Rio Grande do Sul

Brazil

Sergipe

Amapá

São Paulo

Bahia

Tocantins

Ceará

Distrito Federal

Espírito Santo

Goiás

Maranhão

Minas Gerais

Mato Grosso do Sul

Mato Grosso

Pará

Paraíba

Pernambuco

Piauí

Paraná

Rio de Janeiro

Rio Grande do Norte

Rondônia

Roraima

Acre

Alagoas

Santa Catarina

Amazonas

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 May 2026, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for provisional relief against the Federal Government (Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture), the National Foundation for Indigenous Peoples (FUNAI), the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), the Henrique Roessler State Environmental Protection Foundation (FEPAM), and CMPC Celulose Riograndense Ltda., due to alleged irregularities in the environmental licensing process of the project called "Projeto Natureza." The project aims to implement a pulp and paper industrial complex and associated logistics structures in the municipality of Barra do Ribeiro/RS. The action seeks the suspension of the environmental licensing until the Prior, Free and Informed Consultation (CPLI) of the affected communities is carried out, the environmental studies are completed, and any administrative acts issued in violation of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and other environmental legislation are halted. 

The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) argues that the Environmental Impact Assessment and Report (EIA-RIMA) presented by CMPC contains omissions and methodological inconsistencies that prevent the adequate identification and measurement of the socio-environmental, territorial, and climatic impacts of the project on the Mbya Guarani and Kaingang indigenous peoples, quilombola communities, artisanal fishermen, and other traditional peoples and communities of the Guaíba Lake, Lagoa dos Patos, and Pampa Biome hydrographic basin. The plaintiff argues that disregarding the cumulative effects on the Pampa biome, water resources, and traditional territories compromises ecosystems relevant to regional climate balance, in addition to making invisible the disproportionate impacts borne by traditional peoples and communities. It emphasizes that these communities have special protection under the Federal Constitution and the mandates of Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (PC-32/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). It also raises arguments related to environmental and climate justice, arguing that Indigenous peoples, quilombola communities, and artisanal fishermen will bear the brunt of the environmental and territorial burdens of the project, without adequate participation in decision-making processes and without full access to the environmental information necessary for the exercise of self-determination. In summary, the preliminary injunction requests that environmental licensing be suspended until prior, free, and informed consultations are held; FEPAM refrain from issuing licenses without the conclusion of the consultations; CMPC cover the costs of consultation activities and independent technical assistance; that the conclusions of the consultations be linked to the institutional position of the competent public bodies; and the preparation of specific work plans and terms of reference for the Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples and communities components. 

On the merits, the request seeks confirmation of the preliminary injunctions; a declaration of nullity of any licenses issued without prior consultation; the cessation of the material activities of the Nature Project and the establishment of safeguards listed in the initial petition in relation to areas already cultivated or that will be used by the enterprise. It is requested that the Protocol for Judgment with a Racial Perspective of the National Council of Justice (CNJ) be observed in the analysis of the claim.


In July, 2025, the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture - Arayara Institute of Education for Sustainability filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed against Âmbar Sul Energia SA, the National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL), and the Federal Government due to alleged irregularities in the operation of the Candiota III Thermoelectric Power Plant (UTE), located in Candiota, Rio Grande do Sul, and owned by Âmbar Sul Energia SA. The aim is to suspend the UTE's activities and impose specific obligations on the operator and the public entities responsible for monitoring and granting its operation. The plaintiff highlights that, among other irregularities in the plant's environmental licensing process, there is repeated noncompliance with environmental conditions; and the current Operating License (LO) does not establish specific time limits for atmospheric emissions. The UTE also allegedly has several unpaid infraction notices issued against it. Furthermore, the report argues that the plant operates by burning low-quality coal, which exacerbates greenhouse gas emissions and makes it one of the largest GHG emitters in the Brazilian electricity system, contributing to acid rain, degrading air quality, and worsening the climate crisis. It highlights the occurrence of extreme weather events in the country, particularly the 2024 floods in Rio Grande do Sul, which are likely to worsen, arguing that mitigating GHG emissions is urgently needed to mitigate the effects of climate change. It argues that ANEEL has failed to monitor and control irregularities at the project. It argues that the UTE's operations must be halted due to repeated failure to comply with environmental obligations and also to reduce GHG emissions. As a preliminary injunction, it requests: (i) suspension of the plant's LO until all environmental conditions already established by the environmental agency and compliance with legal GHG emission standards are fully met; (ii) imposing a non-action obligation on ANEEL and the Federal Government to refrain from issuing a commercial operating authorization for the project until it complies with the legal requirements; (iii) imposing a non-action obligation on Âmbar to refrain from operating the project without a valid environmental license and all necessary regulatory authorizations; (iv) determining the existence of the action in the registration of the property where the project operates. In the final instance, confirmation of the same requests submitted in urgent relief is requested.

