Minas Gerais

Brazil

Mato Grosso do Sul

Mato Grosso

Pará

Paraíba

Pernambuco

Piauí

Paraná

Rio de Janeiro

Rio Grande do Norte

Rondônia

Acre

Roraima

Alagoas

Rio Grande do Sul

Amazonas

Santa Catarina

Amapá

Sergipe

Bahia

São Paulo

Ceará

Tocantins

Distrito Federal

Espírito Santo

Goiás

Maranhão

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

In November 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office filed a Public Civil Action, with a request for preliminary injunction, against the Federal Government, the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), the State of Minas Gerais, the State of Bahia, the State Environmental Foundation (FEAM), the State Forestry Institute (IEF), the Minas Gerais Water Management Institute (IGAM), and the Institute of Environment and Water Resources (INEMA). Through the lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to enable the restructuring of these environmental agencies with regard to the mismatch between the development of economic activities in the region of the Grande Sertão Veredas National Park (PNGSV) and the protection of this federal conservation unit, whose extension covers areas of Minas Gerais and Bahia. 

Plaintiff argues that excessive water use for agricultural irrigation and deforestation around the PNGSV affect the water availability of the Cariranha River basin, further exacerbating the climate crisis. It argues that the defendant environmental agencies adopt outdated and non-integrated methodologies—disregarding seasonality, the effects of climate change, and changes in land use—both in relation to water-use permits and to the suppression of native vegetation. The complaint highlights the role of the veredas (wetlands) in the hydrodynamics of the Cerrado biome, acting as natural springs and regulators of the water regime. 

Plaintiff requests an injunction suspending the water resource permits and suppressing native vegetation until the criteria and procedures adopted by the competent environmental agencies are reviewed. On the merits, it requests: i) the recognition and definition of the structural problem consisting of the damage caused to the PNGSV (São Francisco River Basin National Park), in addition to the elaboration of a Regional Structural Plan in collaboration with the Regional Committee of the São Francisco River Basin; ii) measures to update and integrate environmental and water management; iii) incorporate climate assessment into the procedures for granting permits and authorizing vegetation suppression.

The court denied the request for urgent relief on the grounds that the case requires in-depth analysis and qualified technical expertise to determine the proportionality or appropriateness of the measures requested.

ICMBio filed a defense requesting its participation as a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, alongside the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. It argued that the park's management has invested in conducting studies to obtain the best possible information about the potential impacts on the area resulting from processes occurring in its surroundings, and that the agency has not acted in a way that would cause the "state of non-compliance" alleged in the initial complaint. It demonstrated its interest in regularizing the structural situation of the PNGSV and pointed out two further demands from the park's leadership for inclusion in the Regional Structural Plan: (i) preventing aerial spraying of agrochemicals within a 1 km radius of the PNGSV boundaries; and (ii) establishing Ecological Corridors to prevent the complete isolation of the National Park. He requested his transfer to the active party in the action and, subsidiarily, the establishment of a minimum period of 360 days for the presentation of a regional structural plan proposal that addresses the points discussed in the action, to be undertaken by all the defendant public entities, excluding the application of any penalties against the defendants.

The State of Minas Gerais, FEAM, IGAM, and IEF filed a rdefense arguing the legality of their actions. They argued that the Grande Sertão Veredas National Park is a federal conservation unit (UC) under the administration of ICMBio, the body responsible for establishing regulations for its surroundings and policies for the unit's preservation. The defendants' competence is limited to licensing and granting water resource permits, which are state-level jurisdictions, and they are not responsible for filling gaps in the management plans of federal UCs. They argue that the requests in the lawsuit violate the separation of federal powers. It is pointed out that the state of Minas Gerais has mechanisms for suspending or reviewing the use of water resources in situations of scarcity or reassessment of availability. A technical survey was conducted which indicated that there are no new regulated uses within the Park and that in its three-kilometer buffer zone, there are only 36 regular uses, most of which are insignificant use registrations aimed at small properties, which would refute the claim of lack of control in the granting of permits. Regarding the omission in the licensing regarding the impacts of climate change, they argued that the plaintiff was seeking to impose an obligation that does not exist in the legal system and that state regulations and the General Environmental Licensing Law (Law 15.190/2025) do not establish "the control of the climate variable or carbon emissions as a binding requirement for the granting of ordinary state licenses". They requested that the claims be dismissed.

ANA (National Water Agency) filed a defense arguing the regularity of its actions in accordance with legal precepts. It argued that requiring environmental impact assessments as a condition for issuing water use permits would constitute an undue expansion of its powers and that there was no legal impediment to granting permits in the area in question. It maintained that judicial intervention in the case could encroach upon ANA's regulatory competence and violate the separation of powers. It requested that the claims in the lawsuit be dismissed.

