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

Rio Grande do Sul

Alagoas

Santa Catarina

Amazonas

Sergipe

Amapá

São Paulo

Bahia

Tocantins

Ceará

Brazil

Restore and reforest 12 million hectares of forest by 2030

zero illegal emissions in from the Amazon by 2030

do not exceed 3,925 km sq. of deforestation by 2020

recovery of 15 million hectares of degraded pastures

40% reduction in annual deforestation rates in the Cerrado Biome in relation to the average of the period 1999-2008

80% reduction in annual deforestation rates in Amazon in relation to the average of the period 1996-2005

expansion of forest planting by 3 million hectares

expansion of biological nitrogen fixation in 5.5 million hectares of cultivated areas, replacing the use of nitrogen fertilizers

expansion of the practice of no-till straw by 8 million hectares

expansion of crop-livestock-forestry system by 4 million hectares

reduce projected 2020 CO2 emissions by 1,168-1,259 million tonnes

reduce projected emissions by 36.1-38.9% by 2020

Stop the net-loss of forest cover by 2015

Reduce CO2 emissions by an additional 21.8 million tonnes by 2020 compared to decree 7390/2010

Reduce CO2 emissions by 1.255bn tonnes according to decree 7390/2010

Reduce between 36.1% and 38.9% of its projected emissions by 2020 against a 2010 baseline

Maximum levels of energy consumption and energy efficiency for products built or sold in Brazil by N/A

Implementation of the National Policy for Energy Efficiency that will result in a gradual energy saving up to 106 TWh/year to be reached in 2030, avoiding emissions of around 30 million tons of CO2 in that year by 2030 against a 2007 baseline

Replacement of one million old fridges per year, for ten years, with the collection of three million tCO2eq/year of CFCs (gases that also deplete the ozone layer) by 2017 against a 2007 baseline

Reduction of non-technical losses in the electricity distribution at a rate of 1,000 GWh per year over the next ten years, which currently are around 22,000 GWh per year. This will represent a reduction in energy wastage of 400 GWh per year. On average, around 25% (100 GWh per year) of this energy will no longer be produced by thermo power plants.  by 2017 against a 2007 baseline

Preserving forests at the levels stipulated in the previous objective, double the area of forest plantation from 5.5 million ha to 11 million ha in 2020, of which two million ha with native species

The sustainable Forest Management Plan (PMFS) should present a geographically defined area destined to the absolute reserve, representative of managed forest ecosystems, equivalent to at least 5% (5%) of the total area granted for biodiversity conservation and evaluation and monitoring of the impacts of forest management .

By 2026, the total area with forest concessions of the Union shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total area of its public forests available for concession, except for located in national forests created pursuant to art. 17 of Law 9,985 of July 18, 2000.

Reduction of 40% in the average deforestation rate by 2006-2009 period in relation to the average rate of the ten years reference period used in the Amazon Fund (1996-2005). For each of the next two periods of four years, reach 30% of extra reduction, in relation to the previous period.     In the case of the Amazon bioma, achieving this specific objective can avoid emissions of around 4.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide between 2006 and 2017, considering a biomass carbon stock of 100 tC/ha. This value will be revaluated after the completion of the carbon stocks inventory, to be supported by the National Forest Inventory.  by 2006-2009 compared with a 1996-2005 scenario

Increase electricity supply from cogeneration, mainly from sugarcane bagasse, to 11.4% of the total supply in the country, in 2030, corresponding to 136 TWh by 2030 against a 2007 baseline

Energy from wind and sugarcane bagasse - Increasing the share of these sources in the electric matrix through specific auctions of renewable energy. More than 7,000 MW of renewable sources will be implemented by 2010 in accordance with the results of the Program of Incentives for Alternative Sources of Electric Energy - PROINFA and the auctions already carried out.

