Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office vs. Federal Government, ANP, and IBAMA (Auction of the 5th Cycle of Permanent Offering and blocks in the Amazon River mouth) - Other

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

petition

Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office vs. Federal Government, ANP, and IBAMA (Auction of the 5th Cycle of Permanent Offering and blocks in the Amazon River mouth) - petition

decision

Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office vs. Federal Government, ANP, and IBAMA (Auction of the 5th Cycle of Permanent Offering and blocks in the Amazon River mouth) - decision

Filing Year For Action

In June 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief against the Union and the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) due to the auction of the 5th Permanent Concession Offer Cycle (OPC) to be held on June 17, 2025. It is argued that the auction should be suspended, particularly in sensitive areas related to the 47 blocks located in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth. The region is home to important ecosystems, including mangroves, reefs, and conservation units, and is the territory of several Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples. The MPF maintains that the auction cannot take place until the following have been carried out before the bidding and concessions: climate impact study; environmental assessment of sedimentary area (AAAS); studies of Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples and communities. Furthermore, free, prior, and informed consent from these individuals must be obtained during the planning phase of the projects, which, despite being required by several national and international regulations, has not yet been implemented. The MPF highlights the challenges of environmental licensing in the Amazon River mouth, discussing previous experiences of licenses being denied by IBAMA for carrying out the activity in the area due to the persistence of technical environmental problems without solutions being presented by the developers. It emphasizes that the same problems will occur in new licensing requests that may arise from the implementation of the new supply cycle, which threatens Brazil's commitment to preserving Amazonian sociobiodiversity. The plaintiff highlights the increase in global temperatures and stresses that the main cause of the problem is the burning of fossil fuels. The claim is that Brazil’s decision to expand oil exploration runs counter to global decarbonization efforts and undermines the country’s credibility as a relevant player in the international climate agenda, especially considering that it is the host of COP 30. Furthermore, the decision contradicts the emissions reduction targets that Brazil has assumed in its second NDC. In this context, considering the duty of environmental and climate transparency that falls on the public administration and the importance of considering scope 3 emissions in fossil fuel projects, it is necessary to carry out a climate impact study for the Amazonas River mouth region; otherwise, there will be a violation of the Brazilian legal system and scientific imperatives, given the climate crisis. As an injunction, the MPF requests that the auction be immediately suspended or, as a subsidiary measure, the withdrawal of the 47 blocks located in the Amazon River mouth Sedimentary Basin until the following are carried out: (i) a climate impact study; (ii) an environmental assessment of the sedimentary area (AAAS); (iii) studies of Indigenous, quilombola and traditional peoples and communities; (iv) prior, free and informed consent of the traditional peoples and communities of the coastal region of the mouth of the Amazon after the required studies have been carried out. As final remedies, the MPF requests confirmation of the injunction and the declaration of nullity of the auction and concession contracts, if they are formalized without the studies and consultations required in the action. Due to the auction, the MPF filed a request for an amendment to the initial claim. It requested that IBAMA be included as a defendant, which was subsequently granted by the court. The MPF reported that nineteen exploration blocks in the Amazonas River mouth were auctioned and, given the arguments already presented in the initial claim, it requests, as a provisional relief, (i) an immediate prohibition on the performance of the administrative acts of awarding and approval of the final result of the bidding process until the studies and consultations already requested are carried out; (ii) a prohibition on the initiation of any environmental licensing process for the blocks in the Amazon River mouth that were auctioned until the final judgment of the lawsuit; (iii) a prohibition on the inclusion of blocks located in the Amazon River mouth sedimentary basin in new OPC auctions until the final judgment of the lawsuit. On the merits, it requests the declaration of nullity of the auction and the concession contracts.

On September 1rst 2025 a decision was issued denying the request for provisional relief. The court acknowledges the relevance of the Public Prosecutor's Office's concerns regarding environmental and climate impacts, but understands that requiring a Climate Impact Study during the bidding phase would be premature and technically unfeasible, and should only occur during environmental licensing. It is highlighted that the bidding document for the 5th Permanent Concession Offer already includes clauses for emission mitigation and carbon reduction, and that the Environmental Assessment of Sedimentary Areas (AAAS), while desirable, is not mandatory before the auction, with a joint statement from the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) and the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) being sufficient, as validated by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in ADPFs 825 and 887. Regarding the prior consultation foreseen in ILO Convention 169, the Court noted that it did not perceive the presence of indigenous populations and traditional communities in the offered areas, and therefore there is no obligation to consult them.

Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office vs. Federal Government, ANP, and IBAMA (Auction of the 5th Cycle of Permanent Offering and blocks in the Amazon River mouth)