Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil

On October 8, 2020, the Institute of Amazonian Studies (Instituto de Estudos Amazônicos - IEA) filed a Public Civil Action (class action) against the Federal Government of Brazil, seeking recognition of a fundamental right to a stable climate for present and future generations under the Brazilian Constitution, and seeking an order to compel the federal government to comply with national climate law. Plaintiffs allege that the federal government has failed to comply with its own action plans to prevent deforestation and mitigate and adapt to climate change, violating national law and fundamental rights. Plaintiffs assert that the government has failed to meet the Brazilian emissions targets set out in the Climate Change National Policy Act, a binding act passed by the Brazilian legislature. In order to meet these targets, the federal government issued a decree setting out specific action plans for preventing and controlling deforestation in various Brazilian biomes, as well as outlining sectoral plans for climate change mitigation and adaptation. A key part of this decree is the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in Legal Amazon (PPCDAm). By failing to meet critical targets in the PPCDAm and emissions targets, plaintiffs allege that the government is violating fundamental rights and national law. Plaintiffs seek an order to compel the federal government to comply with its existing policies, to reforest an area equivalent to what was deforested beyond the statutory limit, and to allocate sufficient budgetary resources for this purpose. In July 2021, the Federal District Court of Curitiba issued an order rejecting jurisdiction and transferring the case to the 7th Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judiciary Section of Amazonas, on account of the alleged connection between this case and another case in that court. The other case involves a dispute over whether the government adequately implemented measures to combat those who put the Amazon forest and its ecological hotspots under threat during the Covid-19 pandemic. The lower court found that both lawsuits aimed at combating illegal deforestation in the Amazon and both referred to the PPCDAm, thus presenting “sufficient similarity” or “close connection” between the issues discussed, thereby “giving rise to an undue risk of conflicting solutions.” IEA appealed the transfer decision to the federal appellate court (TRF4). On August 20, 2021, the TRF4 (through a decision from the reporting judge) suspended the lower court decision to transfer the case and returned the case to the Federal District Court of Curitiba. The Court found that this case and the ecological hotspots case "present quite different typology and structure, specialized instruments and distinct political-legal approaches, in addition to the fact that their object, cause of action and demands do not coincide." The Court found that this case has as its central objective to put pressure on the legislative and executive branches to ensure a stable climate. The ecological hotspots case, on the other hand, addresses matters related to environmental law, and does not have a central theme linked to Brazilian climate legislation. The decision also includes a lengthy discussion of the unique nature and importance of climate litigation. On December 7, 2021, the third chamber of the appellate court confirmed the decision. On March 29, 2022, the TRF4 issued a decision delimiting the powers of the amicus curiae, given their inability to appeal the decisions of the process. The judge considered the request for the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) to act as amicus curiae in the case to be unfounded, given that the entity did not show interest. Furthermore, the decision called for a conciliation hearing and judgment of the case to be scheduled within 30 days and for the parties, the Attorney General's Office and the Federal Public Ministry to be summoned regarding the date and time of the hearing. It is worth mentioning that the order also deals with the possibility of the parties being accompanied by technicians in order to clarify any points on the subject. Two days after the dispatch of the order, the parties were summoned and the hearing was scheduled for May 18, 2022 in the courtroom of the 11th Federal Court. On July 22, 2022, the Federal Government filed its defense, pointing out that the Federal Government has adopted active measures for the formulation, implementation and management of public environmental protection policies. It denied that the Federal Government, the MMA, and other federal entities had failed to implement public policies to combat deforestation in the Amazon and to meet internationally agreed climate targets. It emphasized that investment in protecting and inspecting indigenous lands has increased, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. It denied that the country is failing to comply with international agreements and that the Federal Government is failing to comply with policies aimed at controlling illegal deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, nor that an unconstitutional environmental state of affairs has been established. It emphasized that the responsibility for recovering deforested areas should be attributed to those responsible for such acts, not the Federal Government. It argued that there was no causal link between the federal government and the environmental damage mentioned in the initial petition. Finally, required that the claims should be dismissed. In October 2022, the Institute for Amazonian Studies filed a request for urgent injunctive relief because it was necessary for the Federal Government to be urgently compelled to carry out direct and effective actions to start forest restoration processes in the Legal Amazon, with the aim of reducing the damage caused to the climate system. IEA emphasized that the measures adopted so far by the federal government have been innocuous in the face of growing deforestation, and that the federal government has continually failed to comply with its climate obligations. It requested that the Federal Government be granted a preliminary injunction ordering it to: (i) carry out forest restoration work in the Legal Amazon; (ii) begin reforesting the region within one year; (ii) restore illegally deforested areas above the legal permissive established in the PNMC and considering the PRODES 2020 and PRODES 2021 data; (iv) maintain forest restoration activities until the deforestation rate reaches a level of 3,925.06 km2. 925.06 km2; (v) the allocation of budgetary, technical and personnel resources for these purposes; (vi) the payment of a daily fine in the event of non-compliance with the measures; (vii) the determination that the measurement of the rate of deforestation in the Legal Amazon should use the official data provided by the PRODES system. Afterwards, the Institute filed a petition requesting that the request for injunctive relief be added, asking that the area of forest in the Legal Amazon that had been deforested above the maximum legal rate allowed by the PPCDAm be restored and presenting new arguments that indicate the upward trend in deforestation in the Amazon biome. In November 2024, the court rejected the request for interim relief, but acknowledged that the plaintiff's arguments were credible, but that procedural issues were pending and required the parties and the MPF to comment on them in order for the relief to be granted. It also recognized that climate change affects humanity as a whole and the important role of the Amazon rainforest in this context. It ordered the reversal of the burden of proof, so that the Federal Government must prove compliance with the PPCDAm in terms of repairing environmental damage. In addition, it ruled that there was partial lis pendens between this action and ADPF 760 and ADO 54 and ordered that the proceedings be suspended for up to a year in order to await the progress of compliance with the judgments handed down in the aforementioned actions. The IEA filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the decision that rejected the request for injunctive relief and ordered that the case be suspended for one year. The decision, however, was upheld because it was necessary to await the outcome of the proceedings ordered by the STF, in order to avoid overlapping proceedings for the same purpose.