Flavio Dino maintains embargoes on rural properties in the Amazon and Pantanal

Justice Flávio Dino of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) has suspended 23 lawsuits that nullified preventive embargoes imposed by Ibama (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) in areas where fire is illegally used or linked to illegal deforestation in the Amazon and Pantanal wetlands. The decision responds to a request from the Federal Attorney General's Office, within the scope of the Fundamental Precept Non-Compliance Case (ADPF) 743.

The embargoes were imposed under Decree 12.189/2024, which authorizes the blocking of areas based on environmental violations. According to Ibama, this is a precautionary measure to ensure the effectiveness of emergency plans to combat deforestation and forest fires approved by the Court.

To date, Ibama has blocked 70 hectares, focusing on 11 critical municipalities in Pará. The National Institute for Biodiversity Research (ICMBio) has also expanded its efforts: from January to April 2025, the number of embargoes increased by 90% compared to the same period the previous year, reaching over 57 hectares. The goal for 2025 is to block 300 hectares.

The collective blocking methodology led to the granting of preliminary injunctions in several federal courts. The judges alleged a lack of adversarial proceedings and a violation of due process. Flávio Dino, however, stated that the precautionary injunction has a legal basis and is provisional in nature. He emphasized that such measures are permitted when they aim to prevent greater damages, including with deferred adversarial proceedings.

According to the rapporteur, preventive closures comply with the precautionary principle and increase the effectiveness of remote sensing monitoring. The measure also prevents the economic exploitation of degraded areas and ensures environmental integrity while the individual responsibility of violators is determined.

Dino noted that the decree establishing the preventive embargo is under review in ADPF 1228, but a decision has not been made. Meanwhile, the presumption of constitutionality of the rule applies.