Supreme Court will decide on law prohibiting professional fishing in MT

Minister André Mendonça, of the Federal Supreme Court, will forward to the Attorney General’s Office the processes that discuss the validity of the state law of Mato Grosso that prohibits professional fishing for a period of five years. After the opinion, he will make a decision on the matter.

The magistrate announced the measure this Tuesday (2/4), because the parties involved in the case had not reached an agreement in the conciliation hearings.

Mendonça is the rapporteur of the direct unconstitutionality actions on the topic proposed by the Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB), the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the National Confederation of Fishermen and Aquaculturists (CNPA).

The actions challenge the changes to Mato Grosso’s Fishing Policy (State Law 9,096/2009), promoted by State Law 12,197/2023, to prohibit professional fishing in the state for five years, starting January 1st of this year.

Among other arguments, the authors allege that the rule contradicts federal legislation on the matter, in addition to putting the continuity of traditional life at risk and compromising the survival of fishing communities in the state. When calling for negotiation rounds, the rapporteur highlighted the advantages of building a consensus on the matter.

Fish species

The first hearing was held on January 25th. At the time, the parties committed to presenting suggestions aimed at adjusting the legislation to meet the interests of environmental preservation and the survival of fishermen.

In the second hearing, held this Tuesday, representatives of the government of Mato Grosso and the Legislative Assembly presented the flexibility of the legislation, maintaining the ban on only 12 species. Fishermen’s representatives considered that four species of fish on the state government’s list could be released: pintail, tucunaré, trairão and piraputanga.

No agreement

The discussion about the bans, however, did not advance. The representative of the Attorney General’s Office (AGU), in turn, said that state legislation, as expected, restricts the management of fishing in Mato Grosso only to the state government. The federal government’s proposal was to suspend the law until technical studies were completed to establish which species should be banned, but the suggestion was not accepted by the government of Mato Grosso.

Given the impasse in the conciliatory route, the Supreme Court must deliberate on the case. First, however, given the legislative innovations presented, the reporting minister will forward the case to the PGR to issue a new opinion on the controversy.

Representatives of the federal government participated in the hearings through AGU, the ministries of the Environment and Climate Change and Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama) and the National Social Security Institute (INSS), in addition to representatives from the state government and the Legislative Assembly. The parties that filed the actions also participated. With information from the STF press office.

ADI 7,471
ADI 7,514
ADI 7,590