Pará

Brazil

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

Minas Gerais

Mato Grosso do Sul

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 October 22, 2025, the NGOs Observatório do Clima, Greenpeace Brazil, WWF Brazil, Arayara Institute of Education and Culture, National Commission for the Strengthening of Extractive Reserves and Coastal Marine Extractive Peoples (CONFREM), Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon (COIAB), National Coordination of Articulation of Rural Quilombola Black Communities of Amapá (CONAQ-AP), and the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, against IBAMA, Petrobras, and the Federal Government. The objective is to suspend and subsequently annul the Operating License (LO) 1,684/2025 for the Offshore Drilling Activity in Block FZA-M-59, located at the mouth of the Amazon River, due to technical weaknesses and irreparable flaws in the environmental licensing process. The request aims to determine that the environmental agency IBAMA refrain from issuing environmental licenses for oil projects without a complete assessment of their environmental viability, both in the Amazon River mouth basin and in other basins of the Equatorial Margin. It argues for the need to assess climate impacts and the direct and indirect impacts of the activity, with the provision of complete data on direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from current and already contracted oil production in the country, and verification of the compatibility between Brazilian climate emission reduction targets and the carrying capacity of the climate system for the project's emissions. It is pointed out that Block FZA-M-59 is located in an area of notorious environmental sensitivity and vulnerability to oil spills, near mangroves and coastal dunes and the Great Amazon Reef System, ecosystems whose preservation is fundamental to mitigating the current climate emergency scenario. In addition, an Environmental Assessment of the Sedimentary Area (AAAS) of the region where the block is located has never been carried out to evaluate the socio-environmental attributes of the region and define its suitability for oil exploration. Another argument raised concerns the lack of updated and complete studies on the oceanographic composition of the region, especially its hydrodynamic base, which has strong and unpredictable currents and high levels of sediment brought by the Amazon River – a factor that was ignored in the licensing process and is directly related to oil sinking and reef impact – exacerbating the flaws in the oil dispersion model and making an efficient response to a spill accident impossible. On this point, it is also highlighted, from an adaptation perspective, that the studies ignored the growing vulnerability of the Amazon River mouth to the impacts of climate change, such as extreme events, and the licensing process should assess both how the oil exploration project will exacerbate the climate crisis and how the exacerbation of this crisis itself will increase the operational and environmental risks of the project. The plaintiffs emphasized that the necessary Indigenous and Quilombola Component Studies were not carried out, nor was there free, prior and informed consultation with the Indigenous peoples, Quilombola and traditional communities affected by the project. They also argued that IBAMA's stance in authorizing the operating license is contrary to socio-environmental interests and the technical assessment of its own employees and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, which have repeatedly recommended its rejection. They alleged that the licensing process was based on intense and incessant political influence. Furthermore, the advisory opinions published by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice on the duties of States in the context of climate change were highlighted. The plaintiffs requested, as a preliminary injunction, the suspension of the effects of Operating License 1.684/2025 to prevent and/or halt any and all drilling activity in Block FZA-M-59. On the merits, they requested: (i) the annulment of the LO due to the flaws and technical deficiencies of the EIA-RIMA and the environmental licensing process; (ii) that IBAMA refrain from issuing environmental licenses for oil projects in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth and in other basins of the Equatorial Margin without first attesting to the complete environmental viability of the project (including considering direct and indirect climate damage, as well as the relationship of the project with Brazilian climate goals) and without having carried out free, prior, informed and good-faith consultation with the affected populations and traditional communities.

In an interlocutory decision, the court requested, among other things, that the plaintiffs amend the initial complaint to: (i) recalculate or justify the value of the case, considering that the initial value of R$ 100,000 would not be compatible with any potential economic benefit obtained from the success of the claims, namely "preventing oil exploration in the disputed location"; (ii) rule on the relationship between this action and cases 1054900-56.2025.4.01.3400, 1016097-83.2025.4.01.3600, 1016098-68.2025.4.01.3600, 1024508-88.2025.4.01.3900 and 102769252.2025.4.01.3900; (iii) demonstrate the passive legitimacy of the Union and Petrobras as defendants, since the requests contained in the initial petition are obligations to do and not to do directed exclusively to IBAMA.

