Indigenous and environmental organizations vs. the Brazilian State, to prevent the bidding of oil blocks in indigenous territories

The Brazilian organizations Arayara, the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), and the Rio dos Pardos Indigenous Territory – Kupli Village filed a public civil action (ACP) against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP), the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), and the Federal Union. This lawsuit is part of a set of six ACPs challenging the 4th Cycle of the Permanent Concession Offer for oil exploration blocks, specifically the inclusion of fourteen blocks located in the Amazon and Paraná basins.

According to the plaintiffs, blocks AM-T-38, AM-T-83, AM-T-107, AM-T-113, AM-T-114, AM-T-131, AM-T-132, AM-T-133, AM-T-148, AM-T-149, AM-T-150, AM-T-152, as well as PAR-T-335 and PAR-T-344, overlap with areas of influence or restrictions of 23 Indigenous territories, including areas inhabited by isolated Indigenous peoples. They allege a violation of the right to prior, free, and informed consultation (ILO Convention 169), the establishment of environmental racism, and the incompatibility of oil expansion with the need for an energy transition in the face of the climate crisis. They also question the validity of the environmental impact studies conducted by the Ministries of Mines and Energy and of the Environment, which authorized the bidding for these blocks.

In the preliminary ruling, the judge rejected the emergency injunction. He held that, based on a preliminary analysis, the alleged overlap with indigenous lands, as defined in Article 4 of Interministerial Ordinance 1/2022, was not verified. Blocks AM-T-107 and AM-T-133—the only ones actually awarded in the auction—are located partially within “restricted” areas surrounding indigenous lands, and not within their boundaries. He also held that the bidding stage was not the appropriate procedural moment to require prior consultation, which must be assessed during the environmental licensing process. He declared the partial loss of the subject matter with respect to the other unawarded blocks and the lack of territorial jurisdiction over the blocks in the Paraná Basin. Furthermore, he determined the inclusion of the company Atem Participações SA as a necessary passive co-litigant.

In their responses, ANP, IBAMA, and the Union maintain that there is no overlap with indigenous lands and that the bidding phase does not generate environmental risk; the impacts will be analyzed during the licensing process. They emphasize the legality of the Permanent Offer, the economic importance of the oil sector, and the support of the Federal Court of Accounts and precedents set by the Supreme Federal Court (ADPF 825 and 887). They request that the action be dismissed entirely.

In their public civil action, the plaintiff organizations explicitly incorporated the context of the global climate crisis as a central argument in challenging the legality and legitimacy of including the exploration blocks in the 4th Permanent Offer Cycle. They argued that expanding the oil frontier in the Amazon and Paraná Basins is incompatible with Brazil's climate commitments and with the widely recognized scientific need to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The authors argued that, in a climate emergency, public policies must be geared towards a just energy transition, prioritizing clean energy sources and moving away from fossil fuels. They asserted that state promotion of new oil exploration areas contravenes the goals of the Paris Agreement and intensifies climate risks that already disproportionately affect Indigenous peoples, who are particularly vulnerable to climate change and play a vital role in protecting forests that act as carbon sinks.

They also pointed out that opening new mining areas in ecologically sensitive regions increases deforestation, environmental degradation, and pressure on critical Amazonian ecosystems, exacerbating biodiversity loss and contributing to dangerous climate feedback loops. This argument connects to the notion of “environmental racism,” alleging that government decisions that worsen the climate crisis disproportionately affect Indigenous and traditional communities.

Regarding the court's decision, although the judge acknowledged the general relevance of the environmental and indigenous debate, he did not thoroughly examine the climate-related arguments at the preliminary stage. He considered the main issue at that time to be verifying whether there was a direct overlap with indigenous lands that would justify the immediate suspension of the proceedings, and concluded that—in a preliminary analysis—the alleged environmental and climate impacts should be evaluated later, during the environmental licensing stage, when specific studies will be conducted. Thus, the Court did not dismiss the relevance of the climate-related arguments, but determined that they did not constitute sufficient grounds for an urgent measure at the initial stage of the bidding process.

• Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture
• Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB)
• Rio Dos Pardos Indigenous Land Kupli Village

• National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels – ANP
• Brazilian Institute of Environment and Natural Resources - IBAMA
• Federal Union
• Atem Participacoes SA

The legal action primarily seeks to protect the Rio dos Pardos – Aldea Kupli Indigenous Territory, which is at the heart of the legal process and represents an Indigenous community directly affected by the opening of new oil blocks in the Amazon Basin. Furthermore, according to the court ruling, five other Indigenous territories located within a 10-km buffer zone around the auctioned blocks are also potentially impacted: Coatá-Laranjal Indigenous Territory, Gavião Indigenous Territory, Lago do Marinheiro Indigenous Territory, Sissaíma Indigenous Territory, and Ponciano Indigenous Territory.

The documents in the proceedings acknowledge that these lands are located in areas of high socio-environmental sensitivity, inhabited by Indigenous communities that depend deeply on the territory for their physical, cultural, and spiritual subsistence. Although the judge observes that there is no direct physical overlap between blocks AM-T-107 and AM-T-133 and the formal boundaries of these lands, he recognizes that direct impacts from oil activities may occur, which are relevant to triggering the obligation of prior consultation under ILO Convention 169.

The communities mentioned are characterized by their strong connection to the environment and by playing an essential role in protecting the Amazon rainforest. The process itself highlights that some nearby areas are home to isolated Indigenous peoples, which increases the need for protection and strict application of the precautionary principle.

In summary, the territory in question comprises a mosaic of indigenous lands adjacent to or near the blocks offered, whose communities —including the Rio dos Pardos Aldea Kupli Indigenous Territory— maintain ways of life closely linked to the ecological integrity of the Amazon region.

International agreements/treaties

• ILO Convention 169

National laws

• Federal Constitution of Brazil
• Law 7.347/1985 (Public Civil Action Law)
• Decree 1.775/1996
• Interministerial Portal 1/2022 (MME/MMA)
• Interministerial Portal 60/2015
• CNPE Resolution No. 17/2017

Beginning

• Principle of prevention

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 .