Pará

Brazil

Minas Gerais

Mato Grosso do Sul

Mato Grosso

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

On July 8, 2026, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief, against the Union, the National Water and Basic Sanitation Agency (ANA), the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), the State of Pará, and the State of Mato Grosso. The suit was on the states’ omission in creating the Tapajós River Hydrographic Basin Committee, an instrument foreseen in the National Water Resources Policy to ensure decentralized, participatory and democratic water management. 

The MPF argues that, despite the provisions of the National Water Resources Policy (Law 9.433/1997) and the goals established in the Strategic Plan for Water Resources of the Right Bank of the Amazon (PERH-MDA), the Committee was never established, which constitutes an omission by the Public Authorities and compromises the implementation of the instruments of the National Water Resources Policy, makes it impossible for potentially affected communities to participate in decisions on water management, and jeopardizes the survival of traditional peoples. It is alleged that this omission violates the principles of popular participation, prevention, precaution, and environmental protection. The MPF highlights that the Tapajós River Basin has high environmental, social, and economic importance, encompassing indigenous lands, conservation units, and traditional communities, in addition to concentrating large projects such as hydroelectric plants, waterways, ports, and mining activities, which intensify socio-environmental conflicts. The MPF further argues that the absence of the Committee compromises the governance of water resources and integrated planning on measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It also hinders the adoption of coordinated measures to address extreme hydrological events, such as severe droughts, exacerbated by the climate crisis, and increases the vulnerability of traditional populations, as well as the impacts resulting from the expansion of mining, mercury contamination, dredging, and the installation of large projects without the adequate participation of indigenous populations and traditional communities, in violation of ILO Convention 169. It is argued that the MPF promoted recommendations, public hearings, and various administrative negotiations with the competent bodies, without concrete measures being adopted for the creation of the Committee, evidencing persistent state omission. 

In preliminary proceedings, the MPF requests: (i) the presentation, by the Union and ANA, of a work plan containing a schedule for the creation and installation of the Tapajós River Hydrographic Basin Committee, within the time frame set by the Court; (ii) if the obligation is not fulfilled, the suspension of the granting or renewal of water use permits and environmental licenses for medium and large-impact projects in the basin until the Committee is effectively established. On the merits, it is requested: (i) confirmation of the preliminary injunction; (ii) the defendants' conviction to create and definitively implement the Tapajós River Basin Committee in accordance with the relevant legislation; and (iii) the defendants' conviction to refrain from renewing or issuing new water use permits and operating licenses for medium and large-impact projects in the Tapajós River basin if the Committee is not duly installed and operational within one year of a court decision; (iv) the condemnation of the Union and ANA to pay collective moral damages in the amount of one million reais.

On January 23, 2026, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Pará (MPPA) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the State of Pará, with a request for urgent relief, aiming to ensure compliance with Resolution 215/2018 of the National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents (CONANDA) to incorporate its guidelines into the licensing processes in the state. The Resolution establishes parameters and actions for the protection of the rights of children and adolescents at risk of being affected by the context of works and projects, including the environmental licensing phase. 

The MPPA argues that it initiated a Civil Inquiry in which it verified the non-compliance by the State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability (SEMAS) of Pará. As an example, it demonstrates this non-compliance in the licensing of the Marituba Sanitary Landfill, where SEMAS justified that the licensing of the project preceded the Resolution, even though the corrective licensing occurred in 2020. The MPPA addresses the relationship between the implementation of the Resolution and the realization of the principle of climate justice, insofar as environmental impacts fall disproportionately on vulnerable groups. The MPPA also cites General Comment 26/2023 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the 2030 Agenda, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to support the intersection and integration between children's rights, policies, and environmental and climate protection. 

The MPPA requests, as an urgent measure, a diagnosis of the implementation stage of the Resolution's Parameters and the adoption of measures for its effective implementation, including the insertion of indicators in the Terms of Reference for licensing studies (EIA/EVTEA/EIV), the holding of specific public hearings with children and adolescents, and consultation with affected traditional peoples and communities. On the merits, the MPPA requests confirmation of the injunction.

In an interlocutory decision on February 6, 2026, Judge Aldinéia Maria Martins Barros partially granted the injunction and ordered the State of Pará to: prove the inclusion of child and adolescent protection indicators in the new Terms of Reference for licensing projects with significant environmental impact; present a diagnostic schedule for adapting ongoing licensing processes; and establish a methodology for qualified listening to children and adolescents in the impacted areas. The court also set a fine for non-compliance, to be allocated to the Municipal Fund for the Rights of Children and Adolescents of Marituba.

In its defense, the State of Pará denied any state omission, arguing that SEMAS (the State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability) already adopts mechanisms to protect children in the licensing process. It argues that the Resolution is a programmatic norm, without full effectiveness, that does not generate a legally enforceable subjective right. It invokes the principle of separation of powers and the need for judicial self-restraint in structural litigation, citing precedents from the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and international climate jurisprudence (Urgenda v. Netherlands, Neubauer v. Germany, and Juliana v. United States) to support the argument that courts should not replace the Executive Branch in defining technical instruments of public policy, even those sensitive to legitimate environmental and climate demands. It requests the revocation of the preliminary injunction, the acceptance of the preliminary objections, and, on the merits, the total dismissal of the action.

