Pará

Brazil

Santa Catarina

Amazonas

Sergipe

Amapá

São Paulo

Bahia

Tocantins

Ceará

Distrito Federal

Espírito Santo

Goiás

Maranhão

Minas Gerais

Mato Grosso do Sul

Mato Grosso

Paraíba

Pernambuco

Piauí

Paraná

Rio de Janeiro

Rio Grande do Norte

Rondônia

Roraima

Acre

Rio Grande do Sul

Alagoas

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 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.

On July 23rd 2025 CAAP filled its defense and argued for the legality of the contested contract. It stated that jurisdictional REDD+ credits are not considered civil proceeds, as they are generated from the environmental performance of state-level public policies and have no legal relationship with specific properties, a situation supported by provisions of Law 15.042/2024. It argued that the ERPA (Environmental Regularization Program) is a preliminary contract, defining commercial conditions and containing suspensive clauses, not a definitive contract for advance sale. It further argued that its implementation is conditional upon verification of the existence of the credits by an independent certifier and that the estimates of deforestation reduction included therein are based on official deforestation and degradation data from PRODES and DETER. According to current REDD+ legislation and Law 14.042/2024, the right of exclusion applies, preventing the double counting of carbon credits. This right grants individuals the power to express their desire to exclude their property from the jurisdictional REDD+ program by notifying CONAREDD+. Other current and potential carbon credit projects in Pará were also considered in the ERPA estimates. The sharing of benefits with interested traditional peoples and communities, as stipulated in the contract and in accordance with Law 15.042/2024, was discussed, and a Consultation Plan with Traditional Peoples and Communities, conducted by the Secretariat of Environment and Sustainability (SEMAS), is necessary for its implementation. It was argued that communities can express their support for private REDD+ projects or their opposition to benefit-sharing, having the right to opt out based on their expressed position. The defendant requested that the action be dismissed.

On July 30th 2025 the State of Pará filed its defense and ratified and adhered to the terms presented by CAAP in its defense. It added to its arguments that SEMAS structured a dialogued and transparent process with traditional peoples and communities, and that this process is integrated into the discussion of the benefit-sharing plan and the draft bill that institutionalizes the REDD+ Jurisdictional System in the state. It argued that, according to the Ministry of the Environment's guidelines, the benefit-sharing stage is the point at which consultation should be focused, as this is where decisions directly impact the territorial and cultural rights of communities. It argued that there is no basis for collective moral damages warranting compensation, as this would compromise the space for discretion and innovation in the conduct of subnational climate policies. It requested that the claims be dismissed.

On August 7th 2025 the Federal Union filed its defense and argued that it had not committed any irregularities. It pointed out that its role is to coordinate the National REDD+ Strategy (ENREDD+) and that the States eligible before the National REDD+ Commission (CONAREDD+) have autonomy to implement their jurisdictional REDD+ programs. Due to a statement from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, which emphasized that the disagreement discussed in the action was technical and not legal, it requested conciliation to resolve the conflict. If conciliation is not possible, it requested that the claims be dismissed.

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 1rst 2025 a decision was issued denying the request for provisional relief. The court acknowledges the relevance of the Public Prosecutor's Office's concerns regarding environmental and climate impacts, but understands that requiring a Climate Impact Study during the bidding phase would be premature and technically unfeasible, and should only occur during environmental licensing. It is highlighted that the bidding document for the 5th Permanent Concession Offer already includes clauses for emission mitigation and carbon reduction, and that the Environmental Assessment of Sedimentary Areas (AAAS), while desirable, is not mandatory before the auction, with a joint statement from the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) and the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) being sufficient, as validated by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in ADPFs 825 and 887. Regarding the prior consultation foreseen in ILO Convention 169, the Court noted that it did not perceive the presence of indigenous populations and traditional communities in the offered areas, and therefore there is no obligation to consult them.

In its defense, IBAMA argued preliminarily that the plaintiff lacked standing and was not a legitimate defendant, arguing that the agency did not participate in the bidding phase for the exploration blocks and only acts subsequently, in the environmental licensing process. It alleged that it is not within the agency's purview to require environmental studies or prior consultation with traditional communities before the licensing process begins. On the merits, it argued that the requests directed at IBAMA are improper and lack legal basis. Therefore, it requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice or, alternatively, the dismissal of the claims against the agency.

In its defense, the Federal Union preliminarily alleged the incompetence of the court of the Judicial Section of Pará, arguing the existence of a connection with another public civil action. It also argued the need to include the winning companies of the auction as passive co-litigants or, subsidiarily, their admission as assistants in the process. On the merits, it argued the legality of the auction of the 5th Permanent Offer of Concession and the absence of irregularities regarding the environmental studies and energy policy. It requested the acceptance of the preliminary objections or, alternatively, the total dismissal of the action.

