

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The joint Syrian-Russian military operation has been using incendiary weapons, which burn their victims and start fires, in civilian areas of Syria in violation of international law, Human Rights Watch said today. Incendiary weapons have been used at least 18 times over the past nine weeks, including in attacks on the opposition-held areas in the cities of Aleppo and Idlib on August 7, 2016.
Countries meeting at the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva on August 29, 2016 should condemn the use of air-dropped incendiary weapons in civilian areas of Syria in violation of the treaty's Protocol III on incendiary weapons. They should encourage Syria to join the protocol and press Syria and Russia to immediately stop using incendiary weapons in civilian areas. They should also review the protocol and take steps to strengthen it.
"The Syrian government and Russia should immediately stop attacking civilian areas with incendiary weapons," said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch. "These weapons inflict horrible injuries and excruciating pain, so all countries should condemn their use in civilian areas."
A Human Rights Watch review of photographs and videos recorded at the time of attack and of the remnants afterward indicates there were at least 18 incendiary weapon attacks on opposition-held areas in Aleppo and Idlib governorates between June 5 and August 10. At least 12 civilians were reported wounded by witnesses and first responders in five of these attacks.
The visual evidence that incendiary weapons were used includes the distinctive mid-air displays created by the bright burning trails of air-dropped incendiary weapons containing ZAB-series incendiary submunitions. Other indicators include the small but intense fires created by each submunition over the time it takes to burn out as well as markings on the bomb casings and submunitions.
Local activists, human rights organizations, first responders, and media organizations have reported the use of incendiary weapons on at least 40 other occasions, but no photographs and video footage were available, so Human Rights Watch could not conclusively determine if incendiary weapons were involved.
Incendiary weapons produce heat and fire through the chemical reaction of a flammable substance, causing excruciatingly painful burns that are difficult to treat. The weapons also start fires that are hard to extinguish, destroying civilian objects and infrastructure.
An incendiary weapon attack on the opposition-held Idlib city on the evening of August 7 wounded at least two civilians, witnesses said.
"I saw with my own eyes two strikes, both 'phosphorus'--blocks of flame were falling from the sky," said. Ala' Abdel Aziz Hmeidan, an Idlib resident. "After that, there was a strike with a missile carrying cluster bombs. It was tragic, buildings were on fire, rocks were on fire." He said the area contains residential buildings and that there were no armed groups in the vicinity.
Syria Civil Defense, an opposition search-and-rescue volunteer group, reported an incendiary weapon attack on the residential area in al-Mashhad in opposition-held east Aleppo city at around 4 p.m. on August 7 that injured a child. Photographs taken immediately after the attack by Aleppo resident Malek Tarboush show at least four incendiary submunitions burning on the ground in a narrow street that contains at least one shop. Human Rights Watch was unable to identify the specific type of incendiary weapon used in the attack.
Incendiary weapon attacks in Syria have increased significantly since the Russian Federation began its joint military operation with the Syrian government on September 30, 2015. There is compelling evidence that Russian government aircraft are being used to deliver incendiary weapons or at least are participating with Syrian government aircraft in attacks using incendiary weapons.
More than a dozen countries have condemned or expressed concern at the use of incendiary weapons in Syria since 2013, including Colombia, Sweden, Turkey, UK, and the US in recent weeks. The other states that have condemned the use of incendiary weapons in Syria are Austria, Croatia, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland.
"The disgraceful incendiary weapon attacks in Syria show an abject failure to adhere to international law restricting incendiary weapons," Goose said. "The resulting civilian harm demonstrates the inadequacy of existing law on incendiary weapons, which should be strengthened urgently. From a humanitarian standpoint, a global ban on incendiary weapons would provide the best solution."
For more information about the incendiary weapons protocol, details of the recent attacks, and evidence of the use of incendiary weapons, please see below.
Goose and Human Rights Watch arms advocacy director Mary Wareham are attending the week-long CCW meeting that opens in Geneva on August 29, 2016.
