Instituto Aimara and AMAPIRA vs. Piracicaba Municipality, Piracicaba Educational Institute of the Methodist Church (IEP) and Zayo Administradora de Bens S.A.

In February, 2026, the Aimara Institute for Environmental Defense and Education and the Association of Friends of Citizenship and the Environment of Piracicaba - AMAPIRA filed a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief against the Municipality of Piracicaba (SP), the Piracicaba Educational Institute of the Methodist Church (IEP), and Zayo Administradora de Bens SA due to a fire that occurred on the former campus of the Methodist University of Piracicaba (UNIMEP) in May 2025, in an area equivalent to 16 (sixteen) hectares.

The plaintiffs allege that there was direct damage to health, fauna, and flora due to the removal of hundreds of trees and native vegetation, and that the consequences are not limited to local environmental degradation. They argue that by eliminating carbon sinks and intensifying net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the removal led to climate damage and represents a violation of Brazil's climate obligations. They allege that Piracicaba has faced a series of fires in urban areas, highlighting an alarming scenario from an environmental, public safety, and collective health standpoint, with a total absence of structured public policies at the municipal level to combat fires and wildfires.

Based on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (IACHR) advisory opinion on climate change, it is understood that internal and international authorities responsible for determining reparative measures in the context of the climate emergency should not limit reparations to monetary compensation, but should consider creating mechanisms for monitoring and following up on the implementation of reparative measures. The complaint also cites Advisory Opinion OC-23/2017, which recognizes the protection of the environment and climate as a factor in the realization of human rights, and environmental degradation and climate change as detrimental to their effective realization. Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (PC-32/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is also cited, emphasizing that environmental remediation should consider not only direct damages but also the climatic, ecological, and intergenerational consequences of events such as the fire on the former UNIMEP campus.

The plaintiffs argue that the private legal entities holding the land affected by the fire, as well as the Public Authorities, are liable due to their omission in their duty to supervise. It is alleged that the land affected by the fire was recently purchased at a judicial auction, and there are reports that the winning company intends to construct a large building for commercial activity. Due to the nature of the undertaking, prior environmental licensing is required. However, the region is severely compromised due to the fire and subsequent abandonment, without any reparation for the environmental and climatic damage following the environmental disaster, and without the adoption of measures to recover the area. Therefore, it is argued that it is inadmissible to process administrative procedures for environmental licensing of new buildings before the restoration of the existing environment, under penalty of violating the principles of prevention, precaution, and the polluter-pays principle.

Furthermore, the inertia of the City Hall in processing the draft of the Municipal Climate Change Policy is noteworthy; this is an appropriate instrument that defines objectives, principles, and instruments to guide, in a cross-cutting and participatory manner, the mitigation of GHG emissions and the adaptation of the territory and population of Piracicaba to climate risks. Therefore, it is requested: (i) that the request for urgent relief be granted to immediately prohibit the initiation, processing, or continuation of any environmental licensing procedure and to prohibit the issuance of any license, authorization, permit, or any administrative act in the degraded area without effective investigation, accountability, and remediation of the environmental and climate damage; (ii) recognition of the environmental and climate damage and the objective liability of the defendant; (iii) that the defendant be ordered to pay compensation for moral and material damages due to the environmental and climate damage; and (iv) that the defendant be ordered to perform an obligation consisting of the preparation and execution of a Degraded Area Recovery Plan, which must include reforestation, additional compensation for the generated climate liability, continuous monitoring and maintenance, preventive measures, and the creation of a conservation unit, among other things. Furthermore, it requests that the municipality be required to develop public policies to address extreme events, including the creation of a Greenhouse Gas Inventory, a Municipal Plan to Combat Fires and Wildfires, and a Municipal Policy to address climate change.

In February 2026, the court denied the request for urgent relief because it considered it a premature decision given the complexity of the case.

In its defense, the Municipality stated that the conservation of the site is the responsibility of IEP and Zayo Administradora de Bens SA, and that the affected area belongs exclusively to the defendants. Therefore, its responsibility would only be subsidiary, according to Precedent 652 of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), meaning that the Municipality can only be called upon to respond after all means of collection from the main debtors have been exhausted. The party argued that there was no duty to inspect the specific area, as there were no requests for environmental licensing or regularization, and that the owners' economic activities were not potentially polluting. The Municipality stated that to be held responsible, it would be necessary to prove a specific and qualified omission, and it is not possible to establish a causal link between any alleged omission by the Municipality and the environmental damage, since the initial petition does not point to or prove the origin of the fire. Finally, it requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice and its total dismissal in relation to the municipality.

In its defense, Zayo Administradora de Bens SA alleged that the initial complaint was flawed because the plaintiff acknowledged that the administrator did not possess or manage the area on the date of the fire and, therefore, generically assigned responsibility. It reaffirmed that the court decision itself recognizes that IEP had actual possession of the property on the date of the fire. Furthermore, it stated that the creation of a municipal park is impossible, since it is not judicially possible to impose the public use of private property as a form of environmental remediation. Finally, it requested partial dismissal without prejudice, the total dismissal of the action against Zayo, and, subsidiarily, the dismissal of the claims for compensation for material damages, collective moral damages, reparation for alleged environmental, climatic, floristic, faunistic, and sanitary damages, as well as the request for the creation of a municipal park in the area.

In its defense, IEP argued that, on the date of the fire, it no longer possessed the property and had no surveillance authority, since the fire occurred on May 25, 2025, and the property was auctioned off on May 5, 2025. IEP claims that the origin of the fire is unknown and that there is no technical report or official expert analysis that proves or attributes responsibility to the Institute. It argued that the methodology used to calculate carbon emissions and sequestration was inconsistent, as parameters incompatible with the vegetation were used. It requested, preliminarily, the exclusion of the Institute from the lawsuit. On the merits, it requested that the initial claim be declared entirely unfounded.