Biodiesel - ongoing studies to anticipate from 2013 to 2010 the obligation to add 5% to diesel by 2010 against a 2007 baseline

Encouragement of the use of water solar power heating systems, reducing electricity consumption in 2,200 GWh per year by 2015 against a 2007 baseline

34,460 MW from new hydropower plants to be added to the system in accordance with the schedule of works of the Ten Year Energy Plan (2007-2016)

Ethanol - encourages industry to achieve an average annual consumption increase of 11% by 2017. Produced from crops raised in areas de ned in the Sugarcane Zoning Program, currently being implemented, it should prevent the emission of 508 million tCO2 during the period.

Levels of biodiesel and biofuel from biomass in available fuels; biodiesel at 5% (law 11.097) and 8 to 10% (law 13.033) by 2010, 2017, 2018, 2019 against 2005, 2014, 2016 baselines

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 December, 2025, the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) and the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), accompanied by several expert entities, filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a request for a precautionary measure proposed with the objective of questioning the constitutionality of provisions of the new General Law on Environmental Licensing (Law 15.190/2025) and the law that provides for Special Environmental Licensing - LAE (Law 15.300/2025). The petitioners allege that Law 15.190/2025 weakens the legal system, affronting the normative environmental protection, achieved even through jurisprudence in the Supreme Federal Court, and brings about a panorama of environmental regression in a period marked by climate change. They claim that the content of the challenged norms deepens existing deficiencies in the licensing process, generating instability in the commitments assumed by the country in the socio-environmental and climate agendas. 

It is argued that some of the weakening objectives of the new laws are: (i) the control and oversight of activities that degrade the environment and climate; (ii) the exercise of the institutional powers of the National Environmental System (Sisnama) and public bodies that participate in environmental licensing in the protection of socio-environmental rights; (iii) the commitments made by the country in the socio-environmental and climate agendas; (iv) good business and financial practices; and (v) provisions related to the federal pact. 

The authors highlight several unconstitutional aspects present in the regulations. It is pointed out that the General Law promotes excessive delegation to states and municipalities through normative fragmentation and omission in terms of general rules. It is argued that the General Law establishes, in several points, open and excessive delegation for licensing to states, municipalities, and the Federal District, and does not mention CONAMA, which goes against the legal system of powers to legislate and to license. 

The General Law exempts potentially polluting or degrading activities and projects from environmental licensing, such as road paving, maintenance dredging, and agricultural activities. It also weakens the requirement for the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) for these activities, preventing federative entities from issuing regulations and rendering the principles of prevention, precaution, and the polluter-pays principle ineffective. This hinders environmental control, especially of agricultural activities, which are responsible for 28% of greenhouse gas emissions. 

It is argued that the General Law establishes too many hypotheses for granting the License by Adhesion and Commitment (LAC), with provisions applicable to subnational entities, including projects with medium polluting potential and the possibility of its use for corrective operating licenses. This establishes a self-licensing procedure without adequate environmental safety and control. The use of the LAC implies limitations on environmental conditions and a lack of assessment of the synergistic and cumulative effects of the projects. It is argued that the General Law improperly waives the requirement for certificates and permits such as the certificate of use and occupation of urban land, which deepens the risks to vulnerable areas under urban territorial planning, such as favelas, hillsides, and riverbanks, which may be affected by projects licensed without municipal approval, causing territorial conflicts, expulsion of communities, devaluation of properties, and favoring urban land grabbing, generating risks to public health and the environment and institutionalizing environmental racism. 

It is argued that the establishment of the Special Environmental License (LAE), which combines three phases of licensing into one for "strategic projects," constitutes a material unconstitutionality. Regarding energy projects, the General Law excessively simplifies the parameters for licensing and establishing conditions, which encourages environmentally and climatically critical practices, such as the opening of new frontiers for oil exploration and the deforestation of the Legal Amazon, preventing the country from meeting its targets under the Paris Agreement. It is argued that the General Law facilitates the regularization of irregularly installed enterprises through a Corrective Operating License (LOC) in the form of self-licensing. 