The Incendiary Weapons Protocol
Russia is a party to the incendiary weapons protocol and has acknowledged the "significant humanitarian damage" caused by incendiary weapons in Syria, which it attributed to "improper use," in a November 2015 letter to Human Rights Watch.
Russia has not responded to criticism of its apparent involvement in recent incendiary weapon attacks in Syria. In November 2015, Russia urged "faithful observation" of international law relating to incendiary weapons, but rejected calls to revisit and strengthen Protocol III on incendiary weapons of the conventional weapons treaty as "counterproductive."
The Syrian government has ignored calls to join Protocol III, which 113 countries are party to, including Russia and the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The protocol bans the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons in areas with "concentrations of civilians," but permits the use of ground-launched incendiary weapons.
Protocol III defines "concentrations of civilians" broadly as "any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees."
The treaty's member countries should support the call to revisit and amend Protocol III to fix the significant loophole permitting use of ground-launched incendiary weapons in civilian areas. They should revisit the definition of incendiary weapons in Protocol III as it is overly narrow and fails adequately to deal with multi-purpose incendiary munitions such as white phosphorus. These and other inconsistencies have undermined the protocol's effectiveness and failed to deter use of incendiary weapons over the past 35 years, Human Rights Watch said.
Idlib city, Idlib governorate, August 7, 2016
Syrian or Russian fixed-wing jet aircraft dropped incendiary weapons in an attack on the opposition-held city of Idlib on the evening of Sunday, August 7, wounding up to 10 people, witnesses reported. On August 9, Human Rights Watch interviewed four local residents who separately witnessed the attack, including two first responders.
Mouti' Jalal, a volunteer with Syria Civil Defense in Idlib told Human Rights Watch:
I was at home in Sarmin, Idlib. I heard volunteers radioing in about two strikes. They were saying it was phosphorus. I grabbed my camera and was on my way. I saw fire falling from the sky. But couldn't get to the area because the roads were under attack. The fire was so bright, you could see it from outside the city and everyone saw it. I had a clear view of the phosphorus falling on my way but unfortunately my camera was slow and couldn't get a picture at the right moment.
An Idlib resident, Mohammad Taj Al-Din Othman, provided Human Rights Watch with photos he took of the attack that contain metadata showing they were taken at 23:03 and 23:08 local time on August 7, 2016. Othman said:
The first missile disintegrated in the sky and fell down in pieces. It wasn't too loud but it led to a huge fire as soon as it hit the ground. Other explosions followed. And it made the fire worse. I could clearly see the flames bursting. Within 10 minutes, there were more strikes. The fire was unbelievable, it turned night into day. Across fifty square meters. And it kept getting worse for five minutes.
A second Syria Civil Defense (SCD) Idlib volunteer who asked not to be named said:
It was night and calm; we could clearly hear warplanes circling. It was a frightening sound. I also saw a missile get launched from the plane, a bright spot in the sky, along with a terrible blast. SCD was unable to determine the nature of the weapon used but we know for a fact that it was highly flammable.
Video and photos recorded at the time of attack and afterward of the remnants show the use of RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM bombs, an incendiary weapon that delivers 117 ZAB-2.5SM incendiary submunitions. The witness accounts and visual evidence confirm this was an incendiary weapon attack.
Each ZAB-2.5SM submunition burns for up to 10 minutes, starting fires that are hard to extinguish. Numerous photographs and videos from the Idlib attack clearly shows individual fires between residential buildings started by burning submunitions.
The ZAB-2.5SM submunitions delivered by RBK-500 bombs contain a small bursting charge to ignite the flammable substance as they are released from the bomb in mid-air. The fires started by incendiary weapons can also cause secondary explosions when they burn objects on the ground.
Jalal, the Syria Civil Defense volunteer, said that the multiple airstrikes that evening wounded approximately 10 people. He told Human Rights Watch: "Some had burns, but most had just concussions and fractures."
