DF Brazil
This is a Fundamental Precept Breach Action (ADPF), filed by four political parties with a request for precautionary measures. The purpose of the action was to reactivate the federal environmental sanctioning process, which, according to the plaintiffs, had been paralyzed by actions of the Federal Government. The parties alleged that the Executive Branch had been dismantling the national environmental protection system, which was reflected in the increase in deforestation and fires in the Amazon and the Pantanal, even affecting Indigenous lands. They also pointed to the paralysis of the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm) and the public delegitimization of official data by the President of the Republic. Specifically, they challenged Federal Decree 9.760/2019, which introduced the conciliation stage into the environmental sanctioning process and made it more difficult to convert fines into environmental services.
According to the plaintiffs, this paralyzed the proceedings, as thousands of cases were left pending conciliation hearings while the statute of limitations continued to run. They argued that the conversion of fines, provided for in Federal Law 9.605/1998, was a fundamental instrument for Brazil's climate commitments under the Paris Agreement, and that the decree could not have modified the legal framework through a sub-legal act. In their preliminary injunction, they requested: a declaration of unconstitutionality of the decree and the resumption of the sanctioning process; alternatively, its interpretation in accordance with the Constitution; or, ultimately, the suspension of the statute of limitations until the hearings are held. They also requested oversight measures, the obligation of the Federal Government to present a plan for resuming the sanctioning system, and a prohibition on adopting new measures that would hinder its operation.
Minister Rosa Weber admitted the intervention of ABRAMPA and the Climate Observatory as amici curiae. In its statement, ABRAMPA reinforced the initial arguments, emphasizing the case's climate relevance, the socio-environmental damage caused by increased deforestation and its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, which contradicts international commitments undertaken by Brazil. The case was reassigned to Minister Luiz Fux, who concluded that the ADPF (Address of Forest Deforestation Proceedings) had become moot, as the regulatory framework had changed with the repeal of the challenged provisions. Consequently, he declared the proceedings extinguished without further analysis of the merits. In February 2024, the decision became final and the case was dismissed.
This case belongs to a group of strategic litigation cases known in Brazil as the “green package” (“Green Guide”).
During Jair Bolsonaro's administration, Brazil faced a systematic paralysis and dismantling of its national environmental protection system. Among the many negative effects of this process, the explosion of deforestation and fires in the Legal Amazon stands out. Brazil, responsible for the largest expanse of the world's most important rainforest, dismantled its environmental protection policy and relinquished control over Amazonian deforestation. As a consequence, in 2019 the country registered the largest percentage increase in devastation this century, with a 34% rise, reaching the highest rate since 2008, equivalent to 10,128 km² of deforested land. The Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm) had set a goal of reducing deforestation by 80% by 2020. According to data from the PRODES Project of the National Institute for Space Research (INPE)—the official source used by the government itself to measure deforestation—the most significant decrease occurred between 2004 and 2012, reaching an 83% reduction, demonstrating the effectiveness of the PPCDAm. Despite these positive results, the plan was discontinued during the Bolsonaro administration and replaced by the Plan for the Control of Illegal Deforestation and the Recovery of Native Vegetation 2020-2023. This new instrument, in contrast to its predecessor, was limited to a discursive document of approximately 20 pages, lacking concrete objectives, verifiable targets, and clear implementation mechanisms. The shift in approach revealed a setback in Brazilian environmental policy, which went from a robust plan, backed by results and internationally recognized as a model of environmental management, to a generic document lacking operational capacity. This directly contributed to the surge in devastation in the Amazon region, with serious consequences for biodiversity, Indigenous and traditional communities, and Brazil's compliance with the climate commitments it made under the Paris Agreement. In short, the dismantling of environmental protection policies by the Bolsonaro government drastically weakened the country's institutional capacity to address deforestation and fires, while jeopardizing the preservation of the Amazon and Brazil's strategic role in the fight against climate change.
- Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB)
- Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL)
- Workers' Party (PT)
- Sustainability Network (Network)
- Brazilian Association of Members of the Public Prosecutor's Office for the Environment (ABRAMPA)
- President of Brazil
The action has national scope due to federal omissions in the environmental sanctioning process. General regulations on environmental oversight and sanctions in Brazil fall under common jurisdiction, but their application is not the responsibility of the federal government in conservation units defined as “national” (as is the case with most public forests and natural parks). The omissions cited by the plaintiffs would therefore affect all ecosystems within Brazilian territory, such as the Amazon, the Pantanal, the Cerrado, the Caatinga, the Atlantic Forest, the Pampas, and coastal systems.
Articles 5, 170, 225 of the Constitution of Brazil (CRFB/88)
Paris Agreement (Federal Decree 9.073/2017)
Environmental Crimes Act (Federal Law 9.605/1998)
National Environmental Policy - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981) (Federal Law 11.428/2006)
This record was created using publicly available information. If you have information about this case or would like to suggest updates or corrections, please click here .