In June, 2025,  Mônica dos Santos and Mauro Marcos da Silva filed a Citizen Suit (APop) with a request for urgent relief against Samarco Mineração SA, the State of Minas Gerais, and the National Mining Agency (ANM), due to the granting of an environmental license to the so-called ""Long-Term Project,"" aimed at expanding mining activities in the Germano Complex, in the municipalities of Mariana and Ouro Preto/MG. It is argued that the project presents a high potential for harm to the environment and to the communities of Bento Rodrigues and Camargos, already affected by the collapse of the Fundão Dam in 2015. It is alleged that the Environmental Impact Study and Report (EIA/RIMA) contains flaws, notably the lack of adequate analysis of the risks arising from extreme weather events and climate change, as well as the provision for tailings dams near communities and the use of techniques considered outdated and unsafe. It is alleged that the environmental licensing process, conducted by the State Environmental Foundation (FEAM) and the State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainable Development (SEMAD), failed to observe the principles of prevention and precaution by not requiring more rigorous technical studies and safer technological alternatives. The plaintiff requests, as a preliminary measure, that the defendants be ordered to (a) refrain from authorizing the project i) with a structure for disposing of wet tailings in artificial reservoirs, ii) until an Environmental Impact Study is presented that includes safe areas respecting the attributes of the Iron-Bearing Aquifer Quadrilateral, iii) with the proposal to install waste and tailings piles near the communities of Bento Rodrigues and Camargo; (b) not grant an environmental license to the defendant Samarco SA until environmental impact studies are carried out that consider climate change and extreme events in areas affected by mining, applying the best techniques and alternatives. On the merits, it requests that the action be deemed admissible, confirming the requests made in the preliminary injunction, especially to create an obligation to refrain from granting an environmental license to the defendant Samarco SA, i) if the project does not use only the dry disposal technique for waste rock and tailings, ii) if an environmental impact study is not presented to implement a progressive landfill plan, iii) to prevent the installation of waste rock and tailings piles near the communities of Bento Rodrigues and Camargos, iv) if environmental impact studies are not carried out and presented that consider climate change and extreme events in relation to the safety of the communities.

In an interlocutory decision, the Court partially granted the injunction to suspend the effects of the environmental license granted to Samarco's ""Long-Term Project"" and ordered the halt of implementation actions until the presentation of complementary environmental studies, without, however, imposing specific techniques or immediately prohibiting certain structures foreseen in the project. In its decision, the court acknowledged that the absence of a specific analysis of future scenarios prevents the licensing body from determining whether the presented project is, in fact, the least harmful alternative in the context of an internationally recognized climate crisis, with express mention of Advisory Opinion (OC) 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

The National Mining Agency (ANM) filed a defense. It argued its lack of standing as a defendant, claiming that it does not have the legal authority to grant environmental licenses, which is the subject of the lawsuit. It stated that its competence is limited to authorizing the commencement or continuation of mining activities upon presentation of a valid environmental license by the developer. It argued that the "Long Term" project is duly authorized and approved by the ANM. It requests its exclusion from the lawsuit or, alternatively, a judgment dismissing the action.

On February 28, 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a public civil action (ACP) against the Federal Union, arguing that the federal entity is failing to allocate a portion of the revenue from fines for environmental infractions and crimes to the National Fund for Public Calamities, Protection and Civil Defense (FUNCAP), in violation of Law No. 12,340/2010. It was argued that this omission compromises the socio-environmental recovery of the areas affected by the collapses of the Fundão and Córrego do Feijão dams, as well as the implementation of public policies for disaster prevention and mitigation. Plaintiffs requested: (i) the granting of urgent relief to order the Union to remedy the omission in allocating resources to FUNCAP; (ii) the condemnation of the Union to the obligation to promote the regular allocation of a portion of the environmental fines to the aforementioned fund; (iii) the allocation of these resources to the recovery of affected soils, to support family farming and to the adoption of measures aimed at reducing the physical and social vulnerabilities of the affected communities.

The Union filed a response, alleging preliminarily that the initial petition was defective due to the lack of indication of the value of the case. On the merits, it argued that the allocation of environmental fines to FUNCAP is not an automatic legal obligation, stating that the definition of these resources depends on budgetary legislation and administrative and legislative discretion, for which reason it requested that the claims be dismissed.

On May 12, 2026, Judge Marcelo Aguiar Machado of the Minas Gerais Federal Court dismissed the MPF’s claims. It determined that the allocation of resources to FUNCAP falls within the budgetary discretion of the Executive and Legislative branches, and there is no basis for the Judiciary to impose the desired allocation.

