DF Brazil
This Action for Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF), brought by the Workers' Party (PT), denounces the Brazilian Federal Executive Branch's failure to fulfill its constitutional duties to protect, prevent, monitor, and conserve the environment, particularly in the face of the advancing fires in the Pantanal and the Amazon. The action argues that government inaction exacerbates the environmental, economic, and social impacts, disproportionately affecting traditional communities—Indigenous peoples, riverine communities, and quilombola communities—and generating cumulative risks for future generations, in a context already strained by the COVID-19 pandemic. It also alleges violations of fundamental rights such as human dignity, health, life, and the right to a balanced environment.
In precautionary proceedings, the PT requested the immediate adoption of operational measures to combat fires in both biomes, the restructuring of the PREVFOGO system (National Center for Prevention and Combat of Forest Fires), the implementation or reactivation of deforestation control plans (such as the PPCDAm), the creation of similar plans for other biomes, the coordination of integrated human and veterinary health programs, the formation of a multidisciplinary monitoring commission, and the detailed disclosure of the environmental budget execution corresponding to 2019 and 2020.
The Reporting Minister, Marco Aurélio, referred the analysis of the precautionary measure request to the full Court due to the case's importance. In April 2024, the Supreme Federal Court partially granted ADPF 743, 746, and 857. Although the Court declined to declare an "unconstitutional state of affairs," it did acknowledge the existence of structural flaws in environmental policy, determining that the Federal Government must develop fire prevention and control plans for the Amazon and the Pantanal; restore the operational capacity of PREVFOGO (the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Program); disclose environmental budget data; and guarantee transparency in vegetation removal authorizations. The ruling highlighted the gradual introduction of environmental policies by the Federal Government and reaffirmed the ecological importance of the Pantanal and the Amazon for climate balance. Minister Edson Fachin, in a dissenting vote joined by Luiz Fux and Cármen Lúcia, defended the recognition of the unconstitutional state of affairs, pointing to the existence of international jurisprudence on climate litigation and warning that state inaction compromises the country's environmental commitments and its constitutional responsibility to avoid "climate chaos" and the loss of biodiversity.
Implementation
The final ruling issued by the Supreme Federal Court in April 2024, in the joint case ADPF 743, 746, and 857, is in its initial implementation phase. The Court established a series of obligations for the Federal Government and state governments, focusing on the development of fire prevention and control plans for the Amazon and the Pantanal, the operational recovery of the PREVFOGO system, the disclosure of environmental budget data for 2019 and 2020, and the publicizing of vegetation removal authorizations. Although the ruling acknowledges recent progress in environmental policy, the Court noted that this progress has not yet reached full constitutional normality, and therefore the ordered measures aim to consolidate a path of institutional reconstruction. Some initial steps have already been reported by the Federal Government, particularly regarding the reactivation of programs and administrative restructuring, although the ruling emphasizes that the process is ongoing and requires continuous monitoring. The main challenges for implementation include: (i) the need for effective coordination among different federal and state agencies, given the cross-cutting nature of environmental policy; (ii) insufficient operational and budgetary capacity accumulated over years of institutional weakening; (iii) the climate emergency and the recurrence of fires, which demand rapid and sustained responses; and (iv) the technological integration of systems for monitoring, oversight, and control of deforestation. Full compliance with the ruling depends, to a large extent, on the political, administrative, and financial continuity of the ordered actions.
In the lawsuit, the Workers' Party (PT) argued that the Federal Executive Branch's inaction regarding the fires in the Pantanal and the Amazon directly exacerbates the climate crisis. It asserted that both biomes fulfill essential functions for the stability of the planet's climate, such as hydrological regulation, CO₂ absorption, and biodiversity preservation. The accelerated destruction caused by fires—mostly of human origin—leads to the massive release of greenhouse gases, affecting regional and global climate cycles. The lawsuit alleged that the government's inaction violates the precautionary principle, the duty to prevent irreversible damage, and the right of present and future generations to a balanced environment. The action also highlighted that the advance of deforestation and fires increases extreme weather events—droughts, high temperatures, and altered rainfall patterns—which, in turn, create a vicious cycle that facilitates further fires. Furthermore, it was emphasized that climate impacts disproportionately affect Indigenous, Quilombola, and riverine communities, whose survival depends on the ecological integrity of the biomes. State inaction, therefore, would constitute a structural violation of the constitutional duty to protect the environment and a renunciation of Brazil's international commitments on climate change.
In its ruling, the Supreme Federal Court acknowledged that environmental public policies suffered structural failures that contributed to the worsening of deforestation and fires. Although the majority did not declare the situation “unconstitutional,” it did affirm that the degradation of the Amazon and the Pantanal generates climate risks that demand coordinated and urgent responses. The Court emphasized that climate protection is a cross-cutting duty of the State and that the failure to control deforestation compromises the constitutional framework for environmental protection. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Edson Fachin underscored the existence of international climate jurisprudence and stressed that the Supreme Federal Court cannot remain inactive in the face of repeated violations that fuel “climate chaos.” He pointed out that allowing the continuation of insufficient policies implies jeopardizing Amazonian biodiversity and disregarding international obligations assumed by Brazil, such as the Paris Agreement. Taken together, the lawsuit and the ruling reaffirm that the climate crisis constitutes a relevant legal premise and that its mitigation depends on effective, coordinated, and transparent state action.
- Workers' Party (PT)
- Federal Union
The case concerns two of Brazil's most important biomes: the Pantanal and the Amazon, both constitutionally recognized as national heritage and essential for the ecological and climatic balance of the country and the planet. The Pantanal is the world's largest wetland, stretching across the states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul. Its ecological dynamics depend on the annual flood cycle, which sustains a unique biodiversity highly sensitive to fire. Recent fires have reached unprecedented proportions, destroying vast areas of vegetation, water resources, and habitats of emblematic species such as the jaguarundi.
The territory is inhabited by traditional communities—artisanal fishers, river dwellers, quilombola communities, and local livestock farmers—whose livelihoods depend directly on the ecological balance of the biome. The Amazon, for its part, is the world's largest tropical rainforest and plays a critical role in global climate regulation, the carbon cycle, and maintaining rainfall that supplies much of South America. It is home to hundreds of Indigenous peoples, river dwellers, extractive communities, and quilombola communities, whose ways of life are intrinsically linked to the forest and depend on its integrity for food security, health, and cultural continuity. Both territories face increasing pressures related to deforestation, agricultural expansion, illegal mining, fires, and reduced enforcement. The communities that inhabit them suffer the most immediate impacts: loss of territory, health problems from smoke and extreme heat, water pollution, animal mortality, and cumulative climate risks that threaten their physical and cultural survival.
International agreements/treaties
- Paris Agreement
- Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
National laws
- Federal Constitution
- National Environmental Policy Law (Law 6.938/1981)
- Forestry Code (Law 12.651/2012)
- Environmental Crimes Act (Law 9.605/1998)
- ADPF Law (Law 9.882/1999)
- PPCDAm – Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon
- PREVFOGO System (IBAMA)
- Environmental monitoring systems (INPE, CAR, state bases)
Beginning
- Principle of prevention
- Precautionary principle
- Principle of intergenerational equity
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 .