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

Acre

Roraima

Alagoas

Rio Grande do Sul

Amazonas

Santa Catarina

Amapá

Sergipe

Bahia

São Paulo

Ceará

Tocantins

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 August 2026, the Institute of Collective Law (IDC) filed a Public Civil Action against the Edifício Galeria Limited Liability Real Estate Investment Fund and its administrator, BTG Pactual Serviços Financeiros S/A DTVM, due to the alleged lack of adequate assessment, management, and disclosure of climate risks associated with the fund's real estate asset. The fund is a "brick-and-mortar" type fund and its assets are entirely tied to a physical asset, the Edifício Galeria, a commercial building located at Rua da Quitanda, nº 86, in the Center of Rio de Janeiro/RJ, situated in an area identified as having high exposure to climate risks. 

The IDC argues that the property is exposed to significant climate risks, especially floods, extreme temperatures, landslides, and forest fires, capable of affecting its physical integrity, functionality, and economic value, as well as rental income and shareholder returns. It alleges that, although the fund discloses other types of risks to investors, it does not present specific information on climate or environmental risks, nor has it published the asset valuation report, a circumstance considered especially serious given the existence of 3,750 unit holders, of which 3,727 are individuals. It further argues that climate risks constitute material financial risks and that Real Estate Investment Funds must incorporate them into their management and provide clear and sufficient information to investors to allow for adequately informed decisions. 

Therefore, the IDC requests: (i) the presentation and publication of an asset valuation report containing a detailed analysis of the aspects capable of affecting its value, including physical and transitional climate risks; (ii) the organization and periodic disclosure of the identified climate risks and the methodologies used for their assessment and management; and (iii) the development and implementation, by the administrator, of a Formal Policy for the Management and Disclosure of Climate Risks for the fund. IDC vs. Edifício Galeria Responsabilidade Limitada and BTG Pactual (Real Estate Investment Fund and Climate Risks) (Brazil, Rio de Janeiro State Court)

On July 8, 2026, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief, against the Union, the National Water and Basic Sanitation Agency (ANA), the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), the State of Pará, and the State of Mato Grosso. The suit was on the states’ omission in creating the Tapajós River Hydrographic Basin Committee, an instrument foreseen in the National Water Resources Policy to ensure decentralized, participatory and democratic water management. 

The MPF argues that, despite the provisions of the National Water Resources Policy (Law 9.433/1997) and the goals established in the Strategic Plan for Water Resources of the Right Bank of the Amazon (PERH-MDA), the Committee was never established, which constitutes an omission by the Public Authorities and compromises the implementation of the instruments of the National Water Resources Policy, makes it impossible for potentially affected communities to participate in decisions on water management, and jeopardizes the survival of traditional peoples. It is alleged that this omission violates the principles of popular participation, prevention, precaution, and environmental protection. The MPF highlights that the Tapajós River Basin has high environmental, social, and economic importance, encompassing indigenous lands, conservation units, and traditional communities, in addition to concentrating large projects such as hydroelectric plants, waterways, ports, and mining activities, which intensify socio-environmental conflicts. The MPF further argues that the absence of the Committee compromises the governance of water resources and integrated planning on measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It also hinders the adoption of coordinated measures to address extreme hydrological events, such as severe droughts, exacerbated by the climate crisis, and increases the vulnerability of traditional populations, as well as the impacts resulting from the expansion of mining, mercury contamination, dredging, and the installation of large projects without the adequate participation of indigenous populations and traditional communities, in violation of ILO Convention 169. It is argued that the MPF promoted recommendations, public hearings, and various administrative negotiations with the competent bodies, without concrete measures being adopted for the creation of the Committee, evidencing persistent state omission. 

In preliminary proceedings, the MPF requests: (i) the presentation, by the Union and ANA, of a work plan containing a schedule for the creation and installation of the Tapajós River Hydrographic Basin Committee, within the time frame set by the Court; (ii) if the obligation is not fulfilled, the suspension of the granting or renewal of water use permits and environmental licenses for medium and large-impact projects in the basin until the Committee is effectively established. On the merits, it is requested: (i) confirmation of the preliminary injunction; (ii) the defendants' conviction to create and definitively implement the Tapajós River Basin Committee in accordance with the relevant legislation; and (iii) the defendants' conviction to refrain from renewing or issuing new water use permits and operating licenses for medium and large-impact projects in the Tapajós River basin if the Committee is not duly installed and operational within one year of a court decision; (iv) the condemnation of the Union and ANA to pay collective moral damages in the amount of one million reais.

On June 17, 2026, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Rondônia (MPRO) filed a Public Civil Action against Marli Matos de Oliveira, Angelica de Oliveira Quintino, and Luis Paulo Gonçalves Carvalho, regarding the deforestation of 1,271.535 hectares of native vegetation in the Amazon biome—equivalent to approximately 1,700 soccer fields—in three contiguous rural lots of Seringal Assunção, in the rural area of Machadinho D'Oeste (RO). The deforestation allegedly took place between 2020 and 2023. 

It is alleged that, according to civil investigations initiated within the scope of IBAMA's "Operation Remote Control – P4," Defendants would be jointly and severally liable for the deforestation of native vegetation in the area in question. Respectively, deforestation of 407,708 hectares was evidenced in lot 5; 427,908 hectares in lot 7; and 435,919 hectares in lot 8. It should be noted that the process of destroying native vegetation through clear-cutting and continuous polygons, without any environmental authorization, over several years, and with the subsequent preparation of the land for agricultural activities, exposes a deliberately organized activity aimed at transforming land use, seeking to enable the productive exploitation of illegally deforested areas. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that, in accordance with the principle of full environmental reparation, the guidelines of the National Council of the Public Prosecutor's Office (CNMP), the valuation guide of the Brazilian Association of Members of the Public Prosecutor's Office for the Environment (ABRAMPA), and the methodology of the Special Environmental Action Group (GAEMA/MPRO), the multiple dimensions and implications of the observed damage must be considered—that is, not only the main, interim, and residual damage, but also (i) the collective moral environmental damage, due to the violation of fundamental principles, especially the diffuse right to an ecologically balanced environment, and (ii) the autonomous climate damage, due to the climatic impact of CO2 release and the decrease in the natural capacity for CO2 sequestration in the area. For the measurement and quantification of climate damage, based on an opinion from the Technical Analysis Center of the MPRO (Public Prosecutor's Office of Rondônia), the value of US$ 5 per ton of CO2 released is adopted, with an average stock of 550.5 tons of CO2 per hectare of Amazon rainforest. The three rural properties caused significant autonomous climate damage, estimated at US$ 3,499,695.34 and R$ 17,498,476.69. The material environmental damage was estimated at R$ 75,756,708.60. 

Therefore, Plaintiffs requests, as a preliminary measure, the freezing of the defendants' assets, the cessation of any use or exploitation of the areas, and the maintenance of the IBAMA embargoes; and on the merits, their joint and several liability for environmental recovery obligations (PRAD), under penalty of equivalent compensation, and the payment of compensation for the various dimensions of environmental damage, including climate damage, totaling R$ 93,255,185.29.

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.

Geography

Brazil

Recent cases