The Federal Supreme Court (STF) determined this Thursday (5th) that Conama (National Council for the Environment) issue a more protective norm for the environment in terms of air quality standards. The majority of ministers voted to set a period of 24 months for this measure.
The order stems from the judgment of a lawsuit filed by the PGR (Attorney General’s Office) against a 2018 council resolution that defined the concentration indices of pollutants in the air. The ministers concluded that the rule is not unconstitutional, but that it is outdated.
In the initial request, the Public Prosecutor’s Office stated that the contested resolution does not provide, in an effective and adequate way, on air quality standards according to the values ​​recommended by the WHO (World Health Organization), providing very permissive initial levels.
The controversy is part of the so-called “green agenda”, actions related to the environment and which have received special attention from the Supreme Court in recent weeks. There are items yet to be judged.
Although edited in the administration of former president Michel Temer (MDB), the government of Jair Bolsonaro (PL) understood that the resolution did not represent an environmental setback and that it brought staggered parameters aimed at achieving the WHO reference standard.
According to the standard, an atmospheric pollutant is any matter that makes “the air unsuitable or harmful to health, inconvenient to public well-being, harmful to materials, fauna and flora or harmful to the safety, use and enjoyment of property or normal community activities.”
The questioned standard considered parameters set by the WHO in 2005. The organization updated the parameters in 2021.
The questioning of the PGR was made in 2019, during the management of Raquel Dodge. Her successor, Augusto Aras revised this position at the trial. For him, there is no unconstitutionality in the norm, and the text contemplates a progressive environmental protection policy and was preceded by a wide debate.
Rapporteur of the matter, Minister Cármen Lúcia considered that the resolution is not in line with the constitutional precept of protection of the right to an ecologically balanced environment.
“This protection [da resolução] does not comply with the constitutional duty of efficient protection of the right to an ecologically balanced environment”, he said.
She pointed out that the WHO itself updated these values ​​and that the norm does not have strict deadlines for the Federation units to comply with the rules contained therein. Nor does it provide for punishment for those who do not qualify, which “shows the government’s disregard for atmospheric pollution”.
Recognizing, however, that the resolution brought advances, Carmen voted for the unconstitutionality of the rule, but without pronouncing its nullity. In other words, the rule should remain in force. She then defended that a 12-month deadline be set for Conama to edit a new rule.
