Pará

Brazil

Tocantins

Mato Grosso

Paraíba

Acre

Pernambuco

Alagoas

Piauí

Amazonas

Paraná

Amapá

Rio de Janeiro

Bahia

Rio Grande do Norte

Ceará

Rondônia

Distrito Federal

Roraima

Espírito Santo

Rio Grande do Sul

Goiás

Santa Catarina

Maranhão

Sergipe

Minas Gerais

São Paulo

Mato Grosso do Sul

In June 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Federal Government, the State of Pará, and Companhia de Ativos Ambientais e Participações do Pará S.A. (CAAP) in defense of the interests of traditional peoples and communities, due to the signing of an international Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreement (ERPA). The ERPA agreement was signed in 2024 between the State of Pará, represented by Companhia de Ativos Ambientais e Participações do Pará S.A. (CAAPP) and the LEAF Coalition, composed of the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, the Republic of Korea, and large global corporations, for the sale of carbon credits or verified emission reductions through the jurisdictional REDD+ system in Pará, which is still under construction. It is alleged that the contract is illegal and null and void in its conception, as it contains provisions contrary to the provisions of the Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System Law - SBCE (Federal Law 15.042/2024); it was signed without free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected indigenous and traditional communities; and it interferes with the process of building the jurisdictional REDD+ system in Pará, also to the detriment of these communities.

The MPF requested as an injuction (i) the immediate suspension of the effects of the Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreement; (ii) the temporary suspension of the State of Pará's eligibility for access to payments under the REDD+ system until the REDD+ Jurisdictional System is approved and brought into line with the SBCE Law; and (iii) that the Federal Government refrain from authorizing the direct participation of the State of Pará before the international certifier ART-TREES, as long as the Jurisdictional System does not comply with the SBCE Law. As final requests, MPF requests (i) confirmation of the injunction; (ii) declaration of nullity of the ERPA contract; (iii) that the Union revoke CONAREDD+ Resolution 10/2022, removing the eligibility of the state of Pará to receive REDD+ payments until the system is adapted to the SBCE Law; (iv) that the Federal Government refrain from granting a letter of authorization for Pará's direct participation before an international certifier if its jurisdictional system does not comply with the SBCE Law; and (v) that Pará be ordered to pay collective moral damages of R$200,000,000.00.

The court denied the injunction because the arguments presented by the plaintiff were generic and abstract and did not justify granting the preliminary injunction; furthermore, the interests of traditional peoples and communities were protected by the provisions of the contract.

In June 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief against the Union and the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) due to the auction of the 5th Permanent Concession Offer Cycle (OPC) to be held on June 17, 2025. It is argued that the auction should be suspended, particularly in sensitive areas related to the 47 blocks located in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth. The region is home to important ecosystems, including mangroves, reefs, and conservation units, and is the territory of several Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples. The MPF maintains that the auction cannot take place until the following have been carried out before the bidding and concessions: climate impact study; environmental assessment of sedimentary area (AAAS); studies of Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples and communities. Furthermore, free, prior, and informed consent from these individuals must be obtained during the planning phase of the projects, which, despite being required by several national and international regulations, has not yet been implemented. The MPF highlights the challenges of environmental licensing in the Amazon River mouth, discussing previous experiences of licenses being denied by IBAMA for carrying out the activity in the area due to the persistence of technical environmental problems without solutions being presented by the developers. It emphasizes that the same problems will occur in new licensing requests that may arise from the implementation of the new supply cycle, which threatens Brazil's commitment to preserving Amazonian sociobiodiversity. The plaintiff highlights the increase in global temperatures and stresses that the main cause of the problem is the burning of fossil fuels. The claim is that Brazil’s decision to expand oil exploration runs counter to global decarbonization efforts and undermines the country’s credibility as a relevant player in the international climate agenda, especially considering that it is the host of COP 30. Furthermore, the decision contradicts the emissions reduction targets that Brazil has assumed in its second NDC. In this context, considering the duty of environmental and climate transparency that falls on the public administration and the importance of considering scope 3 emissions in fossil fuel projects, it is necessary to carry out a climate impact study for the Amazonas River mouth region; otherwise, there will be a violation of the Brazilian legal system and scientific imperatives, given the climate crisis. As an injunction, the MPF requests that the auction be immediately suspended or, as a subsidiary measure, the withdrawal of the 47 blocks located in the Amazon River mouth Sedimentary Basin until the following are carried out: (i) a climate impact study; (ii) an environmental assessment of the sedimentary area (AAAS); (iii) studies of Indigenous, quilombola and traditional peoples and communities; (iv) prior, free and informed consent of the traditional peoples and communities of the coastal region of the mouth of the Amazon after the required studies have been carried out. As final remedies, the MPF requests confirmation of the injunction and the declaration of nullity of the auction and concession contracts, if they are formalized without the studies and consultations required in the action. Due to the auction, the MPF filed a request for an amendment to the initial claim. It requested that IBAMA be included as a defendant, which was subsequently granted by the court. The MPF reported that nineteen exploration blocks in the Amazonas River mouth were auctioned and, given the arguments already presented in the initial claim, it requests, as a provisional relief, (i) an immediate prohibition on the performance of the administrative acts of awarding and approval of the final result of the bidding process until the studies and consultations already requested are carried out; (ii) a prohibition on the initiation of any environmental licensing process for the blocks in the Amazon River mouth that were auctioned until the final judgment of the lawsuit; (iii) a prohibition on the inclusion of blocks located in the Amazon River mouth sedimentary basin in new OPC auctions until the final judgment of the lawsuit. On the merits, it requests the declaration of nullity of the auction and the concession contracts.


