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

Rio Grande do Sul

Alagoas

Santa Catarina

Amazonas

Brazil

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 May 2026, the Attorney General of the State of Rio de Janeiro filed a Representation of Unconstitutionality (RI) before the Court of Justice with the objective of declaring the unconstitutionality of Municipal Complementary Law 281/2025, subsequently amended by Complementary Law 291/2025, both from the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro. The law promotes changes and flexibilities in the urban and building parameters established by the Master Plan, instituting a broad exceptional regime for the regularization, licensing, and expansion of buildings through the payment of financial compensation to the Municipality. The legislative changes allow the legalization of irregular constructions, the addition of sidewalks, horizontal and vertical expansion of buildings, the enclosure of balconies, and changes in real estate uses. 

According to the Public Prosecutor's Office, the legislation promotes structural changes in municipal urban policy without observing the constitutional limits applicable to territorial planning and without conducting studies that demonstrate the environmental and urban carrying capacity of the municipal territory, transforming exceptional regularization mechanisms into permanent instruments for expanding the city's construction potential. It pointed out that these mechanisms are operationalized through digital self-declaration procedures and impact assessments without sufficient technical guarantees. This scenario is aggravated by the inadequate regulation of the Neighborhood Impact Study and Report at the municipal level, which compromises the prior assessment of urban impacts and the observance of the principles of precaution, the social function of the city, and the democratic management of the territory. The public prosecutor argues that the law violates several provisions of the Constitution of the State of Rio de Janeiro related to the social function of the city and property, sustainable urban planning and development, popular participation, the protection of cultural heritage, the right to an ecologically balanced environment, and the guideline for reducing socio-environmental vulnerabilities.

It highlights how Technical Information from the Specialized Technical Support Group (GATE/MPRJ) indicates that the expansion of construction potential resulting from vertical and horizontal additions may cause damage to the urban landscape, increase soil impermeability, intensify the risk of flooding, and overload the drainage infrastructure, especially in areas already classified as having a high degree of climate vulnerability. It emphasizes that the flexibilities promoted by LC 281/2025 affect areas already subject to significant environmental and climate vulnerabilities, notably risks of flooding and the formation of urban heat islands, and highlights that the changes may contribute to increased local temperatures and the worsening of urban thermal discomfort. It concludes that such changes are incompatible with the Sustainable Development and Climate Action Plan of the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro, contradict guidelines aimed at protecting the landscape, addressing climate change, and preserving the natural and cultural values of the city, and violate the precautionary duty established in Advisory Opinion 23/2017 (OC-23/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). As a preliminary measure, it requests the suspension of the effects of the challenged regulation and, on the merits, a judgment declaring the regulation unconstitutional.


In April 2026, the Climate Observatory (Observatório do Clima) filed a Public Civil Action against the National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT), due to the attempted execution of reconstruction and paving works on the so-called "middle section" of the BR-319/AM highway without the completion of the regular environmental licensing process conducted by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources). 

The controversy arose after DNIT unilaterally classified the interventions as mere "maintenance and improvement services" of a previously existing highway, based on Article 8, item VII, of Framework Law on Environmental Licensing (Law No. 15.190/2025), a provision that exempts certain infrastructure works from environmental licensing. Based on this understanding, Electronic Bidding Processes No. 90127, 90128, 90129 and 90130/2026 were published for contracting the works. 

The Observatório do Clima argues that the framework established by DNIT (National Department of Transport Infrastructure) is incompatible with the size and environmental impacts of the project, since the BR-319 highway crosses an area of high ecological sensitivity in the Amazon and has a history of requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) itself. The action highlights that the paving of the highway tends to intensify deforestation, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land grabbing, irregular occupation, and loss of biodiversity, which is why the exemption from environmental licensing would constitute a violation of Article 225 of the Federal Constitution and the principles of prevention and environmental precaution. Therefore, it requests, primarily as an urgent measure and subsequently on the merits: (i) the annulment of Electronic Bidding Processes No. 90127, 90128, 90129 and 90130/2026, as well as related administrative acts; (ii) the determination that DNIT refrain from carrying out any reconstruction and paving works on BR-319 until the full completion of the environmental licensing process with IBAMA; and (iii) the immediate suspension of the bidding processes and all acts resulting from them.

