IBAMA (Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) has refused three times in four months to conduct the authorization process for the exploration of potash in the Amazon, a company in charge of the company Potassio do Brasil.

The agency exonerated itself from liability twice in December 2021 and a third time in April 2022, despite the project’s impacts on indigenous lands in the Autazes (AM) region, between the Madeira and Amazon rivers.

The MPF (Federal Public Ministry) of Amazonas accuses Potássio do Brasil of co-opting natives in an attempt to secure the potash trade in the region. Following this cooptation, the Federal Court has already determined that the company must return land purchased from an Aboriginal person on a traditional territory.

Potássio do Brasil is a company of the Canadian bank Forbes & Manhattan. In an attempt to secure mining exploration in the Amazon, the company applied for a license from Ipaam (Amazonas Environmental Protection Institute), the local environmental agency.

For the MPF, the previous license issued in 2015 is illegal and all licenses must be issued by Ibama.

The Mura people, directly impacted by the case, have the same understanding, according to documents from the ongoing trial in Federal Court.

The federal judge Jaiza Maria Fraxe, in charge of the public civil action, expressed in an order, in November, a position which goes in the same direction. She ordered a summons to IBAMA to participate in the process, due to MPF’s request for the agency to handle the licensing of the company.

In a note to Sheet, the agency said a companion law from 2011 establishes that granting licenses does not fall within its jurisdiction when the company is outside indigenous lands. IBAMA also points to a 2015 inter-ministerial decree on the performance of government agencies when there are impacts of major works on indigenous lands, which it says does not give it the power to issue licenses.

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 granting licenses. The project is awaiting installation license and is not on indigenous land, according to the company. Consultations with indigenous peoples are ongoing, according to the memo.

“Potassio do Brasil acquired the properties in the Autazes region in a lawful and legitimate manner, without any deception or coercion, through a process of negotiation involving the interested parties,” he said.

Potash exploration in the Amazon enjoys broad support within the Jair Bolsonaro (PL) government. A powerful 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 imported fertilizers – potassium is the basis of fertilizers used in large-scale agriculture.

Under Bolsonaro, Ibama has eased environmental inspection, put in place conditions for amnesties on fines and tried to evade licensing processes, as is the case with potash exploration in the Amazon.

Potássio do Brasil wants to explore potential potash salt mines within three kilometers of indigenous land and has even operated in the territory, according to the MPF. The Jauary land, in the delimitation and approval phase, is one of those impacted.

The business cannot prosper until there is formal consultation with the indigenous peoples of the region, within the framework of what the ILO (International Labor Organization) establishes, according to an agreement reached before the Court.

A normative instruction of 2021 provides that IBAMA must take care of environmental licenses when contractors are indigenous. “Especially since there should be a license when the entrepreneur is foreign to the culture, territory, ethos, organization and tradition of the people,” Judge Fraxe said in the decision that determined IBAMA’s inclusion in the case.

On December 8, however, Régis Fontana Pinto, the general environmental licensing coordinator for river and land projects, said that Ibama’s jurisdiction only exists for projects developed in indigenous lands.

“Only the environmental impacts of the mining project would affect Indigenous lands, which in itself would not attract federal jurisdiction for environmental licensing of the project,” he said. The coordinator said there would be no point in even participating in the judicial inspection scheduled for that month.

Two days later, Ibama, represented by members of the AGU (Advocate General of the Union), challenged the decision to include him in the ongoing trial before the Federal Court.

The allegation related to the existence of a “decentralization of environmental licenses”, in which “one entity cannot interfere in the jurisdiction of another, under penalty of infringing the federative pact”. Another argument used was that potash mining would not take place on native lands, but in the immediate vicinity.

On April 6, IBAMA, also through the AGU, decided to file an appeal with the higher instance of the Federal Court, the TRF-1 (Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region).

According to the interlocutory appeal, the subpoena for inclusion in the trial does not mean a decision obliging Ibama to be the licensor. The AGU also argued that the licensing authority rests with the local environmental agency.