Case Name: Instituto Arayara vs. ANP, União Federal e 3R RNCE S.A. (4th cycle of permanent oil concession offering in the Sergipe-Alagoas and Potiguar Basins)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent protection proposed by the Arayara Institute of Education and Culture for Sustainability against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) and the Federal Union. This action is part of a set of 6 ACPs proposed against the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offer of Concession of oil exploration blocks. It is argued that the inclusion of oil exploration blocks in the Sergipe-Alagoas Basin and the Potiguar Basin is illegal, as it overlaps Conservation Units and buffer zones and extractive reserves. The administrative act is claimed to be null and void due to the failure to carry out socio-environmental impact studies; the failure of the Joint Manifestation to comply with the provisions of the Interministerial Ordinance of the MME/MMA that regulates the issuing of joint MME/MMA manifestations for the purpose of offering oil and gas exploration blocks and the expansion of oil and gas exploration over environmentally protected regions in the context of the climate crisis. In preliminary proceedings, it is requested that the defendant publish on its website and inform the qualified companies of the existence of the legal action, the suspension of the Joint Manifestation that deals with the aforementioned blocks of the Sergipe-Alagoas Basin and the Potiguar Basin and consequent suspension of its offer in the 4th Permanent Offer Cycle until a Joint Manifestation is carried out that adequately observes the provisions of art. 4th of Interministerial Ordinance No. 01/22M/MMA. In a definitive manner, it is requested: recognition of the illegality of the offer and exclusion of the blocks located in the Sergipe-Alagoas and Potiguar Basins in the 4th Permanent Offer Cycle until a technical analysis is carried out that demonstrates its viability and, subsequently, the respective Joint Manifestation is rectified. The action was filed in the 4th Federal Court of Alagoas, with that Court declining jurisdiction to the Judicial Section of Rio Grande do Norte (JFRN). The process was redistributed to JFRN under number 0812936-62.2023.4.05.840. Following a request from the plaintiff, the inclusion of the company 3R RNCE SA as a passive party in the dispute was determined. In response, the ANP alleged that the plaintiff lacked active standing, as it had not specifically demonstrated the thematic relevance between its statutory function and the subject matter of the action. On the merits, he argued for the dismissal of the claims. According to the Agency, the bidding procedure was carried out regularly and the judicial discussion of the issue violates the principle of separation of powers and falls within the discretionary judgment of the Executive branch. Regarding climate protection, he reported that in the NetZero 2050 scenario, oil and gas are still expected to be primary energy sources, used with mitigated or neutralized emissions. The Union filed a defense and argued, in preliminary matters, that the plaintiff association does not have active legitimacy to file the action and that there is no interest in taking action, since the matter had already been decided by the STF in ADPFs 825 and 887. On the merits, it argued that the procedure was regularly structured, there is no overlap with buffer zones, the discretion of the Executive branch cannot be subject to judicial control and that there are no environmental obstacles, highlighting that the environmental licensing procedure is what will define in depth any impacts. He requested that the proceedings be terminated without resolving the merits due to lack of procedural interest or lack of standing to sue and, subsidiarily, that the claims be recognized as unfounded. The company 3R RNCE SA also filed a response requesting that the action be dismissed. According to her, the supply cycle is regular and assessments of environmental impacts at the current time are premature and that any impacts will be assessed in the environmental licensing required for any oil exploration and production activity. Furthermore, he argued that there was no impediment to the development of economic activities in buffer zones. Regarding climate, the defendant company argues that the oil and natural gas sector is crucial to Brazil's energy matrix and economy, and plays a central role in the transition to a low-carbon economy. It states that this is a fundamental industry for facing global climate challenges, including achieving the commitments of the Paris Agreement. It highlights that the energy transition must be fair, gradual and synchronized with the development of alternative sources, highlighting the continued importance of fossil fuels until 2050. The company states that, contrary to what the plaintiff claims, the offer of oil and gas exploration blocks is aligned with the country's energy security needs and climate goals, following the Federal Government's plans and its energy policy. Therefore, it considers that the action aims to implement public climate policies through the courts, which would be inappropriate and harmful to sovereignty and national development. He requested, as a preliminary matter, the dismissal of the case without resolution of merit, considering the lack of procedural interest, the regularity of the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offer of Concessions, the inadequacy of the chosen channel for discussion of public policy, and the invasion of the competence of environmental agencies. Alternatively, he requested that the initial claims be dismissed as wholly unfounded.

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)
• Paris Agreement (Federal Decree 9.073/2017)

Case timeline

Case documents