability, both in the Amazon River mouth basin and in other basins of the Equatorial Margin. It argues for the need to assess climate impacts and the direct and indirect impacts of the activity, with the provision of complete data on direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from current and already contracted oil production in the country, and verification of the compatibility between Brazilian climate emission reduction targets and the carrying capacity of the climate system for the project's emissions. It is pointed out that Block FZA-M-59 is located in an area of notorious environmental sensitivity and vulnerability to oil spills, near mangroves and coastal dunes and the Great Amazon Reef System, ecosystems whose preservation is fundamental to mitigating the current climate emergency scenario. In addition, an Environmental Assessment of the Sedimentary Area (AAAS) of the region where the block is located has never been carried out to evaluate the socio-environmental attributes of the region and define its suitability for oil exploration. Another argument raised concerns the lack of updated and complete studies on the oceanographic composition of the region, especially its hydrodynamic base, which has strong and unpredictable currents and high levels of sediment brought by the Amazon River – a factor that was ignored in the licensing process and is directly related to oil sinking and reef impact – exacerbating the flaws in the oil dispersion model and making an efficient response to a spill accident impossible. On this point, it is also highlighted, from an adaptation perspective, that the studies ignored the growing vulnerability of the Amazon River mouth to the impacts of climate change, such as extreme events, and the licensing process should assess both how the oil exploration project will exacerbate the climate crisis and how the exacerbation of this crisis itself will increase the operational and environmental risks of the project. The plaintiffs emphasized that the necessary Indigenous and Quilombola Component Studies were not carried out, nor was there free, prior and informed consultation with the Indigenous peoples, Quilombola and traditional communities affected by the project. They also argued that IBAMA's stance in authorizing the operating license is contrary to socio-environmental interests and the technical assessment of its own employees and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, which have repeatedly recommended its rejection. They alleged that the licensing process was based on intense and incessant political influence. Furthermore, the advisory opinions published by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice on the duties of States in the context of climate change were highlighted. The plaintiffs requested, as a preliminary injunction, the suspension of the effects of Operating License 1.684/2025 to prevent and/or halt any and all drilling activity in Block FZA-M-59. On the merits, they requested: (i) the annulment of the LO due to the flaws and technical deficiencies of the EIA-RIMA and the environmental licensing process; (ii) that IBAMA refrain from issuing environmental licenses for oil projects in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth and in other basins of the Equatorial Margin without first attesting to the complete environmental viability of the project (including considering direct and indirect climate damage, as well as the relationship of the project with Brazilian climate goals) and without having carried out free, prior, informed and good-faith consultation with the affected populations and traditional communities.

In an interlocutory decision, the court requested, among other things, that the plaintiffs amend the initial complaint to: (i) recalculate or justify the value of the case, considering that the initial value of R$ 100,000 would not be compatible with any potential economic benefit obtained from the success of the claims, namely "preventing oil exploration in the disputed location"; (ii) rule on the relationship between this action and cases 1054900-56.2025.4.01.3400, 1016097-83.2025.4.01.3600, 1016098-68.2025.4.01.3600, 1024508-88.2025.4.01.3900 and 102769252.2025.4.01.3900; (iii) demonstrate the passive legitimacy of the Union and Petrobras as defendants, since the requests contained in the initial petition are obligations to do and not to do directed exclusively to IBAMA.

In an addendum to the initial petition, the plaintiffs stated that there was no identity of claims, causes of action, or parties between the present action and the proceedings highlighted by the court. They emphasized that while the other actions were related exclusively to the initial phase of the project, still during the auction period for exploratory wells, the present action focuses on the annulment of Operating License 1,684/2025 and on preventing IBAMA from issuing new licenses for oil projects in the Amazon River mouth region and other areas of the Equatorial Margin, without duly assessing their environmental viability, evidently considering the parameters and requirements demonstrated in the initial petition. They amended the value of the case to R$ 1,413,777.19, corresponding to the cost of issuing the Operating License, plus the amount of R$ 100,000.00 attributed to the request for abstention from issuing new licenses and estimated according to the usual values for the preparation of socio-environmental studies in licensing processes. Regarding the passive legitimacy of the Union and Petrobras, they argued that Petrobras is the recipient of the operating license whose annulment is the subject of this action, and the Union is the owner of the oil, natural gas, and other fluid hydrocarbon deposits existing in the national territory, and the case concerns possible environmental damage in territorial waters, a matter also within the Union's jurisdiction.

