AM Brazil
The Climate Observatory filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against IBAMA and DNIT, requesting the annulment of Prior License (LP) No. 672/2022, issued for the reconstruction and paving of the “central section” of the BR-319 highway (km 250.7 to km 656.4), in the heart of the Amazon. The organization argues that the paving would reactivate historical dynamics of deforestation, land grabbing (grilagem), agricultural expansion, and pressure on public lands, as occurred in the 1970s and 1980s with the BR-163 and BR-230 highways.
According to the lawsuit, the licensing process initiated in 2005 revealed repeated technical warnings from IBAMA itself regarding the project's environmental unfeasibility due to the evident lack of environmental governance in the region. Nevertheless, in 2022, the agency issued the permit, ignoring internal recommendations, the conclusions of inter-institutional working groups, and the need to first implement territorial control, oversight, and land-use planning measures.
The Climate Observatory alleged four main irregularities: (i) absence of a specific climate impact study, despite the relevance of the Amazon as a carbon sink and water regulator; (ii) lack of Prior, Free and Informed Consultation with indigenous peoples and traditional communities potentially affected; (iii) structural and operational insufficiency of the State to prevent the advance of deforestation induced by the work; and (iv) contradiction of IBAMA in the face of 15 years of technical conclusions that pointed to the environmental unfeasibility of the paving without prior governance measures.
The ACP also argued that the non-consideration of the climate component violated the Constitution (arts. 225 and 170), the National Environmental Policy, the National Climate Change Policy, the Paris Agreement (with supralegal status) and the regulations of IBAMA itself, and therefore requested the immediate suspension of the LP, the reversal of the burden of proof and, in the end, its annulment.
In July 2024, the 7th Federal Court recognized the inadequacy of state policies and structures to prevent irreversible damage and granted advance protection by suspending the LP.
Subsequently, the Union, the DNIT, and IBAMA filed appeals. Although a rapporteur of the TRF-1 granted a stay of execution to reinstate the LP, the 6th Chamber, by dissenting vote, reinstated the first-instance decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence of adequate prior consultation and that the continuation of the licensing process could cause environmental and social damage that would be difficult to repair. Thus, the suspension of the LP was reinstated, and the STA became moot.
The climate arguments presented in the action maintain that the reconstruction and paving of the “middle section” of the BR-319 would generate significant and potentially irreversible impacts on the climate system, derived mainly from the increase in deforestation in the Amazon, one of the main climate regulators of the planet.
The Climate Observatory argued that paving acts as a strong vector of territorial expansion, opening new opportunities for land grabbing, land speculation and agricultural activities, which intensifies the loss of forest cover and, therefore, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The lawsuit highlighted that approximately half of Brazil's greenhouse gas emissions are related to land-use change, especially deforestation. In this context, the BR-319 highway would cut through a highly conserved rainforest corridor, meaning that the resulting deforestation would have disproportionate climate repercussions, reducing the biome's capacity to function as a carbon sink and altering moisture distribution in South America, which could exacerbate extreme weather events and compromise the "flying rivers" phenomenon. The absence of a Climate Impact Assessment (CIA) was presented as a direct violation of the Constitution (Article 225), the National Climate Change Policy, the National Environmental Policy, the Paris Agreement, and IBAMA's own regulations (IN 12/2010).
The lower court accepted these arguments, stating that environmental permitting must include a climate assessment capable of identifying, quantifying, and mitigating direct and indirect impacts. It emphasized that climate degradation cannot be separated from deforestation and that the mere prospect of paving already increased the risk of additional emissions, forest fragmentation, and loss of essential ecosystem services. The ruling highlighted that the lack of adequate state structures to control deforestation created a scenario of environmental and climate unfeasibility for the project.
The court also emphasized that protecting the Amazon is a constitutional duty of all three levels of government, and that allowing a project with high emissions potential to proceed without adequate mitigation mechanisms would constitute a climate setback and a threat to the human right to a healthy environment. Consequently, the suspension of the Preliminary License was understood as a necessary measure to prevent serious and irreversible climate damage.
- Climate Observatory Laboratory
- Federal Public Prosecutor's Office
- Brazilian Institute of Environment and Natural Resources (IBAMA)
- National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT)
- Federal Union
The middle section of the BR-319 highway is located in one of the most pristine areas of the Amazon, between the states of Amazonas and Rondônia, traversing extensive blocks of dense, continuous rainforest. It is an ecological corridor of immense environmental value, characterized by rainforests, a great diversity of endemic flora and fauna, and essential climatic functions, such as regional water regulation and the production of moisture that feeds the so-called "flying rivers."
The area also encompasses territories traditionally occupied by Indigenous peoples and traditional communities. Among the groups potentially affected are riverine communities and various Indigenous peoples whose lands, villages, traditional routes, and hunting and fishing grounds are located in the vicinity of the proposed road. The region includes Indigenous Lands that are either officially recognized, in the process of being demarcated, or with territorial claims that are still pending administrative action by the State.
These communities maintain ways of life strongly linked to the forest, with economies based on fishing, small-scale agriculture, artisanal forest management, and gathering. The road's expansion could intensify pressure from irregular settlements, land disputes, river pollution, biodiversity loss, and a reduction in areas of traditional use.
The ACP emphasizes that the absence of Prior, Free and Informed Consultation violated rights guaranteed by the Constitution and by ILO Convention 169, in addition to putting at risk the physical, cultural and territorial integrity of these peoples and communities that depend directly on the conservation of the territory that the action seeks to protect.
International agreements/treaties
- Paris Agreement
- ILO Convention 169
National laws
- Federal Constitution
- Law 6.938/1981 (National Environmental Policy – PNMA)
- Environmental Crimes Act (Law 9.605/1998)
- National Climate Change Policy – PNMC (Law 12.187/2009)
- Forestry Code (Law 12.651/2012)
Beginning
- Principle of prevention
- Principle of non-regression in the environment
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 .