Case Name: Ministério Público Federal vs. União, ANP e IBAMA (Auction of the 5th Permanent Offer Cycle and blocks in Foz do Amazonas)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against the Union and the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) regarding the auction of the 5th Cycle of Permanent Concession Offer (OPC) to be held on June 17, 2025. It is argued that the auction should be suspended, particularly in relation to the sensitive areas concerning the 47 blocks located in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth. The region is home to important mangrove ecosystems, reefs, and conservation units, and is the territory of various indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples. The MPF maintains that the auction cannot take place until the following are carried out prior to the bidding and concessions: Climate Impact Study; Environmental Assessment of Sedimentary Areas (AAAS); and studies of indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples and communities. Furthermore, free, prior, and informed consultation with these peoples must be carried out during the planning phase of the projects, which, despite being required by various national and international regulations, has not yet been done. It argues that this consultation should be carried out after the aforementioned studies have been completed. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) highlights the challenges of environmental licensing in the Amazon River estuary, discussing previous experiences of licenses denied by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) for activities in the area due to persistent technical environmental problems without solutions presented by the developers. It emphasizes that the same problems will occur in new licensing requests that may arise from the new bidding cycle, which threatens Brazil's commitment to preserving Amazonian socio-biodiversity. The author highlights the increase in global temperatures and stresses that the main cause of the problem is the burning of fossil fuels. The argument is that Brazil's decision to expand oil exploration goes against global decarbonization efforts and affects the country's credibility as a relevant player in the international climate agenda, especially considering that it will host COP 30. Furthermore, the decision contradicts the emission reduction targets assumed by Brazil in its second NDC. In this context, considering the duty of environmental and climate transparency incumbent upon the Public Administration and the importance of considering scope 3 emissions in fossil fuel projects, a climate impact study is necessary for the Amazon River Mouth region; otherwise, there is a violation of Brazilian law and scientific imperatives in the face of the climate crisis. As a provisional measure, the request is for the immediate suspension of the auction or, subsidiarily, the withdrawal of the 47 blocks located in the Amazon River Mouth Sedimentary Basin until (i) a Climate Impact Study and (ii) an Environmental Assessment of Sedimentary Areas (AAAS) are carried out. (iii) studies of indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples and communities; (iv) prior, free, and informed consultation with the traditional peoples and communities of the coastal region of the Amazon River mouth after the required studies have been carried out. As final requests, confirmation of the requests made in the context of urgent relief is requested, as well as a 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 Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a request to amend the initial complaint. It requested the inclusion of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) as a defendant in the action, which was subsequently granted by the court. The MPF reported that nineteen exploration blocks in the Amazon River mouth were auctioned off and, considering the arguments already presented in the initial complaint, requests, as a provisional measure: (i) the immediate prohibition of the administrative acts of adjudication and homologation of the final result of the bidding process until the studies and consultations already requested are carried out; (ii) the prohibition of initiating any environmental licensing process for the blocks in the Amazon River mouth auctioned off until the final judgment of the case; (iii) the prohibition of including blocks located in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth in new OPC (Operating Permit for Concessions) auctions until the final judgment of the action. On the merits, it requests a declaration of nullity of the auction and the concession contracts.

A decision was issued denying the request for provisional relief. The court acknowledged the relevance of the Public Prosecutor's Office's concerns regarding environmental and climate impacts, but understood that requiring a Climate Impact Study during the bidding phase would be premature and technically unfeasible, and should only occur during environmental licensing. It was 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 the consequent obligation to hear their opinions.

In its defense, IBAMA argued preliminarily that the plaintiff lacked standing and was not a legitimate defendant, arguing that the agency did not participate in the bidding phase for the exploration blocks and only acts subsequently, in the environmental licensing process. It alleged that it is not within the agency's purview to require environmental studies or prior consultation with traditional communities before the licensing process begins. On the merits, it argued that the requests directed at IBAMA are improper and lack legal basis. Therefore, it requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice or, alternatively, the dismissal of the claims against the agency.

In its defense, the Federal Union preliminarily alleged the incompetence of the court of the Judicial Section of Pará, arguing the existence of a connection with another public civil action. It also argued the need to include the winning companies of the auction as passive co-litigants or, subsidiarily, their admission as assistants in the process. On the merits, it argued the legality of the auction of the 5th Permanent Offer of Concession and the absence of irregularities regarding the environmental studies and energy policy. It requested the acceptance of the preliminary objections or, alternatively, the total dismissal of the action.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 231 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• ILO Convention 169 (Federal Decrees 5.051/2004 and 10.088/2019)
• National Energy Policy (Federal Law 9.478/1997)
• National Policy on Climate Change Act - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009)
• Paris Agreement (Federal Decree 9.073/2017)
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCC (Federal Decree 2.652/1998)

Case timeline

Case documents