The Jair Bolsonaro (PL) government has been acting, through challenges prepared by the AGU (Advocacy-General of the Union), to guarantee mining in indigenous lands that have not yet been effectively demarcated.
The documents produced by AGU have also been used to support exploration in areas close to lands already approved, despite the impact of the activity on indigenous communities.
These opinions consider the existence of mining titles that affect indigenous lands valid, deny the omission of government agencies in the face of the 20,000 miners who illegally proceed on the Yanomami land, the largest in Brazil, and say that it is impossible to guarantee the continued security of Yanomami communities. attacked by groups of armed miners.
THE sheet analyzed a set of 26 documents prepared by the AGU from 2019 to contest actions by the MPF (Federal Public Ministry) against mining on indigenous lands in the Amazon. The actions were filed with the Federal Court in Amazonas, Pará and Roraima.
In 17 documents, there is a defense of mining activities or titles in indigenous lands, despite the lack of a law that guarantees mineral exploration in these territories.
In the lawsuits, AGU acted as the legal representative of ANM (National Mining Agency), Funai (National Indian Foundation), IBAMA (Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Conservation of Biodiversity).
Bolsonaro presented to Congress, in February 2020, a bill that allows mining in indigenous lands. The purpose is to regulate two points of the Federal Constitution, which condition the advance of mining ventures to the approval of Congress itself and to consultations with indigenous peoples.
The proposal bears the signature of the then Minister of Justice and Public Security, Sergio Moro, now a pre-candidate for the Presidency. Moro says he is now Bolsonaro’s disaffection. The Minister of Mines and Energy, Admiral Bento Albuquerque, also signs the proposal.
The project was stopped until March of this year, when the president of the Chamber, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), and the center decided to sponsor an express processing of the proposal, without listening to the indigenous people and without going through the special commissions of the Chamber.
A request for urgent voting was approved by the plenary on March 9, and a vote is scheduled for April.
Documents prepared by members of the AGU record the government’s favorable position on mining in indigenous lands and the circumvention of the absence of a law that regulates the points of the Constitution.
The MPF filed a series of public civil actions in the courts, especially in Amazonas and Pará, in which it asks for the annulment of mining requirements filed with the ANM that affect indigenous lands.
The AGU, representing the ANM, contested in at least 11 opinions the extension of the requests by the Federal Prosecutors for the sealing of garimpos to include neighboring areas and areas that extend only partially over indigenous lands.
“Only the processes that completely overlap the indigenous land should be dismissed, and not all of them with any or even insignificant interference in an area affected to indigenous interests and rights,” said the AGU.
The defense made is that the entrepreneur responsible for an application to the ANM has the right to exclude areas related to demarcated territories. And this is happening in practice. This exclusion is common, with the continuation of research authorizations in territories attached to indigenous lands.
A 2015 inter-ministerial decree, however, establishes that mining projects within a radius of ten kilometers from an indigenous land need an analysis of the impacts on traditional communities in order to obtain an environmental license.
Also according to the objections made by the AGU, territories in the identification and delimitation phase should not serve as a “legal substrate” for denials of mineral exploration.
“Before the presidential decree ratifies the demarcation procedure, it is not necessary to talk about indigenous lands that are regularly recognized and delimited for the purpose of affecting the interests of the indigenous people”, the AGU stated in the opinions.
According to Funai, there are 237 demarcation processes in the phase of studies and delimitations not yet concluded, without approval of the areas. Bolsonaro has already said that he will not demarcate an inch of indigenous land during his term.
Despite the government’s offensive, actions by the MPF have resulted in favorable decisions in the 1st instance of Justice, including confirmation by the TRF (Federal Regional Court) of the 1st Region.
On December 15, 2021, the TRF-1 confirmed the decision of the Federal Court in Pará that forced the annulment of mining requirements in indigenous lands, whether approved or not, and in neighboring areas.
In Amazonas, MPF actions identified more than a thousand mining requests that pass through indigenous lands. In Pará, there are 1,700.
Questioned by the report about the contestations prepared, the AGU stated that answers should be given by the bodies it represents.
In a statement, the ANM stated that it is the federal agency responsible for the management of mining activities in the country and that it is guided by the Constitution, federal legislation and “in compliance with the decisions handed down by the bodies of the Judiciary”.
“ANM works in partnership with PF, MPF, state MPs and other competent bodies in the fight against illicit practices, such as usurpation of public goods and environmental crimes, linked to the exploitation of mineral goods”, he said.
Representing Funai in a lawsuit filed by the MPF in Pará, the AGU reaffirmed the existence of mining titles on indigenous lands and said that the use of titles may occur when there is a law regulating the exploration of minerals in these territories.
“These titles will exist in the name of their holders, but exploration and mineral mining authorizations cannot be granted until there is regulation”, cites a 2020 opinion.
The government also expressed its lack of interest in participating in an agreement to remove miners from Yanomami land, denied any omission in the face of the worsening problem in the territory in Roraima, and said that it was impossible to guarantee an uninterrupted presence of the National Public Security Force in communities threatened by armed miners, such as support for Funai’s activities.
When contacted, Funai did not respond to questions in the report.