Yahya A'arja, the Idlib director of Syria Civil Defense, who responded to one of the August 7 attack sites, said the incendiary weapons "fell on the street, luckily not on homes, and only burned cars." He said that "the smell led to suffocation, injuring two. No burns at all, thank God. Only asphyxiation from the smell because it wasn't on their bodies." The victims were treated at the scene. "Oxygen therapy was administered inside the ambulance," A'arja said.
According to the unnamed Syria Civil Defense volunteer, the airstrikes consisted of four attacks [including] on "a large crowded residential neighborhood of Idlib city known as al-Dabbit." He said, "I can confirm that there is no military presence in that area."
Othman provided Human Rights Watch with a list of four locations in the city that were attacked by incendiary weapons on August 7:
Othman said during the attack on the university's faculty of humanities at al-Dabbit, incendiary bombs "fell between houses and people were terrified and started panicking, they even went out of their homes." He described Hay al-Jam'aa as "a typical residential area" that was hit first by incendiary weapons that "fell in the middle of the street" rather than on homes, thereby minimizing damage. He said the university still functions, but there were no classes at the time of the evening attack. The area also has a small supermarket and a coffee shop. He said the al-Konsorwa industrial area that was attacked has a factory that is no longer used and is "not residential per se but there are many displaced people there." It "used to be a Syrian army checkpoint."
Othman said that "armed groups are stationed around the city but they weren't targeted" in the incendiary weapon attacks on August 7. He said "the strikes were repetitive and you could hear the plane in the sky, it was very loud and continuous. I only saw the plane when it launched the first missile. I think it was Russian. And it was just one plane."
Two teams of Syria Civil Defense volunteers from Idlib extinguished the fires started by the attack and gathered and destroyed remnants of the incendiary weapons even though they had no expertise with them. Jalal said they were told to use gravel to extinguish the fire because "water makes it worse."
A Syria Civil Defense volunteer who responded to the attack told Human Rights Watch:
The fire was vast, spreading hundreds of meters, difficult to put out. It reacted with water so we had to use other material, like foam and powder, even gravel. The fire took over everything, houses, cars, oil tanks, and even grass. We heard explosions. It was huge, it required immense efforts to extinguish. The tall, crowded buildings did not make things easy. It took us around an hour to control the situation. It was so bright you could see the buildings as if was daylight. It was absolutely abnormal. Honestly, words cannot describe it.
Technical Background and Recent Attacks
Since November 2012, Human Rights Watch has recorded the use of four types of incendiary weapons in Syria, all ZAB-series (Zazhigatelnaya Aviatsionnaya Bomba) incendiary aircraft bombs manufactured by the Soviet Union:
ZAB-series bombs contain a substance believed to be thermite that ignites while falling, leading witnesses to describe the incendiary submunitions as "fireballs." It is not napalm or white phosphorus, which are notorious flammable substances used in other incendiary weapons.
The majority of witness accounts collected by Human Right Watch and video evidence indicate that fixed-wing jet aircraft and helicopters have been used to deliver air-dropped incendiary weapons in Syria. There has been at least one incident involving the use of a surface-launched incendiary weapon.
The Syrian government has used factory-made incendiary weapons since November 2012, particularly air-dropped bombs manufactured by the Soviet Union such as RBK-250 series bombs and ZAB-100-105 bombs. Syrian government forces have also used air-dropped weapons consisting of improvised canisters or "barrel bombs" filled with a napalm-like flammable substance.
Footage broadcasted by Russian state media on June 18 shows RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM incendiary bombs mounted on a Su-34 fighter-ground attack aircraft at the Russian air base at Hmeymim, southeast of Latakia city, in Syria. Only the Russian air force operates this type of aircraft in Syria.