In an addendum to the initial petition, the plaintiffs stated that there was no identity of claims, causes of action, or parties between the present action and the proceedings highlighted by the court. They emphasized that while the other actions were related exclusively to the initial phase of the project, still during the auction period for exploratory wells, the present action focuses on the annulment of Operating License 1,684/2025 and on preventing IBAMA from issuing new licenses for oil projects in the Amazon River mouth region and other areas of the Equatorial Margin, without duly assessing their environmental viability, evidently considering the parameters and requirements demonstrated in the initial petition. They amended the value of the case to R$ 1,413,777.19, corresponding to the cost of issuing the Operating License, plus the amount of R$ 100,000.00 attributed to the request for abstention from issuing new licenses and estimated according to the usual values for the preparation of socio-environmental studies in licensing processes. Regarding the passive legitimacy of the Union and Petrobras, they argued that Petrobras is the recipient of the operating license whose annulment is the subject of this action, and the Union is the owner of the oil, natural gas, and other fluid hydrocarbon deposits existing in the national territory, and the case concerns possible environmental damage in territorial waters, a matter also within the Union's jurisdiction.

In its defense, Petrobras argued that the Environmental Impact Study conducted for the drilling activity in Block FZA-M-59 was sufficient to predict the socio-environmental impacts that could be caused by the project, stating that it could adequately respond in the event of an oil spill accident. It raised preliminary procedural issues that would lead to the dismissal of the action without prejudice. Regarding the assessment of climate impacts and risks, it argued that the offshore drilling in Block FZA-M59 does not generate greenhouse gas emissions, as it only aims to confirm the presence of oil or gas in the region and, therefore, would not require a climate impact assessment. It argued that not every project must necessarily include this variable in its licensing and that, given the licensing process for multiple blocks in the region, the burden of carrying out these studies could not be placed on a single operator in the environmental licensing of a single exploratory well. After the possible discovery of reserves in the region, the assessment and characterization of emissions could be included in the respective EIA-RIMA and separate licensing processes, if technically justifiable. The company defended its corporate stance on climate change, affirming its commitment to a cost-effective energy transition aligned with Brazil's NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution), reconciling responsible oil and gas production with increasing investments in low-carbon solutions, balancing energy security, economic development, social justice, technological innovation, and climate responsibility. Regarding the socio-environmental sensitivity of the region, its concern for its preservation was highlighted, manifested by the existence of specific programs for the protection of marine and terrestrial biota and supported by the Regional Environmental Study of the Amazon River Mouth Basin (EACR-FZA), whose broad scope encompasses hydrodynamic, meteorological, and oceanographic aspects, as well as particular aspects of the region, such as the freshwater plume of the Amazon River. It was argued that the activity would not cause direct impacts on indigenous communities and traditional peoples, only indirect and temporary impacts, but that, even so, they had been consulted adequately and in accordance with ILO Convention 169. It was emphasized that IBAMA and ANP have repeatedly affirmed the socio-environmental viability of the operation, as well as Petrobras' operational safety in conducting the exploration and responding to accidents and emergencies. Therefore, it argued for the acceptance of the preliminary objections or, alternatively, for the denial of the urgent relief and the total dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.

In parallel to the appeal discussions on the injunction, in the first instance IBAMA  presented a defense alleging that the preliminary license was not issued contrary to technical guidelines; rather, some conditions were excluded due to the understanding that it was not the project proponent's responsibility to execute them. The agency argued that, even with the exclusion of some conditions, environmental and territorial governance is necessary. Regarding the accusation of a lack of climate studies, IBAMA reported that it had focused on technical analyses of topics directly related to climate issues, namely deforestation, land use change, and project adaptation to climatic situations and events. Concerning consultation with indigenous peoples, it was argued that these measures fell within the purview of FUNAI (National Foundation of Indigenous Peoples). The Indigenous Component of the Environmental Impact Studies was completed and deemed suitable for presentation to the indigenous peoples, was approved by the affected communities, and finally, FUNAI issued its approval for the preliminary license. Therefore, IBAMA argued that the preliminary license was issued regularly. The environmental agency further stated that for territorial purposes, the presumed direct impacts of highways in the Legal Amazon are those that can be felt within a radius of 40 kilometers. It also emphasized that the new General Environmental Licensing Law 15.190/2025 changed this to 15 km. Therefore, it asserted that it acted cautiously within existing regulatory parameters and requested that the initial claims be dismissed.