On September 12, 2024, the Federal Environment Agency Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against Sandra Mara Silveira, the late Pedro Cordeiro's estates, Marcio Natalino Piovesan Cordeiro, Adrielle Silveira Piovezan and Davi Silveira Piovazan for illegal deforestation. Compensation is being sought exclusively for climate damage related to environmental offenses committed in an area of 7,075 hectares, comprised of three farms overlapping the Jamanxin National Forest. 

The plaintiff maintains that the case does not deal with the recovery of the degraded area or compensation for material damage and collective moral damage, which are already the subject of a lawsuit filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. The area had already been subject to several infraction notices, embargoes, and interdiction notices issued by IBAMA and ICMBio. The plaintiff claims that the climate damage results from illegal acts of deforestation, fires, the use of herbicides, the introduction of exotic species, the destruction of permanent preservation areas, and the prevention of regeneration of native vegetation to raise cattle in the federal public domain area. These actions are responsible for the illegitimate emission of greenhouse gasses (GHG), causing climate damage. In addition, keeping cattle aggravates the climate damage within the National Forest, considering the methane emitted. Based on the polluter pays principle, ICMBio claims that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost not internalized by the activity of illegally suppressing vegetation, translated into the social cost of carbon (SCC). It argues that the compensation for climate damage can be quantified by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC cost used by the OECD. ICMBio considers that the offenses were committed in specially protected territorial space, aggravating the environmental damage. It, therefore, requests a 50 percent increase in the value of the SCC, resulting in a quantum to be compensated of R$210,842,782.50. The plaintiff requests as an injunction (i) the immediate eviction from the area; (ii) a ban on exploitation of the area; (iii) the suspension of tax incentives and benefits and access to credit lines; (ii) the unavailability of assets in the amount estimated for the obligation to pay compensation for climate damage, and (iii) the unavailability of cattle in the area. It affirms the need to reverse the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to pay the amount of the social cost of carbon.

In February 2025, the defendants filed their defenses. Adrielle Mara Silveira, argued that the imputation stems exclusively from her family relationship with Sandra Mara Silveira - also a party to the lawsuit - without there being any demonstration of a causal link between her actions and the damage pointed out. The validity of the carbon pricing calculations presented by the plaintiff was also contested, due to the lack of a legal basis, recognized official parameters and adequate methodological support. Finally, she requested that the claims be dismissed, because there was no minimum proof of the authorship and materiality of the conduct attributed. Sandra Mara Silveira argued that the initial claim was generic and imprecise, as it did not specify the conduct attributed to the defendant, nor the amounts corresponding to the liability it sought to impose, and that the validity of the carbon pricing calculations presented lacked a legal basis and official parameters to be recognized. On the merits, she denied authorship of the environmental and climate damage alleged due to lack of proof, stressing that the environmental impacts described are the result of actions carried out by third parties. She therefore requested that the action be dismissed.

Pará

Recent cases