On March 29, 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a preliminary injunction proceeding against the National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT) and the State of Pará. Initially, Plaintiff sought the suspension of dredging in the Tapajós River, in the stretch located between the municipalities of Santarém and Itaituba. The activity had been authorized by the Pará State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability (Semas) through Authorization 5776/2025, without observing the legal requirements relating to environmental licensing and the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, quilombola communities, riverside communities, extractive communities, and other potentially affected traditional communities, including free, prior, and informed consultation (FPIC). It was alleged that the authorization was granted without an Environmental Impact Study (EIA/RIMA), without an assessment of the cumulative and synergistic impacts of the project, and without free, prior, and informed consultation. It was also alleged that there was a violation of the Federal Constitution, environmental legislation, and ILO Convention 169. 

The MPF mentioned that similar protection to that sought was granted in the case of ACP 1014317-12.2024.4.01.3902 (in Sabin Center’s Database as Federal Public Prosecutor's Office and INCRA vs. State of Pará and Municipality of Santarém (Tapajós-Xingu Logistics Corridor)). It highlighted that the licensing process should include an analysis of climate impacts, with an assessment of cumulative and synergistic effects and measures for mitigation, adaptation, and protection of carbon sinks. In addressing this issue, the MPF argued that climate justice must be considered and that the population of the Northern region, in general, experiences the effects of drought unequally and suffers more intensely from climate change, a finding framed within the concept of environmental racism. It was also argued that dredging is part of a set of interventions aimed at consolidating the Tapajós Waterway, whose socio-environmental impacts must be assessed in an integrated manner, especially given the increasing occurrence of extreme hydrological events in the Amazon region. 

In preliminary proceedings, the following was requested: (i) the suspension of the authorization for dredging and the prohibition of new interventions until the necessary environmental studies and prior consultation with the affected communities are carried out; and (ii) a requirement that the environmental licensing include a climate impact study and an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the project.

On May 8, 2025, a conciliation hearing was held between the parties, at which time the court denied the request for preliminary injunction and ordered the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office to amend the initial petition. Subsequently, the minutes of the hearing were rectified to clarify that the commitment made by the public authorities at the hearing was to inform the court, and not directly the communities, about any need for new emergency dredging, without prejudice to conducting a free, prior and informed consultation, if feasible in the specific case. The MPF filed an interlocutory appeal (AI) 1016216-77.2025.4.01.0000 against the decision.

The MPF amended the initial petition to file a Public Civil Action. It stated that the object of Environmental Authorization 5776/2025, the emergency dredging, was completed in March 2025, acknowledging the supervening loss of the object of the request to suspend that specific intervention. Therefore, the initial request for an order to perform an action was partially converted into a claim for damages, without prejudice to maintaining the other requests related to the environmental licensing of future dredging planned for the Tapajós Waterway, the prior consultation with traditional communities, and the preparation of the necessary environmental and climate studies. It is argued that the project produces impacts that extend beyond the directly dredged area and affect aquatic ecosystems, biodiversity, water quality, artisanal fishing, food security, and the way of life of local populations. The addendum also reports new elements, such as information from Funai (National Indian Foundation), the Navy, Ibama (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), and ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation), in addition to accounts from the affected communities, which would indicate the lack of a technical statement from Funai authorizing the adoption of a simplified procedure, the occurrence of irregular dredging, and the environmental risks resulting from the resuspension of sediments contaminated by mercury, impacts on biodiversity, and the food security of traditional populations. The MPF further argues that carrying out the dredging without environmental licensing, EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report), and prior consultation has already caused diffuse and collective damage to the environment and the affected communities and requests, among other things: (i) the granting of wide publicity to the process, in order to enable knowledge and participation by the impacted indigenous peoples and traditional communities and the holding of a public hearing; (ii) the condemnation of the defendants to pay compensation for collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 500,000,000.00, as well as the partial allocation of these resources to projects aimed at potentially impacted traditional communities.

The National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT) filed a rebuttal, arguing the legality of the emergency dredging carried out on the Tapajós River. It stated that the waterway licensing is part of the Annual Waterway Maintenance Dredging Plan (PADMA), an annual intervention program that executes dredging engineering works and services for waterway maintenance. It argues that, given the critical state of navigability on the Tapajós River and the lack of time to conduct a bidding process, emergency action was necessary to contract a company to perform the dredging and maintenance services. It claims that the licensing was carried out according to the Terms of Reference (TR) issued by Semas, which did not require an assessment of climate impacts, and is currently in the preparatory process for contracting a specialized company to conduct environmental studies and consult with traditional communities, as per the issued TR. DNIT argues that waterways are the most sustainable alternative for transportation, consuming less fuel and emitting fewer greenhouse gases, with dredging having a negligible effect on climate change. DNIT maintains the presumption of legitimacy of administrative acts and challenged the existence of collective moral damages, due to incompatibility with the idea of transindividual harm, as well as the amount sought as compensation. DNIT requests the dismissal of the preliminary injunction and the complete dismissal of the claims.

The State of Pará filed a defense arguing the legality and proportionality of Emergency Environmental Authorization 5776/2025, due to the water crisis affecting the Tapajós River. It maintains the material impossibility of carrying out the CPLI (Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment) in the emergency context, emphasizing that this requirement will be fully observed in the ordinary licensing of PADMA (Environmental Management Plan), already underway, in accordance with the Terms of Reference issued by Semas (State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability) requiring an EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report) and CPLI. It challenges the claim for compensation for collective moral damages, due to the lack of technical evidence of the damage and causal link, and highlights the formal commitment made in court to give prior notice of any new emergency dredging operations, therefore requesting the dismissal of the claims made by the MPF.

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.

Geography

Pará

Recent cases