In its defense, DNIT alleged the plaintiff's lack of standing, arguing that environmental protection is not among its institutional objectives, and also claimed that the chosen legal avenue was inappropriate. DNIT defended the legality of the preliminary license issued by IBAMA and argued that the various lawsuits challenging the BR-319 preliminary license should be consolidated to avoid lis pendens (pending litigation). Regarding the issue of consulting indigenous peoples, it stated that FUNAI agreed to the licensing after the presentation and approval of the Indigenous Component Study by the affected communities. Concerning the climate issue, it argued that the climate impact does not directly result from the construction or the technology employed in the project, but from a potential increase in illegal deforestation associated with failures in governance and environmental oversight. In this sense, it argued that environmental licensing cannot be expected to compensate for the structural deficiencies of the agencies responsible for deforestation control policies. It further stated that the paving of BR-319 is important for mobility, access to public services, cargo transportation, and the socioeconomic development of the Amazon region. Therefore, it requested that all claims in the initial petition be dismissed.

In its defense, the Federal Union also alleged the plaintiff's lack of standing and the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue, considering that the action seeks solely to annul an administrative act. The Federal Union defended the validity of the administrative act and argued that the BR-319 highway was inaugurated in the 1970s, and therefore it is not a matter of opening a new highway, but the revitalization of an existing one. It stated that the Preliminary License (LP) was issued with the consent of all competent bodies, including FUNAI, ICMBio, INCRA, and IPHAN. It further argued that the Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) considered the environmental and climatic impacts of the project at various points, providing for conditions and mitigating measures. Thus, it requested that the lack of standing and the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue be recognized and, on the merits, that the claims be dismissed.

In its defense, IBAMA argued that the actions taken in the environmental licensing process were legal, maintaining that Operating License 1,684/2025 was granted based on technical assessments, environmental studies, and prevention and mitigation measures deemed adequate by the licensing body. It argued that the demands made by the plaintiffs are not supported by the regulatory framework applicable to the project and requested that the claims be dismissed, as well as the production of all evidence admissible under law.

In a decision regarding the request for urgent relief, the Court denied the suspension of Operating License 1,684/2025 and drilling activities in Block FZA-M-59. The decision acknowledged that the plaintiffs raised controversies related to the project's climate impacts, the sufficiency of environmental studies, and the need for prior consultation with traditional peoples and communities, but understood that such issues require in-depth analysis of the merits. The magistrate highlighted that the licensing was preceded by extensive technical evaluation by IBAMA, including the approval of the Pre-Operational Assessment (APO) and the Individual Emergency Plan (PEI), applying the principle of deference to the institutional capacities of specialized environmental agencies. Given the absence of manifest illegality and the requirements for granting the measure, the request for urgent relief was denied.

A judgment was issued in August 2026 by Judge Anselmo Gonçalves da Silva.  The court dismissed the request for annulment of the operating license without prejudice, recognizing partial lis pendens with Public Civil Action 1009136-74.2025.4.01.3100, registered on the platform as “Federal Public Prosecutor's Office vs. IBAMA and Petrobras (Suspension of the Pre-Operational Assessment license in a block at the mouth of the Amazon River)” and that in that other process it had already been decided that the environmental licensing was carried out within a standard of legality. Regarding the request to prevent IBAMA from issuing new environmental licenses at the mouth of the Amazon River and on the Equatorial Margin without a complete assessment of environmental viability and without free, prior, and informed consultation with traditional communities, it deemed it unfounded, based on technical deference to specialized environmental agencies and the distinction between the exploration phase, the subject of the license under examination, and the production phase. The court concluded that IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) was not negligent, that it had already examined the GHG emissions and oil spill dispersion modeling of the operation, and that ILO Convention 169 should be applied to specific cases, not abstractly, and that it had already been certified that traditional communities would not suffer direct impacts from the project in question. Similarly, it dismissed the requests for the development of a Climate Change Program, a Mitigation Plan, and a Compensation Plan, the preparation of a GHG emissions inventory, and the creation of a new independent hydrodynamic model, arguing that IBAMA had already conducted all necessary analyses and that the requests were not admissible during the oil exploration phase. It dismissed the request for compensation for collective moral damages. It recognized the lawsuit as a climate dispute under CNJ Resolution 433/2021.

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.

The court recognized the connection between the present action and the Public Civil Action 1054900-56.2025.4.01.3400 (previous action, registered on the Platform as "Instituto Internacional Arayara de Educação e Cultura vs. ANP and the Federal Union (Auction of the 5th Cycle of Permanent Offer and assessment of climate impacts)"), and ordered that the case files be forwarded to the competent court of the 1st Federal Court of the Judicial Section of the Federal District.

Geography

Pará

Recent cases