On September 3rd 2025 the Federal Union filed a defense, arguing its lack of standing and the inadequacy of the initial petition. It argued that environmental oversight, energy regulation, and mining oversight are the responsibility of distinct federal agencies, not the Union directly. The defense also argued for the mandatory joinder of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), questioned the validity of the class action lawsuit due to lack of assembly authorization, and refuted the automatic reversal of the burden of proof and the granting of urgent relief against the Union. On the merits, it requested that the claims against it be dismissed.

On September 16th 2025 Âmbar Sul Energia SA filed its defense and raised preliminary issues, such as lack of procedural interest, lack of standing to sue, lack of standing to be sued, and the need to include IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) as a defendant. On the merits, it argued that the alleged extensive history of infractions and misleading reports refers to the former operator and to projects that have already been discontinued, and that it does not violate environmental conditions, stating that the Candiota III Thermal Power Plant operates with a valid Operating License until 2026 and follows the regular environmental licensing procedure. It defended the role of thermal power plants in providing a stable supply to the national energy system and the central role of the Candiota III Thermal Power Plant in the state and national economy, and especially in the Municipality of Candiota and the Pampa Gaúcho region. It argued that the power plant has a continuous atmospheric emissions monitoring system (CEMS) and that there are technical studies proving that emissions and air quality between 2021 and 2024 are in compliance with regulatory standards and the operating license. It requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice or that the claims be dismissed as unfounded.

On September 29th 2025 ANEEL filed its defense and argued its lack of standing as a defendant, reiterating that the authorization for the power plant was issued by the Ministry of Mines and Energy and that the energy trading contracts, which would fall under its jurisdiction, ended in 2024. It maintained that environmental licensing and oversight are the exclusive responsibilities of environmental agencies, such as IBAMA, and that its role is limited to regulating the electricity sector and verifying whether the developer possesses valid environmental licenses, which would be the case for the Candiota III power plant. ANEEL also pointed to Arayara's lack of standing as a plaintiff due to the absence of the specific shareholders' meeting minutes authorizing the filing of the lawsuit, as legally required. It requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice or a judgment of total dismissal of the claims.

The Federal Union filed a response, arguing its lack of standing and the inadequacy of the initial petition. It argued that environmental oversight, energy regulation, and mining oversight are the responsibility of distinct federal agencies, not the Union directly. The defense also argued for the mandatory joinder of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), questioned the validity of the class action lawsuit due to lack of assembly authorization, and refuted the automatic reversal of the burden of proof and the granting of urgent relief against the Union. On the merits, it requested that the claims against it be dismissed.

As requested by the court, the plaintiff submitted an amendment to the initial complaint to include IBAMA as a defendant in the lawsuit, since the purpose of the lawsuit is to annul, suspend, or challenge administrative acts carried out by the agency.

In its defense, IBAMA argued that it monitors pollutant emissions from the Candiota III Thermal Power Plant and that, given the irregularities found, it thoroughly investigated the issues and adopted procedures to ensure appropriate sanctions. The agency attempted to demonstrate, through the history of fines issued against the company, the effective exercise of its environmental police power. It presented data showing that the sum of penalties in recent months exceeds R$1.3 million, demonstrating the effective adoption of sanctioning measures. It stated that the matter at issue is eminently technical in nature, involving the analysis of atmospheric emissions monitoring data with specific parameters; therefore, the administrative act is valid and in accordance with the technical routine of the competent authority. It argued that the suspension of the Operating License was impossible, since the judiciary does not re-evaluate the technical merit of the environmental agency's decision, but only executes legality in the strict sense. In the context of urgent relief, it requested the dismissal of the request to suspend the Operating License, given the legality of the licensing and the lack of proof of the severity of the damage. On the merits, it requested the dismissal of the claims against IBAMA because there was no omission on the part of the agency; on the contrary, it identified irregularities and is conducting the license renewal process regularly.