In July, 2025, the Public Defender's Office of the State of Pará filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief against the state of Pará, the Pará State Institute for Forestry and Biodiversity Development (IDEFLOR-BIO), and the company Terra Meio Ambiente. The aim is to protect the right to land tenure and agricultural activities of the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes traditional community and other traditional riverside communities that make up the Belém Metropolitan Region Environmental Protection Area (APA Belém). It is alleged that these communities are being illegally impacted by the state's public works for the construction of Avenida Liberdade, known as Estrada da COP. It is alleged that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/RIMA) prepared by the company Terra Meio Ambiente indicated that the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes community would be impacted by the road construction, but failed to include preventive and mitigating measures to ensure land tenure and the community's agroextractive activities. It is alleged that the project's environmental permits were issued without due free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected communities, and that the ongoing construction work is affecting families' livelihoods. The Public Defender's Office points out that the communities suffered property damage, as their fundamental rights to housing, work, and food were violated. It also points out that the construction work caused environmental and climate damage, demonstrating the State of Pará's lack of concern for the ecologically balanced environment and social well-being of the area, despite promoting sustainability in light of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 30) taking place there. The Public Defender's Office found that the road construction resulted in the removal of six hectares of vegetation in the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes community, generating the emission of 2,235.03 tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere, resulting in R$63,251,349 in climate damages. Despite this, the licensing process lacks an emissions impact study or mitigation measures, as established in the National Policy on Climate Change, the State Policy on Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Paris Agreement. The request for provisional relief is (i) recognition of the residents' collective ownership; (ii) the obligation not to carry out the works until there has been prior, free, and informed consultation with the community, in accordance with ILO Convention 169; and (iii) the submission of a plan for the land regularization of the area held by the communities by the State of Pará and IDEFLOR-BIO within 30 days. The following are requested, in a definitive manner: (i) confirmation of the requests made in provisional relief; (ii) the order that the State of Pará pay the losses and damages and lost profits generated by the families of the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes community; and (iii) the order that the State of Pará mitigate and repair climate damage through vegetation restoration and extractive projects in the affected community.

A partial judgment on the merits was issued, approving an agreement reached between the parties present at the mediation hearing. The agreement addresses the water supply in the Navegantes community (provisional measures, palliative solutions, and a definitive project), compensation (proposals and adhesion procedures), socio-environmental and occupational registration of families directly or indirectly affected by the project, as well as policies to mitigate river siltation.

Later included as a defendant, the Pará Land Institute (ITERPA) filed a defense alleging that it had not committed any irregularities against the community members and that it is not prudent for the Judiciary to issue decisions that delve into the merits of the administrative activity of the public authorities. For these reasons, it requested the rejection of the plaintiffs' claims, especially those of a land-related nature that seek recognition of possession and the completion of land regularization.

In August, 2025, the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for preliminary injunction, against Hotel Cop 30, Hotel Danúbio, Hotel Santa Clara, Cop 30 Hospedagem, Galeria Sempre Com Deus, Panorama Hotel, Pousada Da Didi, Marujus Cotijuba, Airbnb Plataforma Digital Ltda, and Booking.com Brasil Serviços de Reserva de Hotéis Ltda, due to the abusive and disproportionate increase in accommodation prices in Belém/PA during the period of the 30th UN Conference on Climate Change (COP-30), scheduled to take place in November 2025. The plaintiff argues that there was an increase of over 500% in the daily rates offered on digital platforms and local establishments, constituting an abusive practice contrary to the economic and social purpose of property. The plaintiff alleges that the exorbitant prices threaten to exclude delegations from developing countries, highly vulnerable consumers, traditional peoples, social movements, and civil society organizations, all of which are fundamental actors in discussions on climate justice and energy transition. This, they argue, would lead to the event's elitization and risk the transfer of COP-30 to another city or country, thereby affecting Brazil's international image and the conference's credibility. In an urgent injunction, the plaintiff requests the immediate suspension of offers and reservations for accommodations with prices exceeding the average price of the last 12 months and the establishment of a provisional price ceiling based on 2024 values adjusted for inflation. On the merits, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the price limitation; double reimbursement of amounts paid above the established parameter; and the joint and several liability of the defendants to pay R$ 1 million for collective moral damages (to be allocated to the Fund for the Defense of Diffuse Rights); an order for the defendant hotel and accommodation companies to reverse the increases applied and maintain the price applied in 2024 for the same period, adjusted by the official inflation index, or IPCA or IGP-M or another official adjustment index; and the condemnation of the Airbnb and Booking.com platforms to establish a ceiling on the price of accommodation, considering the average charged by advertisers and the historical average price.

A decision was issued denying the preliminary injunction request, based on the genericity, imprecision, and unenforceability of the proposed criterion of "average of the last 12 months" to serve as the basis for an immediate enforcement court order. It was highlighted that judicial price limits, without concrete and uniform data, could generate legal uncertainty and a "reverse periculum in mora," with a reduction in the supply of accommodation and an artificial shortage of beds during the event, exacerbating the problem instead of solving it.

The case involves several companies as defendants, and the defendants have filed responses refuting the arguments presented in the initial complaint without addressing the climate issue and requesting, among other things, that the action be dismissed without prejudice.

Geography

Pará

Recent cases