Case Name: 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)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Climate Observatory Laboratory, 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), against IBAMA, Petrobras and the Federal Government. The objective is to suspend and subsequently annul Operating License (LO) 1,684/2025 for the Offshore Oil Well 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 IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) 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 undertaking. It is 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. It is argued that IBAMA's stance in authorizing the operating license is contrary to socio-environmental interests and the opinions of its own employees and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, which have repeatedly recommended its rejection. It is alleged that this stance is based on intense and incessant political influences. Furthermore, it highlights Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (PC-32/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and the 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate, regarding the duties of States in the context of climate change. In the context of preliminary injunction, the suspension of the effects of Operating License 1,684/2025 is requested to prevent and/or halt any and all drilling activity in Block FZA-M-59. On the merits, it is requested: (i) the annulment of the Operating License due to the flaws and technical deficiencies of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Impact Report (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 project's relationship with Brazilian climate goals) and without having conducted 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 its defense, the Union argued for the legality and regularity of the environmental licensing process and Operating License 1,684/2025, maintaining that the project complied with applicable regulatory requirements. It argued that there is no legal obligation to prepare a specific climate impact study or to conduct an Environmental Assessment of Sedimentary Areas (AAAS) as a requirement for licensing. It also contested the arguments related to the energy transition, stating that global demand for fossil fuels will remain relevant in the coming decades, even in scenarios of emission reduction, and that oil exploration is not incompatible with the context of energy transition. It requested that the claims be dismissed.

In its defense, IBAMA argued that the actions taken in the environmental licensing process were legal, maintaining that Operating License 1,684/2025 was granted based on technical assessments, environmental studies, and prevention and mitigation measures deemed adequate by the licensing body. It argued that the demands made by the plaintiffs are not supported by the regulatory framework applicable to the project and requested that the claims be dismissed, as well as the production of all evidence admissible under law.

In a decision regarding the request for urgent relief, the Court denied the suspension of Operating License 1,684/2025 and drilling activities in Block FZA-M-59. The decision acknowledged that the plaintiffs raised controversies related to the project's climate impacts, the sufficiency of environmental studies, and the need for prior consultation with traditional peoples and communities, but understood that such issues require in-depth analysis of the merits. The magistrate highlighted that the licensing was preceded by extensive technical evaluation by IBAMA, including the approval of the Pre-Operational Assessment (APO) and the Individual Emergency Plan (PEI), applying the principle of deference to the institutional capacities of specialized environmental agencies. Given the absence of manifest illegality and the requirements for granting the measure, the request for urgent relief was denied.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 170 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 231 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 5th of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• CONAMA Resolution 1/1986
• CONAMA Resolution 237/1997
• Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• IBAMA's Normative Instruction 12/2010
• ILO Convention 169 (Federal Decrees 5.051/2004 and 10.088/2019)
• National Energy Policy (Federal Law 9.478/1997)
• National Environment Policy Act - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981)
• National Policy for Environmental and Territorial Management of Indigenous Lands - PNGATI (Federal Decree 7.747/2012)
• National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Traditional Peoples and Communities (Federal Decree 6.040/2007)
• National Policy on Climate Change Act - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009)
• Paris Agreement (Federal Decree 9.073/2017)
• State Policy on Climate Change - PEMC
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCC (Federal Decree 2.652/1998)

Case timeline

Case documents