IBAMA (Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) refused three times, in a period of four months, to conduct the licensing process for the exploration of potash in the Amazon, an undertaking in charge of the company Potássio do Brasil.
The agency exempted itself from responsibility twice in December 2021 and a third time in April 2022, despite the impacts of the project on indigenous lands in the Autazes (AM) region, between the Madeira and Amazon rivers.
The MPF (Federal Public Ministry) in Amazonas accuses Potássio do Brasil of co-opting indigenous people in an attempt to guarantee the potash business in the region. As a result of this co-option, the Federal Court has already determined that the company return a piece of land purchased from an indigenous person within a traditional territory.
Potássio do Brasil is a venture of the Canadian bank Forbes & Manhattan. To try to guarantee mineral exploration in the Amazon, the company sought licensing from Ipaam (Amazonas Environmental Protection Institute), the local environmental agency.
For the MPF, the prior license issued in 2015 is illegal and all licensing must be done by Ibama.
The Mura people, directly impacted by the business, have the same understanding, according to documents of the lawsuit in progress in the Federal Court.
Federal judge Jaiza Maria Fraxe, responsible for the public civil action, expressed in an order, in November, a position that goes in the same direction. She ordered a summons to IBAMA for participation in the process, due to the MPF’s request for the agency to take care of the licensing of the enterprise.
In a note to Sheet, the agency stated that a supplementary law from 2011 establishes that licensing is not within its competence when the enterprise is outside indigenous lands. IBAMA also highlights a 2015 inter-ministerial decree on the performance of government agencies when there are impacts of large works on indigenous lands, which, in its view, does not give it the authority to license.
Potássio do Brasil said, in a note, that it respects the “territory of activity” of Brazilian institutions and that Ipaam is the competent body for licensing. The project is awaiting the installation license and is not on indigenous land, according to the company. Consultations with indigenous people are ongoing, according to the note.
“Potassio do Brasil acquired the goods in the Autazes region in a licit and legitimate manner, without any deceit or coercion, through a negotiation process involving the interested parties,” he said.
Potash exploration in the Amazon has broad support in the Jair Bolsonaro (PL) government. A strong lobby was made by representatives of Potássio do Brasil, especially inside the Palácio do Planalto.
The president defends mining on indigenous lands by companies such as Potássio do Brasil. Bolsonaro used the Russian invasion of Ukraine to try to advance the bill presented to Congress. The pretext was to reduce dependence on fertilizer imports —potassium is the basis for fertilizers used in large-scale agriculture.
Under Bolsonaro, Ibama made environmental inspection more flexible, established conditions for amnesting fines and tried to evade licensing processes, as is the case with the exploration of potash in the Amazon.
Potássio do Brasil wants to explore potential mines of potash salts less than three kilometers from an indigenous land and has even operated within the territory, according to the MPF. The Jauary land, in the delimitation and approval phase, is one of the affected areas.
The enterprise cannot prosper while there is no formal consultation with the indigenous people of the region, within what the ILO (International Labor Organization) establishes, according to an agreement made in the Court.
A 2021 normative instruction provides that IBAMA must take care of environmental licensing when the entrepreneurs are indigenous people. “All the more reason there should be licensing when the entrepreneur is a stranger to the culture, territory, ethos, organization and tradition of the people”, said Judge Fraxe in the decision that determined the inclusion of IBAMA in the case.
On December 8, however, Régis Fontana Pinto, the general coordinator of environmental licensing for river and land-based projects, stated that Ibama’s competence only exists for projects developed within indigenous lands.
“Only the environmental impacts of the mining project would affect indigenous lands, which, by itself, would not attract federal competence for the environmental licensing of the project”, he said. The coordinator said that there would not even be any interest in participating in the judicial inspection scheduled for that month.
Two days later, Ibama, represented by members of the AGU (Advocacy-General of the Union), contested the decision for inclusion in the ongoing process in the Federal Court.
The allegation was of the existence of “decentralization of environmental licensing”, in which “one entity cannot interfere in the competence of another, under penalty of offending the federative pact”. Another argument used was that the exploitation of potash would not take place within indigenous land, but in the immediate vicinity.
