Roraima

Brazil

Pará

Paraíba

Pernambuco

Piauí

Paraná

Rio de Janeiro

Rio Grande do Norte

Rondônia

Acre

Rio Grande do Sul

Alagoas

Santa Catarina

Amazonas

Sergipe

Amapá

São Paulo

Bahia

Tocantins

Ceará

Distrito Federal

Espírito Santo

Goiás

Maranhão

Minas Gerais

Mato Grosso do Sul

Mato Grosso

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 September 2024, Francisco dos Santos Sampaio filed a Popular Environmental Action (Ação Popular Ambiental - APop), along with a request for urgent relief, against the Fundação Estadual do Meio Ambiente e Recursos Hídricos (FEMARH, the Roraima State Environmental Agency) and Glicério Marcos Fernandes Pereira, who at the time was the president of the environmental agency. The lawsuit challenges the irregular hiring of a private company for the commercialization of carbon credits in conservation units in the Baixo Rio Branco region of Roraima. The plaintiff alleges the lack of public participation in the hiring process and, in particular, the absence of prior consultation with the traditional communities that inhabit the region and contribute to its preservation. It is further claimed that there was no proper benefit-sharing from the carbon credits generated, disregarding the rights of these populations. Other alleged irregularities include lack of transparency and favoritism in the bidding process, resulting in environmental and social harm. The lawsuit emphasizes that the actions in question violate administrative morality, the rights of local populations, and environmental balance. As part of the preliminary injunction, the plaintiff requests the immediate suspension of the contracts and activities resulting from the public call, to prevent irreversible damage. On the merits, the plaintiff seeks: (i) annulment of the contracts and the public call; (ii) conducting a new administrative procedure with the participation of traditional communities and the implementation of benefit-sharing mechanisms; and (iii) compensation for the environmental and social damages caused.

The case highlights the importance of adhering to principles of transparency, public participation, and respect for the rights of traditional communities in environmental and carbon credit projects.

A ruling was issued that dismissed the case without a judgment on the merits, due to FEMARH having administratively annulled the contracts because of legal defects.

On July 2025 a judgment was issued dismissing the action without prejudice, because FEMARH had administratively annulled the contracts due to legal irregularities. The decision became final and the case file was permanently archived.

On December 20, 2018, Brazil’s Federal Environment Agency (“IBAMA”), filed a public civil action (environmental class-action) against Madelin Madeireira Linhares Ltda. seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages based on an infringement notice for illegal wood storage without an environmental license. 

This public civil action is part of a set of 9 lawsuits brought by IBAMA on the same grounds, but against different defendants, to question illegal wood deposits and climate damage. 

The plaintiff alleges that the storage of wood without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. Thus, it seeks reparation for environmental damages provoked by it, including (i) the damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, (iii) contribution to global warming. As for the climate damage, it claims that the unlawful conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest, but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. 

The plaintiff seeks redress through the determination of (i) an obligation to restore the vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of logs seized, amounting to 43,2727 hectares, ideally in an area of the same biome in Indigenous Land, Conservation Unit or Agrarian Reform Settlement Project and (ii) an obligation to pay the climate damage based on the Carbon Social Cost (CSC) in the amount of R$ 2,871,489.47. It claims, based on the polluter pays principle, that the climate damage represents an external social cost that is not internalized by the illegal deforestation, leaving it to society. It also argues that climate damage can be quantified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions of the activity by the CSC. In this case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested, summing up to 15,881.0809 tons of carbon.

The plaintiff requests, as an injunction: (i) suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines by the offender, (ii) unavailability of assets in the estimated amount for the obligation of the vegetation restorage and the obligation to compensate the climate damage, and (iii) judicial restraint order of the illicit polluting activity. On the merits, it requests the defendant's conviction in the obligation to do - to recover an area equivalent to that deforested - and the obligation to pay - in the amount related to the social cost of carbon.

The defendant filed an opposition claiming the incompetence of the court, the active illegitimacy of IBAMA and the occurrence of lis pendens. On the merits, it argued the existence of an ongoing administrative proceeding, the failure to prove the causal link, the disagreement regarding IBAMA's calculation methods for identifying the volume of seized wood and collective environmental damage (CSC).

The Court ruled dismissing the action on the grounds of IBAMA's active illegitimacy. According to the decision, under the principle of predominance of interests in the distribution of environmental jurisdiction, there was no interest of the Union involved to give rise to IBAMA's action.

Subsequently, IBAMA filed an appeal defending its active legitimacy in view of the express legal provision. In its counter-appeal, the appellant company insisted on the arguments for dismissal of the appeal.

In November 2024, a ruling annulled the judgement and determined that IBAMA and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office have standing to file a public civil action for environmental damage. As a result, the case was sent back to the original court for regular processing.

Geography

Roraima

Recent cases