Case Name: Ministério Público Federal vs. União Federal (Sugarcane Zoning)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), requesting urgent relief, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) to hold the Federal Government objectively liable for the issuance of Presidential Decree 10.084/2019, which revoked Federal Decree 6.961/2009, which approved the agroecological zoning of sugarcane and instructed the National Monetary Council to establish standards for financing operations in the sugar and ethanol sector, under the terms of the zoning. It is alleged that when issuing the new Decree, the Federal Government failed to provide technical or political justification for revoking the previous rule. It is alleged that, due to the lack of justification, the new Decree has the potential to cause irreversible environmental damage to the Amazon biome and the ecosystem services produced by the forest, which implies potential national and global impacts, especially regarding climate regulation and rainfall distribution. The court argues that the Decree has the potential to hinder the demonstration of compliance with the goals of the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Decree 9.073/2017). The investigations that led to the action were conducted through a Civil Inquiry aimed at determining the legality of authorizing sugarcane cultivation in the Amazon, given the potential environmental damage resulting from the activity and the failure to adopt mitigation measures. The investigation was initiated through a researcher's representation, based on scientific studies published in the journal Science, which demonstrated, among other factors, the economic and environmental unfeasibility of authorizing sugarcane cultivation in the Amazon and Pantanal biomes. The lawsuit files a preliminary request for (i) the court to suspend the effects of Federal Decree 10.084/2019, reinstating the previous decree regarding the agroecological zoning of sugarcane, including notifying the licensing environmental agencies that sugarcane planting activities should not be licensed in the region, and (ii) that the Federal Government refrain from issuing a new decree on this subject until it demonstrates, through technical and scientific studies, the plausibility of the measure in light of the duty to protect the environment. One of the arguments presented by the plaintiff to justify the preliminary request was the possibility of irreparable or difficult-to-repair damage resulting from the environmental licensing of sugarcane plantations in the Amazon biome and other fragile ecosystems. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office also requests, in a final request, that the Federal Government be ordered to pay collective material and moral damages.

In its response, the Union (i) defends the legality and constitutionality of Federal Decree 10.084/2019, alleging that the new decree is in accordance with the provisions of the RenovaBio program and with new production techniques, and that Brazil must double the production and use of ethanol as an automotive fuel to meet its Paris Agreement goals, (ii) that the practice regulated by the new decree must observe the environmental legal framework, especially environmental licensing and (iii) the absence of objective liability of the State due to the failure to prove damage.

A preliminary injunction was issued in which the court ordered the immediate suspension of the effects of Federal Decree 10.084/2019 until the Federal Government demonstrates, within 180 days, the technical studies and scientific feasibility of non-impactfulness that supported the new legislation and the repeal of the previous one in the biomes involved. Furthermore, the court ordered the Federal Government to take all necessary steps to reinstate the effects of Federal Decree 6.961/2009 until the submission of the documents or the expiration of the deadline.

The preliminary injunction was subsequently suspended in part by a decision handed down in Instrumental Appeal 1012253-37.2020.4.01.0000. The suspended portion of the appealed decision refers to the order to notify the federal, state, and municipal environmental licensing agencies in the Legal Amazon, prohibiting the authorization/licensing of sugarcane planting activities in the region. After the Federal Union filed an Internal Appeal, the 6th Panel of the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF-1) upheld the single judge decision, denying the appeal.

Delivered in April 2025, the final ruling dismissed the request to suspend Federal Decree 10.084/2019 without resolving its merits due to the inadequacy of the type of action proposed. The ruling argued that this request should be pursued through a concentrated constitutional review action. It also dismissed the claims for moral and material damages, understanding that the revocation of the zoning did not cause concrete and determined environmental damages that had been demonstrated throughout the case by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. It emphasized that, since there is no proven environmental damage and there are no specific recipients or direct and immediate impact on the community, compensation for collective moral damages is not applicable. The judgment became final, with the case being definitively closed and archived.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 170 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 5th of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• CONAMA Resolution 1/1986
• Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Forest Code (Federal Law 12.651/2012)
• National Biofuels Policy Act - RenovaBio (Federal Law 13.576/2017)
• National Environment Policy Act - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981)
• National System of Conservation Units Law - SNUC (Federal Law 9.985/2000)
• Paris Agreement (Federal Decree 9.073/2017)

Case timeline

Case documents