points of claim

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Amazon Fund) - points of claim

<p>This entry was provided by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Please see the terms of use for citation and licensing of third party data.</p>

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

decision

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Amazon Fund) - decision

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Amazon Fund) - Other

petition

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Amazon Fund) - petition

complaint

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Amazon Fund) - complaint

reply

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Amazon Fund) - reply

Filing Year For Action

On June 5th, 2020, four political parties filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality for Omission (ADI-O), before the Federal Supreme Court (STF), challenging the Federal government's alleged failure to adopt administrative measures concerning the Amazon Fund.

The Amazon Fund, created by the Decree 6,527/08, has the objective of promoting projects that prevent or combat deforestation and finances actions for the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD +) mechanism, under the UNFCCC. The plaintiffs claim that the fund has not approved any project since 2019, although resources are available and projects are awaiting technical analysis. They further allege that between 2019 and 2020, important mechanisms that allowed the functioning and management of the Amazon Fund were extinguished, namely: the Technical Committee of the Amazon Fund (CTFA), responsible for calculating deforestation and the amount of carbon emitted, and the Steering Committee of the Amazon Fund (COFA), the Fund's governance body.

The plaintiffs rely on the common duty of the Federal Government, the States, the Federal District and the Municipalities to “protect the environment and fight pollution in any of its forms” and “to preserve forests, fauna and flora” per the Federal Constitution of 1988, as well as the precautionary principle. They also allege a violation of Article 225 of the Federal Constitution, regarding the State's duties to: preserve and restore ecological processes; promote the ecological management of ecosystems; define territorial spaces and its components to be specially protected; and protect fauna and flora. The petition also seeks an injunction to require that Federal Union take the necessary administrative measures to reactivate the operation of the Amazon Fund.

In June 2020 the Supreme Court admitted the lawsuit and requested the federal and state government actors involved to provide information related to: (i) the management and distribution of Fund resources; (ii) activities and projects linked to the Fund that have been implemented and suspended; (iii) data on the deforestation process observed in the Amazon region between 2013 and 2020; and (iv) contracts signed with international donors (Germany and Norway).

The Public Attorney’s Office (Advocacia-Geral da União, AGU), in the defense of the Federal Government, presented a response stating that the ADI-O would not be a suitable instrument “for demonstrating discontent or disagreement with the content of government actions”.

On June 26, 2020, the National Development Bank (BNDES), which manages the Amazon Fund, sent information about the resources and projects linked to it. Several NGOs were admitted as amicus curiae by Minister Rosa Weber. On October 23, 2020, Minister Rosa Weber held a public hearing to specify the arguments that underlie ADO 59, in addition to discussing the factual, statistical and normative contexts that permeate the protection and preservation of the Legal Amazon, through the Fund Amazon.

On March 18, 2022, the minister and president of the STF, Luiz Fux, admitted seven environmental cases on the agenda for March 30, 2022 (including two climate cases, this case and <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/brazilian-socialist-party-and-others-v-brazil/">ADPF760</a>). This move by the STF is considered  historical, and was called the "green agenda." On November 3, 2022, the STF determined that the federal government shall, within 60 days, adopt all of the administrative tasks necessary to reactivate the Amazon Fund. The court decided that the decrees that altered the functioning of the Fund and interrupted the funding of new projects were unconstitutional. The court further found that the unilateral extinction of the committee without creating a substituting body was an omission in the government's duty to protect the Amazon rainforest. 

On August 16, 2023, the Brazilian Supreme Court published the ruling of the case, partially granting the claim. As states, the court, by a majority, following the vote of Reporting Justice Rosa Weber, ordered the Federal Government to take measures to reactivate the Amazon Fund, within sixty days, and to refrain from engaging in omissive conduct that would paralyze the Fund's operation. The decrees that altered the Fund's governance and prevented the financing of new projects were declared unconstitutional, and the previous model is to be resumed. The paralysis of the Amazon Fund was considered an unconstitutional omission by the federal government and an offense to the principle of non-regression. The ruling emphasized that environmental preservation, especially in the Amazon, is an obligation imposed by the Federal Constitution and various international regulations to which the government is legally bound, reducing the space for administrative discretion. It was stated that there is an unconstitutional state of affairs in the Legal Amazon and a destructive and unstructured regulatory state in environmental matters in the region.

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Amazon Fund)

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives

Terrestrial means "of the earth" and relates to the risks to ecological system that includes all living organisms and their interactions within land-based environments, such as forests, grasslands, and deserts.

Slow onset events evolve gradually from incremental changes over many years or from increased frequency or intensity of recurring events. As defined in the Cancun Adaptation Framework (2010), slow onset events include risks and impacts from rising temperatures, desertification, biodiversity loss, land and forest degradation, glacial retreat, ocean acidification, sea level rise, and salinization.

Any compulsory, unrequited payment to the government levied on corporations or individuals. This can be for environmental reasons, such as introducing a Carbon tax to set a price that emitters must pay for the greenhouse gases they emit.

Either money or something of monetary value is transferred between two or more organisations, people or countries.

Conditions that enhance the feasibility of adaptation options. Enabling conditions include finance, technological innovation, strengthening policy instruments, institutional capacity, multi-level governance and changes in human behaviour and lifestyles.

Financial actors and resources that are primarily directed towards climate change mitigation, adaptation and compensation.

Dedicated pool of financial resources for climate-related projects.

A company that is owned wholly or partially by the state, typically operating in key sectors.

Activities of businesses and institutions that provide financial services and products to individuals and organisations.

Activities of government agencies and institutions that provide public services, enforce laws and manage public resources.

The release of heat-trapping gases, primarily from human activities such as burning fossil fuels, agriculture and industry.

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Amazon Fund) - points of claim

Policy instrument

Risk

Impacted group

Greenhouse gas

Economic sector

Adaptation/resilience

Finance