ADPF 743 (Fires in the Pantanal and Amazon)

On September 17, 2020, the Rede Sustentabilidade party filed a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF), with a request for preliminary injunction, based on the multiple omissions and unconstitutional commissions by the Public Authorities, related to state action against fires that affected the Pantanal and the Amazon Rainforest. Plaintiff argued that these biomes are structurally important for the balance of the ecosystem and are affected by the conjunction of three factors: the omission of state authorities; criminal activity and the interest of groups and individuals in the destruction of the biomes; and the occurrence of climatic conditions, resulting from and promoted by anthropogenic interventions such as global warming, which are favorable to the rapid spread of destruction. Plaintiff also argued that the actions of the Public Authorities—including the dismantling of environmental agencies, non-execution of budgetary funds (Climate Fund and National Environment Fund), and dismantling of inspection policies—led to record levels of fires and deforestation in the biomes in 2019 and 2020. Climate is mentioned contextually, for example, when stating that the State did not promote the generation of renewable energy and the neutralization of its carbon footprint. Considering this scenario, it is argued that insufficient state action violated the duties of environmental protection, prevention, precaution, inspection, and conservation, the principle of non-regression, the dignity of the human person, legal certainty, and the rights to life, health, and an ecologically balanced environment.

In a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff requested: (i) the adoption of operational efforts to combat the fires in the Pantanal and the Amazon, presenting a prevention and combat plan; (ii) the restructuring of the National System for the Prevention and Combat of Forest Fires (PREVFOGO), the resumption of the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm), and the presentation of equivalent plans for the other biomes; (iii) the intensification and resumption of environmental enforcement, ensuring punishment for identified offenders; (iv) the provision of humanitarian assistance to impacted populations, especially indigenous, quilombola, and traditional communities; (v) the establishment of transparency and monitoring mechanisms; (vii) an explanation from the Federal Government and the Ministry of the Environment regarding the budgetary execution of environmental protection programs in 2019 and 2020; (vii) the suspension of deforestation authorizations. On the merits, it is requested that the unconstitutionality of the current state of affairs of Brazilian environmental management be recognized, due to violation of the fundamental precepts raised, fully confirming the preliminary injunctions.

In April 2024, the current request were joined for joint judgment with ADPF 746 and 857 (titled in the Sabin Center’s Database as "ADPF 746 (Burning in the Pantanal and Amazon Rainforest)" and "ADPF 857 (Burning in the Pantanal)") due to the similarity of their subject matter. The three requests were also partially upheld. While the Court did not declare the state of affairs unconstitutional, it recognized the existence of structural flaws in the policy for protecting the Legal Amazon, imposing a series of measures to combat deforestation so that the Federal Government presents a plan for preventing and combating fires in the Pantanal and the Amazon, with the recovery of the operational capacity of PREVFOGO; discloses data related to the budget and budgetary execution of actions related to environmental protection by the States and the Union during the years 2019 and 2020; and informs, as do the state governments, the authorizations for vegetation suppression.

Afterwards, the judgment was published. It was highlighted that the Federal Government is resuming environmental protection measures and emphasizes the importance of the Amazon and the Pantanal for maintaining climate balance. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Edson Fachin acknowledged the still unconstitutional state of affairs, a view shared by Justices Luiz Fux and Cármen Lúcia. Fachin stressed that climate jurisprudence exists internationally due to foreign cases. He argued that allowing the repeated violation of the right to an ecologically balanced environment without permitting the Supreme Court to act promptly to "prevent climate chaos and the compromise of Amazonian biodiversity is not consistent with international agreements and the democratic commitment expressed in the Constitutional Charter."

Considering the structural nature of the case and the measures determined in the judgment that ruled on the merits of the actions, there was a sequence of decisions and actions determined in this specific action for the execution of the content of the decision.