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 the 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 Offering of Concession of oil exploration blocks. The aim is to challenge the bidding auction for oil exploration blocks held through the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offerings. 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, as they overlap with Conservation Units, buffer zones, environmental protection areas and areas where endangered species occur. It is argued that the climate crisis scenario requires an energy transition to clean energy and the reduction of 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 that authorized the offer of these blocks is also contested. The preliminary injunction is requested: (i) an order that the defendants publish the existence of the legal proceedings on the internet; (ii) the suspension of the offer for Block AM-T-82; (iii) the suspension of the Joint Statements 12/31/2018 and 08/2020 with regard to the other contested exploration blocks and the suspension of their offers in the 4th Permanent Offer Cycle until new Joint Statements are made that comply with the necessary legislation. The definitive injunction is requested: (i) the recognition of the nullity of the Joint Statements with regard to the exploration blocks; (ii) the exclusion of the offer for Block AM-T-82; (iii) the exclusion of 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 requesting that the defendants publish the existence of the lawsuit on the internet and that blocks AM-T-64, AM-T-107 and AM-T-133 partially overlap protected areas. The court argued that the publication of such environmental data is a measure imposed by Brazilian law, the Rio-92 Declaration and the Escazú Agreement. The court dismissed the case without ruling on the merits regarding the claims related to the other blocks, which were not auctioned. The court ordered the inclusion of the company Atem Participações S/A as a passive party in the lawsuit because it was the successful bidder for areas. The ANP filed an appeal against the decision (AI 1000012-89.2024.4.01.0000 - TRF1) requesting that the decision be reversed to deny the request for urgent relief, which was granted to suspend the need to publish information about the blocks on the internet. IBAMA and ANP filed objections. They stated that the alleged overlap of an exploration block with a conservation unit does not mean that it is excluded from the bidding phase, according to current regulations, but that sensitive areas were observed in the procedure. They highlighted 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 promoting bids for the granting of oil and natural gas exploration rights. They highlighted that in the International Energy Agency's NetZero 2050 scenario, the energy matrix will still rely on oil and natural gas as primary energy and that the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the projects may be assessed in the environmental licensing phase at the financial expense of the entrepreneur and, therefore, that simply holding a bid does not pose a risk to the environment. They requested the recognition of the author's lack of active legitimacy, the joining of the process to the action that is already underway in the 4th Federal Civil Court of the Judicial Section of the State of Rio Grande do Norte; the recognition of the author's lack of active legitimacy and that the requests be dismissed. In its response, the Union, in addition to addressing the licensing issues already addressed by other federal agencies, claimed that the offer of the contested blocks is technically supported by the rules issued by the competent agencies and that the Federal Court of Auditors approved the Permanent Offer of the ANP. It requested recognition of the active illegitimacy of the plaintiff, the connection with the records of the 4th Federal Civil Court of SJRN and that the requests be dismissed. Atem Participações SA filed a defense in which it alleged that during the phase of granting of areas by the ANP, 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 assessed during the environmental licensing phase. It requested that jurisdiction be transferred to the 4th Federal Civil Court of SJRN 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