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 June, 2026, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) and the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of São Paulo (MPSP) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and Petróleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras), seeking the suspension and subsequent annulment of Preliminary License (LP) No. 672/2025, granted for the Production and Flow of Oil and Natural Gas from the Pre-Salt Pole of the Santos Basin – Stage 4. 

The plaintiffs start from the premise that the climate emergency is an undeniable reality and that its effects have already victimized and continue to affect millions of people, generate losses and damages, and have a tendency towards exponential escalation. They highlight scientific conclusions on the subject and the occurrence of several recurring extreme events influenced by climate change that have affected the country, as well as the possibility of exceeding the point of no return for natural systems. It is argued that the scenario can be addressed through measures that generate changes in production and consumption patterns by developing public policies and rigorously licensing the most impactful activities. The emission reduction commitments that Brazil made under the Paris Agreement and the Climate Plan are highlighted, as is the need to reduce the use of coal, oil, and natural gas to achieve the Agreement's goals. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the historical burning of fossil fuels is the central cause of the climate crisis, that current emissions would already exhaust the remaining carbon budget for meeting the Paris Agreement targets, and therefore, the exploitation of these fuels must be carried out in an environmentally responsible manner. Their impacts must be rigorously accounted for, evaluated, mitigated, and compensated. It is pointed out that the scenario of net-zero emissions by 2050 is incompatible with the opening of new fossil fuel extraction projects and that the energy sector is responsible for a large part of Brazil's emissions. 

Given this, the text discusses the need to consider climate impacts in the licensing of oil and gas activities. The authors argue that the Santos Basin project has significant impacts on the climate system and that its environmental viability was not adequately demonstrated in the licensing process, especially due to the insufficient consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and scope 3 emissions. They allege that Petrobras failed to comply with technical requirements formulated by IBAMA itself regarding climate monitoring, mitigation, compensation, and adaptation, as well as the demonstration of the project's compatibility with national and international climate goals. Furthermore, they argue that the issuance of the license violated due environmental legal process, the fundamental right to a stable climate, the principles of prevention and precaution, the polluter-pays principle, climate justice, and the rights of present and future generations. Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (PC-32/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and the 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate are cited in the legal basis. The petition requests, as an urgent measure, the suspension of the effects of the Preliminary License until the requirements made by IBAMA are met by the developer; or, subsidiarily, that IBAMA not issue an Installation License until these requirements are fully met. On the merits, the petition requests the annulment of the Preliminary License; the condemnation of IBAMA to a non-issue obligation, consisting of not issuing a new Preliminary License until compliance with all requirements is proven. Subsidiarily, it requests that IBAMA be condemned to a non-issue obligation consisting of not issuing an Installation License for the project in question until compliance with the requirements is proven.

On June 8th, 2026, the Institute of Collective Law (IDC) and the Association for Inclusive Sustainable Solutions (SIS) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief against the Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM), due to the issuance of CVM Resolution 244/2026, which revoked the mandatory disclosure of financial information related to sustainability previously provided for in CVM Resolution 193/2023. They argued that the previous rule was based on the scientific consensus that climate change already has concrete effects, including financial risks. In this context, the state adopted the ISSB/IFRS S1 and S2 standards for sustainability financial reporting by publicly traded companies, including greenhouse gas emissions inventories, identification of physical and transitional climate risks, mitigation strategies, climate-related corporate governance, and analysis of the financial impacts of climate change, with a transition regime with voluntary adherence in the fiscal years 2024 and 2025 and mandatory compliance from 2026 onwards. They plaintiffs argued that the regulatory change represents a serious regulatory and environmental setback, as it weakens access to essential information about the environmental, climate, and social risks associated with the activities of publicly traded companies, compromising the adequate pricing of these risks by the market and the ability of investors to direct capital to activities compatible with a resilient and low-carbon economy. They contend that the revocation of the mandatory requirements stipulated in the previous resolution occurred without adequate technical justification, without a regulatory impact analysis, and in contradiction to the previous opinion of the CVM's own technical area; which had recognized the relevance of the measure for market transparency, the management of climate risks, and Brazil's alignment with international best practices. The authors allege that the suppression of mandatory sustainability disclosure generates collective damage of a climate and informational nature, as it reduces the availability of reliable and comparable data on the impacts of business activities on the climate, increases informational asymmetry between companies and investors, favors greenwashing practices, and hinders the identification of companies more exposed to or prepared for the effects of climate change. They also argue that the measure violates Brazil's international commitments, such as those undertaken under the Paris Agreement and the Mercosur-European Union Partnership Agreement. Additionally, they claim that it also compromises the integrity of the capital market, penalizes companies that had already invested in implementing international sustainability standards, and weakens essential instruments for climate governance, such as the Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System (SBCE). Therefore, the plaintiffs request the granting of urgent relief to immediately suspend the effects of CVM Resolution 244/2026, restoring the mandatory reporting of sustainability information as provided for in CVM Resolution 193/2023. In the final relief they seek a declaration of nullity of CVM Resolution 244/2026, due to flaws in its motivation, procedure, and violation of the principles of environmental protection and legal certainty; or, subsidiarily, a declaration of its illegality and that the CVM be ordered to conduct a public consultation and Regulatory Impact Analysis on the effects of Resolution 244, with suspension of its effectiveness during this process.


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.


On May 8, 2026,  the Brazilian Association of Unions and Associations Representing the Energy Industries (ABRAENERGIAS) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief, filed by against the Federal Government, the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), the National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL), the Energy Research Company (EPE), and the National System Operator (ONS). The plaintiff argues that the Capacity Reserve Auctions in the form of Power (LRCAPs 2026) were structured in violation of the principles of legality, motivation, tariff moderation, administrative efficiency, and free competition, due to alleged irregularities in the definition of contracted power demand, the formation of ceiling prices, and the regulatory modeling of the auctions. They alleged that the auctions resulted in the contracting of an excessive volume of power, with the potential to generate billions in tariff impacts on consumers and favor market concentration in certain economic agents. They also argued that the adopted model favored the contracting of thermoelectric power plants fueled by fossil fuels, such as natural gas, coal, diesel oil, and fuel oil, to the detriment of less expensive and more environmentally sound technological alternatives. This in turn would contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions and the worsening of climate change, contradicting the energy transition and decarbonization commitments undertaken by the country. Therefore, they requested an urgent injunction to suspend the approval of the auction results and the signing of the respective Reserve Capacity Contracts (CRCAPs), as well as a declaration of nullity of the administrative and regulatory acts related to the LRCAPs 2026.

In a preliminary ruling, the Court denied the plaintiff's request for urgent relief, on the grounds that the controversy involves a matter of high technical and regulatory complexity related to the LRCAPs 2026, and that at that procedural stage, there were insufficient elements to rebut the presumption of legitimacy of the challenged administrative acts. It also highlighted that any suspension of the bidding processes could have significant systemic, regulatory, and operational impacts, recommending greater caution and prior input from the public entities before a thorough examination of the issue.

Geography

Brazil

Recent cases