It also violates rights by restricting the participation of authorities involved in licensing and impact analysis of the interests they protect, such as public bodies responsible for (i) the protection of indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples and communities; (ii) the protection of historical and cultural heritage and public health; (iii) the protection of nature Conservation Units. The General Law reduces democratic participation in the licensing process by establishing a rule that hinders the holding of public hearings. It unduly reduces the socio-environmental responsibility of financial institutions, contradicting the objective and joint nature of civil liability in environmental matters. 

The lawsuit challenges the changes made by the General Law to the Law of the National System of Conservation Units - SNUC (Federal Law 9.985/2000), especially regarding the elimination of the requirement for authorization from the body responsible for the management of the Conservation Unit in the case of environmental licensing of projects that affect the protected area or its buffer zone, and the repeals in the Atlantic Forest Law (Federal Law 11.428/2006). 

The authors argue that an important factor ignored by the General Law in the face of climate change is the inclusion of the climate variable in licensing, with no mention even of the word "climate," which would represent a necessary step forward. It is argued that the lack of explicit mention of the mandatory climate analysis of activities and projects can lead to legal uncertainty and interpretations of the law that prevent the establishment of environmental conditions for mitigation and adaptation to climate change, which can affect the safety of the population and the very structure of the projects. Regarding this aspect, the authors mention the content of Advisory Opinion (OC) 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and the Advisory Opinion (OC) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 2025 on climate, which require protective measures by States to ensure climate protection and a balanced environment. The authors point out that several provisions of the General Law violate CONAMA Resolutions, the National Environmental Policy (Federal Law 6.938/1981), the National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law 12.187/2009), and Complementary Law 140/2011. Finally, they point to the violation of constitutional provisions and principles: ecologically balanced environment, prevention and precaution, prohibition of socio-environmental regression, polluter-pays principle, user-pays principle, administrative efficiency, participation, intergenerational equity, and absolute priority of the rights of children and adolescents.

Given the scenario described, the petitioners request the suspension of all the challenged provisions of Laws 15.190/2025 and 15.300/2025. As final requests, the petitioners seek a declaration of unconstitutionality of the articles of the laws specified in the initial petition and a determination of the interpretation in accordance with the Constitution of some of the articles of the General Licensing Law, such as articles 14, heading, items I to III, article 28, heading and §§1, 6 and 8; 29, items I to X and article 31, heading and sole paragraph, so that the issue of climate is considered.

In December, 2025, the political party Rede Sustentabilidade and the National Association of Municipal Environmental Agencies (ANAMMA) filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a request for a precautionary measure to challenge provisions of Federal Law 15.190/2025 (General Law on Environmental Licensing – LGLA). The plaintiffs allege its formal and material unconstitutionality, including violations of international commitments, such as the Paris Agreement. Regarding formal unconstitutionality, it is pointed out that the LGLA, through ordinary law, legislates on matters constitutionally reserved for complementary law and already regulated in Complementary Law 140/2011. Regarding material unconstitutionality, several violations of a series of constitutional environmental norms and principles are cited, such as the prohibition of insufficient protection, prevention and precaution, prohibition of environmental regression, polluter-pays principle, among others. Key changes include the creation of the Adhesion and Commitment License (LAC), which authorizes self-declaration licensing outside of inspection for medium-impact activities; the Special Environmental License (LAE), which simplifies licensing for projects of "relevant public and social interest"—an arbitrary criterion with unrestricted scope; and the decoupling of municipal urban planning from the licensing process. Also noteworthy is the reversal of the preventive logic within licensing, through the creation of "positive lists" where activities not included would be exempt from licensing, and the massive exemption from licensing for agricultural activities (the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Brazil), pre-existing infrastructure works, and water and sewage treatment plants. It emphasizes the limitation on the inclusion of conditions in environmental licenses, the exclusion of the mandatory inclusion of indirect impacts in the EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report), and changes in the environmental liability regime promoted by the General Environmental Law: it stipulates that corrective licensing extinguishes the punishability of the crime of operating without a license, in addition to exempting financiers from civil liability for environmental damages. It also addresses the weakening of protection for indigenous and quilombola peoples insofar as the LGLA (General Environmental Law) restricts the mandatory intervention of their protective bodies only to cases where their lands are formally demarcated or titled, and the weakening of protection for Conservation Units and the Atlantic Forest. Finally, it points out as materially unconstitutional the stipulation of absolute prevalence of the licensing body in the exercise of environmental police power, including over perpetrators of infractions and other instruments adopted by other environmental bodies of other federative entities, and the establishment of insufficient deadlines for the analysis of licensing processes. The petitioner requests, as a precautionary measure, the suspension of the effectiveness of all provisions of the LGLA challenged in the initial petition. On the merits, the petitioner requests the granting of the precautionary measure, the declaration of unconstitutionality of the articles indicated in the initial petition and, subsidiarily, the interpretation in accordance with the Constitution of article 14, §§ 1, 2 and 5, and articles 43, 44 and 65 of the LGLA.

