Ministério Público do Estado do Pará vs. Estado do Pará (Landfills and Climate Impact Assessment in Pará)

On December 17th 2024 he Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Pará (MPPA) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, due to the omission of the State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability (SEMAS) in fulfilling its duty to require the assessment of climate impacts in environmental licensing in the state of Pará, with emphasis on sources emitting greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2 and methane. It argues that the global climate crisis is proven by data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), arguing in favor of the essential need to consider a climate approach in all public policies, particularly in the context of the Amazon and the special relationship between solid waste management and the climate system, as it is a significant source of GHG emissions. It points to state omission, especially in the case of landfills, whose significant polluting potential requires a rigorous licensing process to support decisions on the viability and mitigation of climate impacts as essential conditions for adequately addressing the climate crisis. As an example, the Marituba Waste Processing and Treatment Center (CPTRM) is cited, which lacks an adequate system for treating the gases produced in waste management and a climate impact assessment in its licensing process. Due to this omission, the Public Prosecutor's Office of Pará (MPPA) alleges that the state of Pará is failing to comply with national and international commitments to address the climate crisis, such as the Paris Agreement, the National Environmental Policy, the National Policy on Climate Change, and the State Policy on Climate Change. It is argued that this omission violates the principle of prohibiting deficient protection in environmental matters, breaking with climate federalism by failing to integrate the climate agenda into state public policies. In a preliminary injunction, it is requested that the state of Pará be determined to: (i) include in the Terms of Reference and other technical documents that support the environmental assessment of environmental licensing conducted by SEMAS the obligation to present studies that prove the assessment of climate impact and mitigation actions, for the issuance or renewal of environmental licenses, especially for sanitary landfills; (ii) regulate the environmental licensing of sanitary landfills incorporating climate impact assessment; (iii) not grant or renew environmental licenses for projects that cause climate impacts without the prior and necessary assessment of this type of environmental impact and the establishment of mitigation measures. On the merits, it requests the granting of the same requests made in the preliminary injunction and compensation for collective moral damages suffered by the society of Marituba due to the deficient protection against the climate impacts resulting from the installation of the CPTRM. On September 17th 2025, an interlocutory decision was issued granting the requested urgent relief, ordering the state of Pará, through SEMAS: (i) to prepare and publish Terms of Reference that must include the requirement for a climate impact assessment and a GHG mitigation plan as conditions for the environmental licensing of projects with significant pollution potential, especially sanitary landfills, including CPTRM; (ii) to present a technical diagnosis of the current status of all active environmental licenses for GHG-emitting projects under its jurisdiction; (iii) to refrain from issuing or renewing environmental licenses for potentially GHG-emitting projects without the proper prior climate impact assessment and without imposing concrete mitigation measures. The State of Pará presented its defense, alleging the court's absolute lack of jurisdiction, since the main request concerned the restructuring of a state public policy, which would fall outside the jurisdiction of the Marituba municipality court. It argued that the plaintiff's claim to define criteria for environmental licensing, especially in an area as complex and multifactorial as climate, clashes with the separation of powers, and that it is not the role of the Judiciary to define them. Furthermore, it argued that it already combats climate change through various public policies and that the requests made by the plaintiff are not related to the main greenhouse gas emitting activities, without considering the contribution of emissions from activities under the licensing jurisdiction of municipalities and the Federal Government, which have equal or even greater potential to cause climate change than the activities challenged in the lawsuit. It alleged that it would be pointless to impose new rules on environmental licensing in climate matters for SEMAS (State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability), if the licensing processes conducted by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and other municipalities in the State were not subject to the same obligations. The plaintiff requested the revocation of the preliminary injunction, arguing that it was granted due to the worsening global climate crisis and the absence of concrete administrative measures, while SEMAS (the State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability) had already clarified in the Electronic Administrative Process (PAE) that the Terms of Reference for sanitary landfills already require the characterization of air quality and atmospheric dispersion studies; therefore, the risk that justified the injunction no longer exists. The plaintiff requests the annulment of the injunction, the acceptance of the preliminary objections to dismiss the case without prejudice, or that the action be dismissed as unfounded.