In 28 May, 2024, the Brazilian Association for Economic Freedom (ABLE) and the Institute of Law and Economics of Rio Grande do Sul (IDERS) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Federal Government following the floods that hit Rio Grande do Sul in April and May 2024. They argued that the climate disaster caused a humanitarian, social, and economic crisis that severely affected the productive sector of Rio Grande do Sul, and that the Federal Government has a constitutional and legal duty to act in prevention, response, and recovery in the face of public calamities. They alleged that the measures adopted by the federal government were insufficient, as they focused primarily on offering subsidized credit, financial guarantees, and postponement of obligations, rather than non-refundable resources capable of promoting the economic reconstruction of the state. No concrete measures were taken by the federal government despite a project comprised of reports which projected extreme increases in rainfall in the South of the country (titled "Brazil 2040: Scenarios and Alternatives for Adaptation to Climate Change,"). They ask for the implementation of a comprehensive financial support plan for the affected productive sector, with direct transfer of non-refundable resources, as well as the condemnation of the federal government to pay collective moral damages arising from its alleged responsibility for insufficient preparation and management of the calamity.

In an amendment to the initial petition, the legal basis for the claim was reinforced, especially regarding the Union's responsibility in the prevention, response, and recovery from disasters, based on Law No. 12.340/2010.

In June, 2024, the 1st Federal Court of Porto Alegre dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, recognizing the lack of standing of ABLE and IDERS. The court understood that there was not sufficient thematic relevance between the institutional objectives of the associations and the protection sought on behalf of the companies affected by the floods.

In their appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the lawsuit did not seek private compensation, but rather the implementation of a public economic policy aimed at rebuilding the productive sector of Rio Grande do Sul. They argued that the statutory purposes of ABLE and IDERS, related to the economic analysis of law, public policies, and economic freedoms, were sufficient to legitimize their actions.

The Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region dismissed the appeal filed by AMICROPOA – which requested to join the case as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiffs – due to a procedural representation defect, and denied the appeal filed by ABLE and IDERS. The court concluded that the institutional objectives of the associations were predominantly focused on teaching, research, academic production, and the promotion of debates on law and economics, and that there was insufficient thematic relevance to require the Union to implement a financial support plan for the productive sector, nor to claim collective moral damages, thus upholding the dismissal of the action.

On June 6, 2024, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Civil Public Action (CPA) with a request for an injunction against the Federal Government, the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) and nine municipalities in the Taquari Valley (RS) due to climatic events that occurred between September and November 2023 and April and May 2024. Subsequently, the National Association of Dam-Affected People (ANAB) was also allowed to join the lawsuit. 

The CPA is seeking for the recognition of governmental omission/inefficiency in the disasters that occurred, and the determination of structural measures for better coordination between the federal entities in the implementation of public policies for climate adaptation and disaster adaptation and response. It is claimed that the state of Rio Grande do Sul has been victimized by disasters, the frequency and intensity of which are increasing due to climate change. It is argued that the flooding in the municipalities of the Taquari Valley demonstrates the existence of flawed climate governance whose emergency response and prevention systems are inadequate for crises. In contrast, it is argued that effective management of extreme events requires coordinated action between the different sectoral policies and the federal, state and municipal levels of government intending to prevent new disasters and recover affected areas. Moreover, the predictability of the event and human action are stated as important elements in potentiating the disaster, giving rise to civil liability of the defendants for damages caused, without the possibility of invoking any exclusion of causality. It is mentioned that the action aims to guarantee climate justice, recognizing that extreme weather events have a more severe impact on vulnerable communities, which have contributed less to GHG emissions and have fewer resources to adapt and recover. 

Thus, it is stated that mitigation strategies must be implemented simultaneously with climate adaptation measures, a duty expressly established in Article 4 of the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC). It is argued that only with sustainable urban planning strategies, with the active participation of communities and based on the best techniques, will it be possible to build resilient solutions capable of reducing vulnerabilities to disasters. This requires structural and non-structural measures to control flooding and urban drainage systems, the revision of City Planning, the improvement of warning and hydrological control systems and the training of communities. Considering this panorama, the preliminary injunction requires compliance with a series of immediate measures listed in the initial petition to deal with the crisis. Medium and long-term measures are also listed, which are not exhaustive, to establish initial parameters for a joint solution to the issue with the other defendants. Thus, in the final instance, it is requested (i) that the defendants be ordered, with the active participation of the social groups affected, to draw up a restructuring plan, through incremental, successive and/or simultaneous measures, for the areas affected, with due regard for climate adaptation and resilience; (ii) that the form of participation of the groups affected be established; (iii) that a dynamic be established for monitoring the restructuring plan by a committee with representatives from segments of civil society and the government.

Geography

Rio Grande do Sul

Recent cases