In November 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office filed a Public Civil Action, with a request for preliminary injunction, against the Federal Government, the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), the State of Minas Gerais, the State of Bahia, the State Environmental Foundation (FEAM), the State Forestry Institute (IEF), the Minas Gerais Water Management Institute (IGAM), and the Institute of Environment and Water Resources (INEMA). Through the lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to enable the restructuring of these environmental agencies with regard to the mismatch between the development of economic activities in the region of the Grande Sertão Veredas National Park (PNGSV) and the protection of this federal conservation unit, whose extension covers areas of Minas Gerais and Bahia. 

Plaintiff argues that excessive water use for agricultural irrigation and deforestation around the PNGSV affect the water availability of the Cariranha River basin, further exacerbating the climate crisis. It argues that the defendant environmental agencies adopt outdated and non-integrated methodologies—disregarding seasonality, the effects of climate change, and changes in land use—both in relation to water-use permits and to the suppression of native vegetation. The complaint highlights the role of the veredas (wetlands) in the hydrodynamics of the Cerrado biome, acting as natural springs and regulators of the water regime. 

Plaintiff requests an injunction suspending the water resource permits and suppressing native vegetation until the criteria and procedures adopted by the competent environmental agencies are reviewed. On the merits, it requests: i) the recognition and definition of the structural problem consisting of the damage caused to the PNGSV (São Francisco River Basin National Park), in addition to the elaboration of a Regional Structural Plan in collaboration with the Regional Committee of the São Francisco River Basin; ii) measures to update and integrate environmental and water management; iii) incorporate climate assessment into the procedures for granting permits and authorizing vegetation suppression.

In March 2025, the National Confederation of General Insurance, Private Pension, Supplementary Health, and Capitalization Companies (CNseg) filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a request for injunctive relief, seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 56 of Federal Law 15,042/2024 (Brazilian Emissions Trading System Law). The challenged provision imposes on insurance companies, open supplementary pension entities, capitalization companies, and local reinsurers the mandatory purchase of carbon credits or shares in investment funds holding such assets, amounting to at least 0.5% per year of their technical reserves and provisions.

CNseg argues that the provision suffers from both formal and material constitutional defects, in that insurance companies cannot be subjected to a mandatory investment requirement under the terms set by a Complementary Law regulating the sector. It contends that the provision restricts freedom, free enterprise, and free competition, forcing insurers, despite not being the largest contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to purchase carbon credits, thereby imposing an excessive burden on them in the name of environmental protection.

Within this context, it is argued that carbon credits have uncertain real value, there is insufficient supply in the domestic market, and the obligation artificially creates demand, which could harm insurers and other companies interested in acquiring these assets.

As interim relief, CNseg requests the immediate suspension of Article 56. On the merits, it seeks a declaration of unconstitutionality, with retroactive effects (ex tunc), of Article 56 of Federal Law 15,042/2024.

Geography

Brazil

Recent cases