Documented Incendiary Weapon Attacks, June 5-August 10, 2016
Date | Location | Casualties (source) | Type of Incendiary Weapon | Visual Confirmation |
August 10 | Qubtan al-Jabal, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | Photo: Remnants |
August 7 | Idlib city, Idlib | 2-10 reported wounded (SCD) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
August 7 | Aleppo city, Aleppo | 1 reported wounded (SCD) | Not available | |
July 7 | Kafr Hamrah, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 26 | Saraqib, Idlib | 1 reported wounded (SCD) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 26 | Kafr Halab, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | Media N/A |
June 24 | Kafr Hamra, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 23 | Khan al-Asal, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 22 | Hayyan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 22 | Kafr Naya or Urum al-Kubrah, Aleppo | 2 reported wounded (SCD, witness) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 20 (approximate) | Hraytan (Haritan), Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 20 | Hayyan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 19 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 16 | Ma'ar Shoreen, Idlib | None reported | Not available | Photos on file |
June 15 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 11 | Kafr Halab, Aleppo | 6 reported wounded (Smart News Agency) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 10 | Kafr Hamra, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 5 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM |
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
One congresswoman pointed out that "she does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email."
Congressional Democrats were among the critics taking aim at US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Monday for the Louisiana Republican's "genuinely insane" remarks on his refusal to swear in Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona.
Twenty days into a federal government shutdown that resulted from Republicans' fight for healthcare cuts set to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans, Johnson said he would administer the oath of office to Grijalva, "I hope, on the first day we come back."
"Instead of doing TikTok videos, she should be serving her constituents," Johnson added. "She could be taking their calls. She could be directing them, trying to help them through the crisis that the Democrats have created by shutting down the government."
Another Democrat elected to represent Arizonans, Congressman Greg Stanton, fired back at the speaker: "How pathetic. Mike Johnson is now blaming Adelita Grijalva for not doing her job. Quit taking orders from Trump and swear her in now."
Grijalva won the special election for her late father's seat last month, pre-shutdown. Johnson could have swiftly administered the oath of office, and despite the shutdown, he can still do so. He has denied that he has intentionally delayed swearing her in to push off a vote on releasing files about deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former friend of President Donald Trump—but many critics don't believe him.
Responding to the speaker on Monday, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said: "Republicans refuse to swear in an elected member of Congress. Why? They are covering up the Epstein files."
As Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes threatens legal action over the delay—with a filing expected this week—Grijalva, Democratic lawmakers, and others have used various social media platforms to call out Johnson.
In one such video, posted online last week, Grijalva speaks with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), the newest member of the House, about how he was sworn in just a day after winning his special election, like two of his GOP colleagues.
As viewers of Grijalva's videos know, she finally got access to her office on Capitol Hill last week, but her ability to functionally serve constituents remains limited.
Pointing to similar comments that the House speaker made last week on CNN, Congresswoman Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.) explained Monday: "Unlike Mike Johnson, I actually spoke to Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva this week. She does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email to receive news like the rest of Congress. Why? Because until Johnson swears her in, she is not a member of Congress."
Podcaster and writer Matthew Sitman is among those highlighting how this is bigger than Grijalva. He said: "I really don't think it's possible to make a big enough deal of this. If it's accepted that this quisling has absolute, unilateral power to decide when, or even if, to swear in duly elected representatives, they will further abuse that power—why not refuse other Democrats?"
Writer Nick Field similarly wondered, "So why do we think Donald Trump and Mike Johnson will accept the results and seat new House members if they lose the majority in next year's midterms?"
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," said an Illinois cattle producer.
US ranchers and industry groups are responding critically to President Donald Trump's proposal that the United States "would buy some beef from Argentina," in a bid to "bring our beef prices down," while pursuing an up to $40 billion bailout for the South American country.
Trump made the suggestion to reporters on Air Force One Sunday, according to the Associated Press. A few days earlier, he'd said that a deal to cut the price of beef was "gonna be coming down pretty soon." The AP noted various reasons for "stubbornly high" US prices, including drought and reduced imports from Mexico.
