Brazil’s Federal Regional Court for the 3rd Region – TRF3 ordered the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock – MAPA to fully implement the conclusions of environmental re-evaluations of imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. The case stems from a public civil action filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office – MPF concerning aerial spraying and risks to pollinators.
The court ordered MAPA, Brazil’s pesticide registration authority, to:
“adopt, within 180 days counted from publication of this ruling, the formal acts necessary for the full implementation of the conclusions of the environmental re-evaluations concluded by Ibama regarding the active ingredients imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam.”
The ruling expressly requires:
“the formalization of the prohibition of aerial spraying of these active ingredients on any and all crops and throughout the national territory, with any necessary adjustments to labels and registrations.”
The environmental re-evaluations of imidacloprid and clothianidin were concluded by Ibama in 2021, with restrictions subsequently incorporated through MAPA Acts No. 71/2022 and No. 56/2022. Ibama concluded the thiamethoxam re-evaluation in February 2024. The court noted that much of the restriction sought in the lawsuit had already been implemented administratively, while maintaining the requirement for MAPA to fully implement the completed re-evaluations.
For fipronil, the court ordered Ibama to “conclude and publish the final result of the environmental re-evaluation” within 360 days. MAPA must then adopt the relevant registration measures within 90 days after publication of Ibama’s conclusions. The ruling states that aerial foliar application of fipronil has already been provisionally prohibited since 2012.
TRF3 also recognized what it described as “qualified administrative inaction” by Ibama and the Federal Government in conducting the re-evaluations and declared that the prohibition of aerial spraying of imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam and fipronil has constitutional and legal legitimacy.
The 4th Panel of TRF3 issued the decision unanimously, partially granting the MPF’s appeal in case No. 5021356-42.2021.4.03.6100.