RS Brazil
The Attorney General of the State of Rio Grande do Sul promoted a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) against Municipal Law No. 4,968/2019 of Eldorado do Sul, which revised the Master Plan for Urban and Environmental Development of the Municipality.
The plaintiff argued that the law was passed without mandatory public participation during the legislative process and without prior environmental studies, which violates the State Constitution and the Federal Constitution.
The central argument is that development plans, due to their structural impact on land use planning, environmental protection, and quality of life, require a democratic process with genuine public debate. According to the lawsuit, the law was approved in just four days after arriving at the Municipal Council, without a public hearing or consultation with community organizations, which constitutes a procedural flaw rendering it unconstitutional. Furthermore, the modifications to the master plan reduced existing environmental protections, which necessitates environmental impact studies and neighborhood impact assessments, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy and CONAMA Resolution 237/1997.
The rapporteur granted the precautionary measure, noting that the documentary evidence demonstrated the lack of public participation and the absence of technical studies. He emphasized that urban planning directly affects the lives of the population and must be discussed in a democratic and transparent manner.
The Association of Residents and Friends of Eldorado Park (AMAPE) was admitted as amicus curiae and emphasized the case's climate relevance. It argued that the law opens the door to the establishment of an industrial hub linked to the Guaíba Mine, the country's largest open-pit coal mining project. AMAPE maintained that the expansion of coal mining contravenes the Paris Agreement, jeopardizes the climate, affects health through particulate matter emissions, and violates the principle of non-regression in environmental matters. It also alleged that nearby Indigenous communities were not consulted, in violation of ILO Convention 169.
The Special Organ of the RS Court of Justice ruled the ADI admissible, declaring the law unconstitutional due to lack of popular participation and absence of prior environmental studies, mentioning the climate impacts pointed out by AMAPE.
Subsequently, the municipality itself revoked the challenged law, which led to the loss of purpose and the definitive archiving of the process.
Although the ADI focuses primarily on the lack of popular participation and the absence of technical studies during the approval of the Municipality's Urban and Environmental Development Master Plan, the climate issue appears as a central argument provided by social actors, especially by the amicus curiae AMAPE, and is considered contextually by the Court.
From AMAPE's perspective, climate cannot be treated as a marginal aspect within an urban planning process. On the contrary, it forms part of the essential core of the right to a balanced environment, encompassing what is known as the minimum environmental standard. According to this argument, land-use planning decisions determine patterns of land use that have direct repercussions on greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and public health.
A point of particular climatic relevance is the provision, within the new Master Plan, for an industrial hub in the Parque Eldorado district, linked to the Guaíba Mine coal mining project. AMAPE maintains that the expansion of coal mining constitutes a setback for climate change, as it promotes one of the most greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources. The organization argues that this legislative approach contradicts the commitments assumed by Brazil in the Paris Agreement, incorporated into domestic law by Federal Decree 9.073/2017, which mandates the transition to renewable energy and the progressive reduction of fossil fuel use.
Furthermore, it is emphasized that coal mining has cumulative climate impacts, including the intensification of extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, and adverse effects on human health from atmospheric emissions. The omission of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a Neighborhood Impact Assessment (EIV) exacerbates this concern, as it prevents a systematic evaluation of the climate risks arising from the new urban planning guidelines.
The climate argument is also related to the lack of consultation with potentially affected indigenous communities, in accordance with ILO Convention 169, considering that native peoples are especially vulnerable to environmental and climate impacts.
In the ruling, the Court does not develop an independent climate analysis, but recognizes the relevance of the environmental and climate dimension, citing the statements of the amicus curiae and reinforcing that prior environmental studies are essential to avoid urban planning decisions incompatible with climate sustainability.
- Attorney General's Office of the State of Rio Grande Do Sul
- Municipality of Eldorado do Sul
- Eldorado Do Sul City Council
The action seeks to protect the territory of the Municipality of Eldorado do Sul, in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, specifically the areas affected by the modifications of the Master Plan for Urban and Environmental Development of the Municipality approved by Municipal Law No. 4,968/2019. This plan defines rules for land use and occupation, urban and urban expansion zones, and environmentally sensitive areas within the municipality.
One of the most relevant areas mentioned is the Eldorado Park District, where the new master plan would allow the installation of an industrial hub associated with the coal mining project known as Mina Guaíba. This territory is located in a region of high environmental fragility, near the Jacuí Delta and protected areas that directly influence air quality, waterways, and the health of local communities.
The Associação de Moradores e Amigos do Parque Eldorado (AMAPE) represents residents of this region, who organized to participate in the legal process due to the potential impacts on their territory, their quality of life, and the local climate. AMAPE maintains that the alterations to the master plan increase the socio-environmental vulnerability of the district.
Furthermore, the organization points out that there is an Indigenous community near the affected area. Although the ruling does not specifically identify the community, AMAPE argues that it should have been consulted in accordance with ILO Convention 169, as it could be impacted by the construction of the industrial park and the potential reactivation of coal mining.
In summary, the protected territory encompasses Eldorado do Sul, with emphasis on Eldorado Park, and the nearby resident and indigenous communities threatened by legislative changes without popular participation or prior environmental studies.
International agreements/treaties
- Paris Agreement
- ILO Convention 169
National laws
- General Framework Law on the Environment
- Federal Constitution of Brazil (CF/1988)
- Constitution of the State of Rio Grande do Sul
- Law 6.938/1981 — National Environmental Policy (PNMA)
- CONAMA Resolution 237/1997
- Municipal Law 4.968/2019 — Master Plan of Eldorado do Sul
Beginning
- Principle of prevention
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 .