CNMP Suspends MPF Recommendations and Reinforces CPLI Limits on Environmental Licensing

Recently, the National Council of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (CNMP) granted a Preliminary Injunction to suspend the effects of four Recommendations issued by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF), through the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in Rio Grande do Sul, regarding the environmental licensing of the so-called “Nature Project,” a large-scale development planned for the state of Rio Grande do Sul. The controversy involves, among other issues, the conduct of Free, Prior, and Informed Consultation (FPIC), as provided for in ILO Convention No. 169, with indigenous communities potentially affected by the project, rejecting interpretations that attribute binding effect or veto power to it.

Key points of the CNMP’s decision

In a preliminary analysis, the CNMP identified indications that the limits of the advisory instrument had been exceeded, particularly due to provisions that:

➜ attributed a binding nature to prior consultation;
➜ imposed obligations without clear legal basis; and
➜ directly interfered with the conduct of the environmental licensing process and with powers typically held by the Public Administration.

In this context, the decision also stated that CPLI, under the terms of ILO Convention No. 169, constitutes a procedural duty of dialogue and participation, aimed at “seeking consensus,” and should not be confused with an automatic veto mechanism on the part of the consulted communities.

Limits on the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s Actions

The CNMP also pointed out possible inconsistencies related to the disregard of the presumption of constitutionality of legal norms and the overstepping of the constitutional and legal limits of the advisory instrument. On this point, it referred to its own precedent to the effect that the autonomy or
functional independence of the Public Prosecutor’s Office is not absolute and cannot exceed legal limits, under penalty of constituting an abuse of power.

Relationship with the General Environmental Licensing Law

The decision gains relevance in the context of Law No. 15,190/2025 (General Environmental Licensing Law), whose constitutionality is still under debate, insofar as any recommendations by the Public Prosecutor’s Office that, in practice, preclude the application of current law—without prior judicial ruling—may, in theory, violate fundamental principles such as legality, the separation of powers, and legal certainty.

Effects of the decision and significance of the precedent

In recognizing the presence of the requirements for granting emergency relief, the Council also considered the risk of significant impacts on the project’s viability, highlighting its potential to generate investment and jobs. Although it is a Preliminary Injunction, the decision signals:

➜ an important benchmark regarding the limits of the CPLI and the use of extrajudicial instruments by the Public Prosecutor’s Office:
➜ the reaffirmation of prior consultation as an essential step in the process:
➜ the rejection, at this time, of interpretations that attribute binding effect or veto power to it:
➜ the establishment of a relevant precedent in a context of high judicialization:
➜ the potential to provide greater predictability and legal certainty in the conduct of projects subject to the CPLI, especially in a scenario where the issue has, not infrequently, been used as a “silver bullet” to paralyze projects.

Conclusion

Without undermining the constitutionality of the protection of indigenous peoples and the environment, this ruling contributes to greater predictability and legal certainty in environmental licensing, reinforcing that the CPLI should operate as a qualified mechanism for participation and the development of solutions, and not as an automatic factor for rendering projects unfeasible. It is, therefore, a precedent with the potential to encourage more balanced and institutionally stable approaches in the conduct of large-scale projects.