AM Brazil
This is a Public Civil Action, with a request for urgent protection, promoted by the Federal Public Ministry (MPF) against the State of Amazonas and the National Foundation of Indigenous Peoples (FUNAI), with the objective of suspending the carbon credits/REDD+ project implemented by the Secretariat of the Environment of the State of Amazonas (SEMA/AM) in state conservation units inhabited by indigenous peoples, river dwellers and traditional communities.
The Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) argued in its legal action that the project was launched without the prior, free, and informed consultation required by Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO), thus violating fundamental territorial and participatory rights. Furthermore, the MPF asserted that carbon credit projects—especially those under the REDD+ model—exhibit structural flaws, such as hypothetical calculations of "avoided deforestation," private certifications lacking transparency, and risks of commodifying traditional territories. According to the MPF, these initiatives generated internal conflicts, tensions between communities, and the presence of companies in the territories without authorization, in addition to lacking concrete evidence of socio-environmental benefits.
The MPF requested the immediate suspension of the administrative acts of SEMA/AM and the prevention of the entry of companies into the affected communities, requesting first the annulment of the project, the carrying out of an adequate consultation process, the strengthening of public debates and the condemnation of the State to compensate for collective material and moral damages.
In its response, the State of Amazonas defended the legality, effectiveness, and climate necessity of the REDD+ program, arguing that it was aligned with international standards, such as those of the UNFCCC, the IPCC, and the COP decisions. It asserted that the mechanism was globally recognized; that Amazonas had a long history of climate policy; and that studies demonstrated real reductions in deforestation in similar projects. Furthermore, it maintained that prior consultation had already been stipulated and that there had been no violation of rights, requesting the dismissal of the lawsuit altogether.
On November 17, 2025, the 9th Federal Civil Court of the Judicial Section of Amazonas granted the advance protection, suspending the project.
In the Public Civil Action, the Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) argued that the REDD+ project implemented by SEMA/AM was neither a real nor an effective climate solution. According to the lawsuit, carbon offsetting mechanisms—including REDD+ projects—exhibited documented structural flaws that compromised their capacity to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and, therefore, their usefulness in addressing the climate crisis. The MPF highlighted international research and reports that demonstrated the ineffectiveness, fraud, carbon overestimations, and community breakdowns of the program, in addition to its provision of "permits to pollute" to high-emitting industries and countries, thus exacerbating the crisis by postponing effective decarbonization.
The MPF argued that these mechanisms diverted resources and attention from addressing the climate emergency: direct emissions reductions, energy transition, and support for initiatives led by traditional communities, which were more consistent with climate justice. It also pointed out that the expansion of nature-based solutions was being used to allow companies to continue emitting, simulating climate neutrality without reducing their actual carbon footprint, which contradicted scientific evidence and the commitments of the Paris Agreement.
The lawsuit also linked the case to the documented worsening of extreme events in the Amazon—historic droughts, fires, and hydrological disruptions—as a local manifestation of the climate crisis, highlighting that market-based instruments had failed to curb these trends and, in some cases, exacerbated them by allowing greenhouse gas-emitting activities to continue. It further noted that scientific studies attributed the majority of historical emissions to a small number of corporations, underscoring the need for more ambitious emissions mitigation and control measures.
In contrast, the State argued that the REDD+ program was an effective climate mitigation mechanism, backed by decades of scientific development within the framework of the UNFCCC, the IPCC, and the SBSTA, citing international studies that demonstrated real reductions in deforestation and climate protection through REDD+. It stated that the project contributed to the conservation of essential forests as carbon sinks and was therefore aligned with global mitigation strategies and the climate commitments undertaken by Brazil.
- Federal Public Prosecutor's Office
- National Indigenous Peoples Foundation
- State of Amazonas
The protected territory comprises various conservation units (CUs) in the State of Amazonas, where SEMA/AM promotes carbon credit and REDD+ projects. These areas include Sustainable Development Reserves (SDRs), Extractive Reserves, and other CUs that overlap with or are located near Indigenous, riverine, quilombola, and traditional community territories, some of which are demarcated, in the process of demarcation, or claimed as ancestral lands. The MPF defended these spaces because they constituted areas of traditional occupation fundamental to the physical, cultural, and spiritual reproduction of the peoples who inhabited them, as they are territories historically preserved by these communities.
The MPF records indicate, for example, impacts and tensions in areas such as the Uatumã DRS, where indigenous and riverine communities also affected by energy and extractive projects coexist, and where territorial and environmental violations were found in 2024. Likewise, the body highlights that carbon projects overlap with territories used for hunting, fishing, gathering, traditional agriculture and river mobility, activities essential for the food security and cultural identity of Amazonian peoples.
The affected communities include Indigenous peoples, riverine communities, extractive industries, artisanal fishers, quilombola communities, and traditional groups that depend directly on the forest and rivers for their livelihoods. According to the lawsuit, the lack of prior consultation violates internationally recognized rights and jeopardizes territorial autonomy, community governance, and the capacity of these populations to cope with the growing impacts of the climate crisis, such as extreme droughts, fires, and hydrological disruptions in the region.
International agreements/treaties
- Paris Agreement
- ILO Convention No. 169
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)
National laws
- Federal Constitution of 1988
- Public Civil Action Act (Law 7.347/1985)
- National Environmental Policy
- National System of Conservation Units
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 .