"President Trump's plan to buy beef from Argentina is a betrayal of the American rancher," Christian Lovell, an Illinois cattle producer and senior director of programs at the organization Farm Action, said in a Monday statement. "Those of us who raise cattle have finally started to see what profit looks like after facing years of high input costs and market manipulation by the meatpacking monopoly."
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," he continued, referring to one of the impacts of Trump's tariff war. "Importing Argentinian beef would send US cattle prices plummeting—and with the meatpacking industry as consolidated as it is, consumers may not see lower beef prices either. Washington should be focused on fixing our broken cattle market, not rewarding foreign competitors."
"Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people."
"With these actions, President Trump risks acting more like the president of Argentina than president of the United States," Lovell declared. The US leader is a key ally of the nation's actual president, Javier Milei, whose austerity agenda has created the need for a massive bailout from Washington, DC.
Farm Action's proposed fix for the US is to tackle the "structurally flawed system" with three steps: "Reinstate Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork, restore competitive markets by enforcing antitrust laws, and rebuild the US cow herd to achieve national self-reliance in beef production."
The group was far from alone in criticizing Trump's weekend remarks and offering alternative solutions to reduce US prices.
"We appreciate President Trump's interest in addressing the US beef market, which has been producing all-time record-high consumer beef prices," said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, the nation's largest cattle association, in a statement. "We urge the president to address the fundamental problems in the beef market, not just its symptom."
"The symptom is that the US has shrunk its beef cow herd to such a low level that it can no longer produce enough beef to satisfy domestic demand," he continued. "But the fundamental problem is that decades of failed trade policies have allowed cheap, undifferentiated imports to displace the domestic cow herd, driving hundreds of thousands of cattle farmers and ranchers and millions of domestic beef cows out of the domestic beef supply chain."
"In addition, the nation's beef packers and beef retailers have been allowed to concentrate to monopolistic levels, enabling them to interfere with competitive market forces," he asserted. "Attempting to lower domestic beef prices simply by inviting even more imports will both exacerbate and accelerate the ongoing dismantling of the domestic beef supply chain."
Instead of promoting US beef production, Trump now wants to establish a preferred position for Argentine beef in the US. Why, exactly? Is this what America First means?
[image or embed]
— Scott Horton (@robertscotthorton.bsky.social) October 20, 2025 at 2:23 PM
National Cattlemen's Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall said that "NCBA's family farmers and ranchers have numerous concerns with importing more Argentinian beef to lower prices for consumers. This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices."
"Additionally, Argentina has a deeply unbalanced trade relationship with the US," Woodall noted. "In the past five years Argentina has sold more than $801 million of beef into the US market. By comparison, the US has sold just over $7 million worth of American beef to Argentina. Argentina also has a history of foot-and-mouth disease, which, if brought to the United States, could decimate our domestic livestock production."
Justin Tupper, president of the US Cattlemen's Association, highlighted the rising costs that ranchers are enduring.
"The cost of producing beef today is accurately represented in the consumer markets where it is sold," he said. "Ranchers are facing historic highs for feed, fuel, labor, and land—and those costs have risen far faster than beef prices on grocery shelves."
"When policymakers hint at intervention or suggest quick fixes, they can shake the market's foundation and directly impact the livelihoods of ranchers who depend on stable, transparent pricing," Tupper warned in the wake of the president's recent remarks. "Sudden price moves make it harder for independent producers to plan, invest, and keep their operations running."
"Efforts to support consumers must consider the economic realities on the ground and ensure the voices of independent ranchers lead the discussion," he added. "Market-driven prices—not mandates or panic interventions—have delivered value for generations. Let's focus on transparency, market integrity, and maintaining the conditions for sustainable rural economies."
