A technical assessment by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) confirmed the complaints made by the Anacé indigenous people to civil society organizations: the environmental licensing of TikTok's mega data center in Caucaia (CE) is technically inadequate, insufficient, and unacceptable .
The report, prepared by the National Center for Expertise of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, concludes that the project — with an installed capacity of up to 300 MW , energy consumption exceeding that of 99% of Brazilian cities , and daily use of approximately 88,000 liters of water — could not have been licensed through a Simplified Environmental Report (RAS) . According to the expert analysis, the magnitude of the project requires an Environmental Impact Study and Report (EIA/RIMA), public hearings, and broad social participation.
The expert assessment was ordered in the context of representations submitted to the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, including a previous initiative already on file and, subsequently, a statement presented by leaders of the Anacé indigenous people, along with the organizations Instituto de Defesa de Consumidores (Idec), Instituto Terramar, Laboratório de Políticas Públicas e Internet (Lapin), Escritório de Direitos Humanos e Assessoria Jurídica Popular Frei Tito de Alencar and Instituto de Pesquisa em Direito e Tecnologia do Recife (IP.rec), which alerted the MPF to the socio-environmental, energy, water and territorial risks of the project, in addition to irregularities in the licensing process conducted by Semace.
Among the flaws pointed out by the expert are the lack of proof of the project's water viability , the improper fragmentation of the environmental licensing process , and the omission of the cumulative and synergistic impacts of associated structures, such as the 230 kV transmission line, the electrical substation, the diesel generators and their fuel storage systems, the cooling system, and the sewage treatment plant. The report also states that the license was granted without authorization for water use , in violation of the constitutional principles of prevention and environmental precaution, as well as the duty to adequately protect the environment.
According to the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office itself, these shortcomings not only affect the directly impacted territories, but also harm Brazilian consumers by exacerbating water scarcity, intensifying climate vulnerability, and putting pressure on essential systems such as water and energy. In a scenario of water fragility in the region, the installation of a highly resource-intensive project without adequate technical studies could increase the risk of food insecurity, raise the cost of essential services, and deepen inequalities in access to basic goods.
For the Anacé people, the process reveals a historical logic of imposing large projects on their territories. “Once again, they are trying to decide about our land without listening to us. The report shows that the licensing is flawed, but the mistake begins earlier: nobody asked our people if this project could exist here,” states Chief Roberto Itaiçaba, a leader of the Anacé people of Japuara.
The organizations argue that, while the report clearly points out problems in the environmental licensing process, it failed to address a central flaw: the lack of consultation with the indigenous and traditional communities of the region. The current project only foresees community meetings after the license is issued, when the works are already underway, completely negating the right to consultation.
The report itself admits that this point was left out of the analysis, as it was assigned to the National Advisory Board for Anthropology (ANPA). This, however, does not diminish the seriousness of the problem—on the contrary, it shows that the licensing process proceeded without respecting a basic right of these communities. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office reinforces this understanding by advocating for the annulment of the license and the consultation of the Anacé indigenous people before any further progress on the project.
In short, the expert analysis dismantles the narrative that this is a simple or low-impact project. Now, it is up to public agencies to act to suspend this licensing and prevent the expansion of digital infrastructure in Brazil from advancing at the expense of the rights, water, and energy of communities.