In its defense, Petrobras argued that the Environmental Impact Study conducted for the drilling activity in Block FZA-M-59 was sufficient to predict the socio-environmental impacts that could be caused by the project, stating that it could adequately respond in the event of an oil spill accident. It raised preliminary procedural issues that would lead to the dismissal of the action without prejudice. Regarding the assessment of climate impacts and risks, it argued that the offshore drilling in Block FZA-M59 does not generate greenhouse gas emissions, as it only aims to confirm the presence of oil or gas in the region and, therefore, would not require a climate impact assessment. It argued that not every project must necessarily include this variable in its licensing and that, given the licensing process for multiple blocks in the region, the burden of carrying out these studies could not be placed on a single operator in the environmental licensing of a single exploratory well. After the possible discovery of reserves in the region, the assessment and characterization of emissions could be included in the respective EIA-RIMA and separate licensing processes, if technically justifiable. The company defended its corporate stance on climate change, affirming its commitment to a cost-effective energy transition aligned with Brazil's NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution), reconciling responsible oil and gas production with increasing investments in low-carbon solutions, balancing energy security, economic development, social justice, technological innovation, and climate responsibility. Regarding the socio-environmental sensitivity of the region, its concern for its preservation was highlighted, manifested by the existence of specific programs for the protection of marine and terrestrial biota and supported by the Regional Environmental Study of the Amazon River Mouth Basin (EACR-FZA), whose broad scope encompasses hydrodynamic, meteorological, and oceanographic aspects, as well as particular aspects of the region, such as the freshwater plume of the Amazon River. It was argued that the activity would not cause direct impacts on indigenous communities and traditional peoples, only indirect and temporary impacts, but that, even so, they had been consulted adequately and in accordance with ILO Convention 169. It was emphasized that IBAMA and ANP have repeatedly affirmed the socio-environmental viability of the operation, as well as Petrobras' operational safety in conducting the exploration and responding to accidents and emergencies. Therefore, it argued for the acceptance of the preliminary objections or, alternatively, for the denial of the urgent relief and the total dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.

In parallel to the appeal discussions on the injunction, in the first instance IBAMA presented a defense alleging that the preliminary license was not issued contrary to technical guidelines; rather, some conditions were excluded due to the understanding that it was not the project proponent's responsibility to execute them. The agency argued that, even with the exclusion of some conditions, environmental and territorial governance is necessary. Regarding the accusation of a lack of climate studies, IBAMA reported that it had focused on technical analyses of topics directly related to climate issues, namely deforestation, land use change, and project adaptation to climatic situations and events. Concerning consultation with indigenous peoples, it was argued that these measures fell within the purview of FUNAI (National Foundation of Indigenous Peoples). The Indigenous Component of the Environmental Impact Studies was completed and deemed suitable for presentation to the indigenous peoples, was approved by the affected communities, and finally, FUNAI issued its approval for the preliminary license. Therefore, IBAMA argued that the preliminary license was issued regularly. The environmental agency further stated that for territorial purposes, the presumed direct impacts of highways in the Legal Amazon are those that can be felt within a radius of 40 kilometers. It also emphasized that the new General Environmental Licensing Law 15.190/2025 changed this to 15 km. Therefore, it asserted that it acted cautiously within existing regulatory parameters and requested that the initial claims be dismissed.

In its defense, DNIT alleged the plaintiff's lack of standing, arguing that environmental protection is not among its institutional objectives, and also claimed that the chosen legal avenue was inappropriate. DNIT defended the legality of the preliminary license issued by IBAMA and argued that the various lawsuits challenging the BR-319 preliminary license should be consolidated to avoid lis pendens (pending litigation). Regarding the issue of consulting indigenous peoples, it stated that FUNAI agreed to the licensing after the presentation and approval of the Indigenous Component Study by the affected communities. Concerning the climate issue, it argued that the climate impact does not directly result from the construction or the technology employed in the project, but from a potential increase in illegal deforestation associated with failures in governance and environmental oversight. In this sense, it argued that environmental licensing cannot be expected to compensate for the structural deficiencies of the agencies responsible for deforestation control policies. It further stated that the paving of BR-319 is important for mobility, access to public services, cargo transportation, and the socioeconomic development of the Amazon region. Therefore, it requested that all claims in the initial petition be dismissed.

In its defense, the Federal Union also alleged the plaintiff's lack of standing and the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue, considering that the action seeks solely to annul an administrative act. The Federal Union defended the validity of the administrative act and argued that the BR-319 highway was inaugurated in the 1970s, and therefore it is not a matter of opening a new highway, but the revitalization of an existing one. It stated that the Preliminary License (LP) was issued with the consent of all competent bodies, including FUNAI, ICMBio, INCRA, and IPHAN. It further argued that the Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) considered the environmental and climatic impacts of the project at various points, providing for conditions and mitigating measures. Thus, it requested that the lack of standing and the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue be recognized and, on the merits, that the claims be dismissed.