Trump's signal that the US may buy more beef from Argentina comes as poll after poll shows that Americans—whose federal minimum wage hasn't increased in over 15 years—are stressed about the climbing costs of groceries. In addition to beef, shoppers are facing higher prices for staples such as coffee and eggs.
The Democratic National Committee also called out Trump's proposal on Monday, with Kendall Witmer, the DNC's rapid response director, charging that "Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people, who are struggling to afford everything from rent to groceries."
"Because of Trump, farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy, and the government has been shut down for almost a month," Witmer added. "You would think that the so-called 'America First' president would be focused on reopening the government and saving millions of Americans from skyrocketing healthcare premiums—but Trump is showing his true colors. He only cares about helping himself and his friends, even at the expense of the American people. Let's be clear: MAGA now stands for Make Argentina Great Again."
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," said one campaigner.
As climate leaders and policymakers arrive in Belém, Brazil next month, for the global climate summit that officials have pledged will stand apart from previous conferences due to its emphasis on "implementation," the country's government-run Petrobras firm will be drilling for oil just over 200 miles away in the Amazon, after the company was granted a license Monday.
Petrobras said it plans to begin drilling immediately in a project that will last about five months at the mouth of the Amazon River—the Foz de Amazonas region.
Despite President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's reputation as an international climate leader, he has claimed that oil revenue will help fund Brazil's transition to renewable energy, but Ilan Zugman, Latin America and Caribbean director at the grassroots climate action group 350.org, said Monday that in granting the license, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) was "doubling down on a model that has already failed."
Petrobras is planning to drill an oil well at an offshore site, Block 59, that is 310 miles from the mouth of the Amazon.
IBAMA previously denied Petrobras the license, saying the company had not provided adequate plans for how it would protect wildlife in the case of an oil spill.
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations."
In September, the agency approved a pre-operational environmental assessment and said a new "fauna simulation" would take place after the license was issued, allowed Petrobras to prove after obtaining permission for drilling that it would protect wildlife.
The Amazon region is home to about 10% of the planet's wildlife, and climate advocates have raised alarm that the river's currents would swiftly bring the damage from an oil spill straight to the habitats of many animals and plants.
Brazilian NGO the Climate Observatory said the approval of the license "sabotages" the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), which World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Celeste Sauro said recently "aspires to be a turning point, a moment when the world shifts from ambition to implementation."
Last year was the first year to exceed 1.5°C above average preindustrial temperatures, and the previous 10 years have been the warmest on record. Scientists and the International Energy Agency have warned that no new oil or other fossil fuel projects have a place on a pathway to reaching net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050.
“The decision is disastrous from an environmental, climate, and sociobiodiversity perspective," said the Climate Observatory.
The group told The Guardian that civil society organizations would be taking the Brazilian government to court over the license, saying its approval was rife with "illegalities and technical flaws."
Despite IBAMA's approval, an opinion signed by 29 staff members at the agency in February said they recommended denying the license due to the risk of “massive biodiversity loss in a highly sensitive marine ecosystem."
Zugman called the decision a "historic mistake."
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations," said Zugman. "Brazil must take real climate leadership and break the cycle of extraction that has led us to the current climate crisis. We urgently need a just energy transition plan, based on renewables, that respects Indigenous, quilombola, and riverside peoples and guarantees them a leading role in decisions about climate and energy—including at COP30."
Earlier this year, Indigenous leaders representing dozens of Amazon ethnicities and tribes signed a declaration demanding that officials at COP30 "nullify oil blocks that have not had the consent of Indigenous people," "halt investment in new oil infrastructure," and create phase-out plans for oil and gas operations.
Nick Young, co-head of story and communications at Greenpeace International, called IBAMA's decision "disastrous."
"A spill here would be catastrophic and uniquely hard to contain in the Amazon plume," said Young. "And in addition to the risk of oil spills, the science clearly shows that we cannot afford to burn even existing oil reserves, let alone new ones."
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," he added. "It makes zero sense to allow them to find new oil to throw on the fire."