Case Name: Instituto Arayara vs. ANP e outros (4th cycle of permanent offer of oil concessions and protected areas in the Amazon Basin)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP), the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), and the Federal Government. This action is part of a set of 6 ACPs filed against the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offers for oil exploration blocks. The aim is to challenge the auction of oil exploration blocks conducted through the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offers. It is argued that the inclusion of blocks AM-T-82, AM-T-64, AM-T-107, AM-T-132, AM-T-133, AM-T-146, AM-T-153, AM-T-169, AM-T-114, and AM-T-38, located in the Amazon Basin, in the auction is illegal because they overlap with Conservation Units, buffer zones, environmental protection areas, and areas where endangered species occur. It is argued that the climate crisis scenario demands an energy transition to clean energy and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, which is incompatible with the expansion of oil exploration over protected areas. The administrative act issued jointly by the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change authorizing the offering of these blocks is also challenged. In preliminary proceedings, the following is requested: (i) an order requiring the defendants to publish the existence of the judicial process online; (ii) the suspension of the offer for Block AM-T-82; (iii) the suspension of Joint Statements 31/12/2018 and 08/2020 with respect to the other contested exploration blocks and the suspension of their offers in the 4th Permanent Offer Cycle until new Joint Statements are issued that comply with the necessary legislation. In final proceedings, the following is requested: (i) recognition of the nullity of the Joint Statements with respect to the exploration blocks; (ii) exclusion of the offer for Block AM-T-82; (iii) an order to exclude the other contested blocks from the Offer Cycle until a new Joint Statement is issued that observes the protection of environmentally protected areas.

The court partially granted the preliminary injunction request, ordering the defendants to publish online the existence of the lawsuit and that blocks AM-T-64, AM-T-107, and AM-T-133 partially overlap with protected areas. It argued that the publication of such environmental data is a measure imposed by Brazilian legislation, the Rio-92 Declaration, and the Escazú Agreement. It dismissed the case without prejudice regarding the requests related to the other blocks, which were not auctioned. It ordered the inclusion of the company Atem Participações S/A as a defendant in the lawsuit, as it was the winning bidder for the areas. The ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels) filed an interlocutory appeal against the decision (AI 1000012-89.2024.4.01.0000 - TRF1), requesting the reversal of the decision to deny the request for urgent relief, which was granted to suspend the requirement to publish information about the blocks online.

IBAMA and ANP filed objections. They stated that the alleged overlap of an exploration block with a conservation unit does not imply its exclusion from the bidding phase, according to current regulations, but that sensitive areas were observed in the procedure. They emphasized the economic benefits of oil exploration for Brazilian society and that the action is based on an abusive use of the precautionary principle, since the risks of the activity will already be analyzed in the environmental licensing phase, which is not possible in a judicial process. ANP clarified that it promotes social participation before holding bidding processes for granting rights to explore oil and natural gas. They highlighted that in the NetZero 2050 scenario of the International Energy Agency, the energy matrix will still include oil and natural gas as primary energy sources and that the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the projects can be assessed in the environmental licensing phase under the financial burden of the entrepreneur and, therefore, that the mere holding of a bidding process does not pose a risk to the environment. They requested the recognition of the plaintiff's lack of standing to sue; the consolidation of the proceedings with the action already pending in the 4th Federal Civil Court of the Judicial Section of the State of Rio Grande do Norte; the recognition of the plaintiff's lack of standing to sue; and that the claims be dismissed.

In its defense, the Union, in addition to addressing the licensing issues already covered by other federal agencies, argued that the offer of the contested blocks is technically supported by the regulations issued by the competent bodies and that the Federal Court of Accounts approved the ANP's Permanent Offer. It requested recognition of the plaintiff's lack of standing, connection to the proceedings of the 4th Federal Civil Court of the SJRN, and that the claims be dismissed.

Atem Participações SA filed a counterclaim arguing that, during the area granting phase by the ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels), the alleged overlap of block AM-T-82 with a conservation unit does not imply actual or potential harm to the environment, which should be evaluated during the environmental licensing phase. It requested that jurisdiction be transferred to the 4th Federal Civil Court of the SJRN (Federal Court of Rio Grande do Norte) and that the claims be dismissed.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 170 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• National Environment Policy Act - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981)

Case timeline

Case documents