On June 30, 2026, the MPF filed an appeal, arguing that the ruling confused discretion regarding the amount of resources with the legal duty to ensure the functioning of FUNCAP. It argued that the Federal Government has an obligation to allocate a reasonable portion of environmental fines to the fund in future budget laws and to regulate its operation. Furthermore, it expressly framed the controversy within the context of climate change, arguing that strengthening FUNCAP is essential to finance policies for prevention, adaptation, risk management, and response to extreme events, the frequency and intensity of which are being exacerbated by climate change. Plaintiff highlighted that, according to the terms defined by the Supreme Federal Court in PSB et al. v. Brazil (ADPF 708/DF), the international commitments to which Brazil is a signatory and which provide for the protection of an ecologically balanced environment are of paramount importance to the realization of human rights, which is why they are characterized as supralegal norms. Plaintiff further emphasized the understanding of the Supreme Court, recognizing the unconstitutional omission of the Federal Government in failing to allocate resources in the Budget Laws (LOAs) for the composition of the Climate Fund and the Amazon Fund. Plaintiff stressed that with regard to FUNCAP, the unconstitutional omission is even more serious than that relating to ADPF 708/DF because, while in relation to FUNCAP there was omission by both the Executive and Legislative branches, in the cases of the Climate Fund and the Amazon Fund, the Legislative branch exercised its powers to ensure the effectiveness of the environmental funds, with omission only on the part of the Executive branch. Finally, the MPF requested the complete reversal of the judgment and the granting of urgent appellate relief, ordering the Federal Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that future budget laws guarantee a reasonable portion of the financial resources derived from environmental fines for the composition of FUNCAP (Fund for the Control of Environmental Risks), in order to make the operation of FUNCAP fully viable for the implementation of public policies for risk management and disaster response, including in the context of the collapses of the Fundão and Córrego do Feijão dams. The MPF also requested that the Federal Government be compelled to implement the regulations stipulated in Law 12.340/2010, reducing its discretion in the management and transfer of financial resources that should comprise FUNCAP.

On February 7, 2022, Duda Salabert Rosa filed a preventive Citizen Suit with a request for a preliminary injunction against the state of Minas Gerais, Taquaril Mineração S/A and Vale S/A - later excluded from the parties - due to the omission to analyze the worsening of extreme weather events within the environmental licensing process of mining projects in the state of Minas Gerais. The plaintiff alleges that the exploitation of minerals in the state is being affected by extreme atmospheric phenomena, a situation neglected by the federative entity. It is pointed out that the negligence regarding the climate issue resulted in the flooding of the Downstream Containment Structure (ECJ) dam built by Vale S/A in the Municipality of São Sebastião das Águas Claras after heavy rains, flooding roads in the region, leaving the district without access to water, electricity, transportation, garbage removal and other essential services. The author indicates that the project was not preceded by an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or due environmental licensing. The plaintiff emphasizes that the company is unable to measure the impacts of a possible dam failure if the ECJ reservoir is overflowing with water and tailings. It is affirmed that it is therefore necessary to review the hydraulic modeling for this type of project through a corrective environmental licensing process. Still regarding Vale S/A, it is required the stoppage of the Apolo Project, since the studies presented in the scope of its environmental licensing processes would not have analyzed the influence of the intensification of extreme climatic events on the operation of the activity. The environmental licensing process for the Serra do Taquaril Mining Complex, managed by Mineração Taquaril S/A, is also to be halted, considering that the effects of climate change on the project have not been assessed. According to the EIA, due to the Complex, sediment containment basins will be built, which, if they break, will directly impact a water intake pipeline, affecting the supply of 70% of the local population. The plaintiff argues that the National Policy on Climate Change and the State Policy for Preventing and Combating Disasters Resulting from Heavy Rainfall should guide environmental licensing in the State of Minas Gerais, in order to include the climate variable in the procedure, following a decision issued by the 9th Federal Court of Porto Alegre, which determined the inclusion of climate guidelines in the Terms of Thermoelectric Power Plants in Rio Grande do Sul State. It is required that the environmental licensing of the Serra do Taquaril Complex and the Apolo Project must be suspended and the corrective licensing of the JTC must be immediately initiated.
In its reply, Vale S/A informed that the Apolo Project was at a preliminary stage, still under analysis by the competent environmental agency, so as not to represent danger to the environment. It informed that ECJ would already be going through a corrective licensing phase before the competent environmental agency, which is why there was no interest in acting by the plaintiff. It defended the existence of an impossible passive joinder of defendants, since there would be no relationship between the defendants or affinity between the requests made against each defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff requested an amendment to the initial application, in order to exclude Vale S/A from the defendant's position. In August 2022, a partial judgment was rendered that extinguished the claim against Vale S/A. Afterwards, the court dismissed the action, without resolution of the merits, for inadequacy of the chosen path. It was understood that the Citizen Suit is not an appropriate procedural means for the demand sought.

Geography

Minas Gerais

Recent cases