In an interlocutory decision from April 2026, the 7th Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judicial Section of Amazonas recognized the relevance of the controversy and the urgency of the situation. The court emphasized that the BR-319 highway is a project historically considered to have a significant environmental impact and that environmental licensing is an essential instrument for transparency and control of the project's socio-environmental impacts. Furthermore, it was considered that the requirements for granting partial urgent relief were present, especially given the proximity of the bidding sessions and the possibility of consolidating administrative contracts involving approximately R$ 678 million. It was considered that the documents presented demonstrated relevant evidence of incompatibility between the magnitude of the works and their classification as simple road maintenance. Therefore, the injunction was partially granted to suspend the effects of Electronic Bidding Processes No. 90127, 90128, 90129 and 90130/2026 and related administrative acts until further analysis of the controversy after a statement from DNIT and the competent environmental agencies.

A decision was issued by the Presidency of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region in response to a request for Suspension of Preliminary Injunction and Judgment filed by DNIT (National Department of Transport Infrastructure) and the Union, in an action related to the maintenance works on the BR highway. The Presidency of the TRF1 understood that the requirements for suspending the first-instance decision that ordered the halting of electronic auctions for highway maintenance were present, recognizing potential harm to administrative public order, the public economy, public safety, and public health. The decision also admitted the Union as a co-litigant assistant to DNIT and reinstated the regular processing of the bidding processes, maintaining the suspension of the effects of the preliminary injunction until the final judgment of the original public civil action.


In April, 2026, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Rio de Janeiro (MPRJ) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief against the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro to regulate the assessment of climate impacts and require climate diagnostic studies in environmental licensing processes, and to demand mitigation and compensation measures in projects that cause significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the city. The plaintiff argues that recurring extreme weather events place the fight against climate change at the center of the state's duties of environmental protection and that the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro, in Article 25 of Municipal Law 5.248/2011—which establishes the Municipal Policy on Climate Change and Sustainable Development—stipulates that environmental licenses for projects with significant GHG emissions will be linked to the presentation of an emissions mitigation plan and compensation measures. It is argued that despite this provision, the application of this rule is nonexistent, constituting an administrative omission, which hinders the proper assessment of impacts and the effectiveness of the municipal climate policy. 

The complaint alleges that, in September 2024, the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rio de Janeiro (MPRJ) issued Recommendation No. 02/2024 to the city's mayor, requesting, among other measures, the enactment of a regulatory act implementing Article 25 of Municipal Law 5.248/2011 within 90 days. In March 2025, a Technical Opinion from the Municipal Attorney General's Office concluded that the aforementioned article should be regulated by law and not by decree. It is argued that this opinion suggested the creation of a Working Group to discuss the issue, with the consequent formulation of a legislative proposal to be submitted to the City Council; however, up to the date of writing the initial petition, the MPRJ was unaware of the creation of the group. 

It is noteworthy that the city of Rio de Janeiro ranks 8th among the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting municipalities in Brazil, with significant emissions from the waste, energy, and industrial processes sectors, all of which are subject to environmental licensing. It is also important to highlight that, between 2023 and 2025, there were significant local impacts of climate change from events such as intense rainfall, flash floods, and inundations, demonstrating that climate stability is inseparable from the protection of life and the well-being of the population. It is no coincidence that the city of Rio de Janeiro, through Municipal Law 7.315/2022, recognized the state of global climate emergency as a factor threatening humanity. 

Additionally, the complaint argues that international jurisprudence recognizes a stable climate as a fundamental human right, and Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (PC-32/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) recognized global warming as a violation of human rights. Finally, it argues that the requirement for emissions diagnostics/reporting must meet minimum technical criteria to ensure that the potential climate impacts of a given project are truly known and addressed in environmental licensing processes. As such, it requests that Article 25 be regulated as an urgent measure within a period not exceeding 120 days. This would make the granting and renewal of environmental licenses for projects with significant GHG emissions contingent on the presentation of an emissions mitigation plan and compensation measures, duly preceded by climate studies that ensure the identification and measurement of the impacts of activities and projects, the analysis of locational and technological alternatives, and the adoption of mitigation and compensation measures in all phases of the licensing process. It is further requested that, should the 120-day period pass without regulation, the Municipality begin requiring projects with significant GHG emissions to present an emissions mitigation plan and compensation measures duly preceded by climate studies in the licensing or renewal process. On the merits, confirmation of the requests made in the preliminary injunction is requested, making them definitive.


Geography

Brazil

Recent cases