DF Brasília Brazil
The Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) filed a Fundamental Rights Action (ADPF) with a request for an injunction before the Supreme Federal Court (STF). The action sought to correct alleged unconstitutional omissions and inaction by the Federal Public Power that had paralyzed the paving policy for the BR-319 highway, located in the northern region of the country, between Amazonas and Rondônia.
The PSDB defended the strategic importance of the BR-319 highway for national integration and the socioeconomic development of the Amazon, arguing that its lack of paving violates fundamental rights of the Amazonian population, such as human dignity, access to health and education, mobility, citizenship, and equality. According to the party, the highway is a viable and environmentally sound alternative to break the region's isolation, reconciling economic development with environmental sustainability.
The party argued that isolation disproportionately affects Indigenous, riverine, and traditional communities that depend on river transport, which is severely impacted during periods of drought—increasingly intense due to climate change—exposing these populations to the risk of total isolation. In this context, paving the road would guarantee the flow of essential goods and services, as well as provide a strategic route for responding to environmental or health emergencies.
The PSDB also pointed out that there are contradictory judicial decisions that hinder the execution of the project, such as Public Civil Action No. 1001856-77.2024.4.01.3200, which challenges the Prior Environmental License No. 672/2022 issued by IBAMA, under accusations of failures in environmental governance, absence of climate studies and lack of consultation with affected communities.
The party requested, as a precautionary measure, that the Supreme Federal Court (STF) guarantee the validity of said license. However, Justice Luiz Fux, the reporting judge, denied the action due to the inadequacy of the legal instrument, considering that the ADPF (Administrative Procedure for the Promotion of Football) cannot be used to analyze specific situations that must be resolved through ordinary legal channels.
The full Supreme Federal Court (STF), unanimously, rejected the appeal, upholding the decision and closing the case. The outcome was unfavorable for climate protection, since, although the lawsuit mentioned the impacts of climate change, its main objective was not climate mitigation or adaptation, but rather the resumption of the paving of the BR-319 highway.
Climate arguments in this case were used in a complementary way to support the need to pave the BR-319 highway, which connects Manaus (Amazonas) with Porto Velho (Rondônia).
The party argued that the climate crisis has exacerbated the isolation of the Amazon region and pointed out that river transport—the main means of connection—has become increasingly unreliable due to extreme and prolonged droughts attributed to global climate change. These conditions hinder access to essential goods, medical care, education, and basic public services.
In this context, the paving of the BR-319 highway was presented as a climate resilience measure, capable of guaranteeing the mobility and safety of Amazonian populations in the face of extreme weather events. The PSDB argued that the region's economic and social development can and should be carried out in an environmentally responsible manner, reconciling road infrastructure with environmental protection measures. It asserted that, after more than three decades of technical and environmental studies, the project would be environmentally safe and necessary for national integration, as well as essential for reducing the negative effects of isolation caused by climate change.
The party also invoked the need for resilient infrastructure to guarantee the continuity of transportation, food supplies, and access to emergency services during extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, and argued that the highway would allow for a more effective response to environmental, health, and humanitarian crises, strengthening national sovereignty and energy security in the Amazon region. However, in its decision, the Supreme Federal Court (STF)—through Justice Luiz Fux—did not substantively address the climate-related arguments.
The Court held that the ADPF was not the appropriate procedural avenue to address a specific factual and administrative situation, which should be handled through ordinary judicial channels. Therefore, it dismissed the action without considering the environmental or climate-related aspects. Consequently, although the claim invoked the adverse effects of climate change to justify the paving, the central objective was not aligned with climate protection, but rather with the execution of a road infrastructure project.
- Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB)
- Federal Union
The BR-319 highway traverses a vast area of the Brazilian Amazon region, connecting the states of Amazonas and Rondônia. Its route, spanning over 800 kilometers, crosses one of the most biodiverse areas on the planet, with extensive rainforests, rivers, and environmental conservation areas that include indigenous lands and extractive reserves.
The territory is inhabited by Indigenous peoples, riverine communities, and traditional communities that depend directly on natural resources for their subsistence through fishing, small-scale agriculture, and forestry. Among the most affected populations are communities living along the Madeira and Purus rivers, as well as Indigenous groups inhabiting areas near the road, some of which have territories undergoing demarcation or live in voluntary isolation.
The region's geographic isolation makes river transport the primary means of communication, a task hampered by extreme droughts and climate change that alters river levels. During dry periods, access to healthcare, education, and basic supplies becomes limited or impossible. The PSDB, which initiated the action, argued that paving the BR-319 highway would integrate these communities into the rest of the country, guaranteeing mobility, healthcare, and economic opportunities. However, environmental organizations warn that opening the road could increase deforestation and socio-environmental conflicts in the central Amazon.
National laws
- Federal Constitution of Brazil
- CONAMA Resolution 237/1997
Beginning
- Constitutional principle of human dignity
This record was created using publicly available information. If you have information about this case or would like to suggest updates or corrections, please click here .