SP Brazil
The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a civil lawsuit against the State of São Paulo, CETESB, and IBAMA, seeking the suspension and annulment of all licenses and authorizations issued by the state environmental agency for the controlled burning of sugarcane straw in the municipalities of the Campinas Judicial Subsection. The MPF argued that these authorizations were granted without the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Impact Report (RIMA), despite the fact that the activity causes serious environmental damage and risks to public health, in addition to violating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
According to the Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF), CETESB issued more than 1,400 permits based solely on formal criteria, without assessing the impacts on the atmosphere, fauna, flora, or global temperature conditions. The MPF also argued that IBAMA should act in a supplementary capacity, given the inadequacy of state oversight. The damages cited include the emission of toxic gases, increased ozone and carbon monoxide levels, contributions to the greenhouse effect, and harm to workers and exposed populations.
In its responses, IBAMA alleged a lack of standing and jurisdiction to license the activity, as well as the unnecessary nature of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/RIMA). The State of São Paulo asserted that abruptly halting the burning would jeopardize the sector's economic and social activity, which is supported by federal and state legislation. CETESB defended the legality of its permits, the existence of mitigation measures, and the inapplicability of the EIA/RIMA, arguing that the licensing of the sugar mills already covers related agricultural activities.
The trial court judge partially granted the provisional injunction, imposing the requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for new permits starting with the next harvest season and ordering supplementary oversight by IBAMA. In its final ruling, the court upheld these obligations.
However, on appeal, the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region unanimously overturned the ruling, finding that no environmental damage of national or interstate dimension had occurred, that CETESB had not been negligent, and that current legislation supports controlled burning. It also emphasized that the activity is not listed by CONAMA as subject to mandatory licensing and that a sudden suspension would cause serious economic harm. Consequently, the requests of the Public Prosecutor's Office were rejected, and the case was definitively dismissed in October 2022.
In the public civil action, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) developed several climate-related arguments to justify the need to require Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and restrict the controlled burning of sugarcane straw. The central argument was that the activity produces significant impacts on the atmosphere, contributing directly and indirectly to the greenhouse effect and global warming.
The Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) highlighted that burning releases large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO₂), carbon monoxide (CO), methane, hydrocarbons, and fine particulate matter. It cited studies conducted by INPE (the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research) demonstrating that, during the burning season, CO₂ and tropospheric ozone levels increase three to six times compared to periods without burning. Furthermore, it indicated that the State of São Paulo is responsible for the annual emission of hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon specifically from this practice. The accelerated and concentrated release of CO₂ was presented as a process incompatible with Brazil's international climate commitments.
A central argument was the reference to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) argued that burning constitutes a "source" of greenhouse gases within the meaning of the treaty and that, therefore, its authorization should be subject to the precautionary principle, which requires the adoption of measures to prevent serious or irreversible damage even when there is no absolute scientific certainty. It maintained that Brazil was violating the Convention by not requiring environmental assessments that consider climate impacts—which, under national law, correspond to the EIA/RIMA—and that this omission could imply international liability.
It was also argued that burning prevents the sugarcane from acting as a carbon sink, since the CO₂ captured during growth is immediately returned to the atmosphere, unlike harvesting without burning, which would allow some of the carbon to be fixed in the soil.
In the judicial sphere, the initial ruling acknowledged the relevance of these climate arguments, ordering that all future permits consider the effects on the atmosphere and global temperature. However, on appeal, the Court did not accept the climate arguments: it held that the activity did not constitute an environmental impact of national or interstate dimension, nor did it demonstrably affect the country's international climate obligations, and concluded that the existing regulatory framework already adequately governs the gradual reduction of fire use.
- Federal Public Prosecutor's Office
- State of São Paulo
- Environmental Company of the State of São Paulo (CETESB)
- Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA)
The territory involved corresponds to the Judicial Subsection of Campinas, in the State of São Paulo, a region with a strong presence of sugarcane cultivation and numerous rural municipalities whose economy depends heavily on the sugar and alcohol sector. The area is composed of extensive agricultural lands, interspersed with remnants of native vegetation, permanently protected areas, waterways, and fragments of the Atlantic Forest, all of which are sensitive to the effects of sugarcane straw burning.
The potentially affected communities include both rural residents—landowners, farmworkers, and settlements located near sugarcane fields—and inhabitants of nearby urban areas who suffer the effects of smoke, soot, and increased air pollutants during the burning season. Several studies cited in the lawsuit indicate that these populations experience a significant increase in respiratory and cardiac problems, as well as other public health issues, during periods of peak burning activity.
The MPF also highlighted the need to protect the territory's wildlife, which is highly vulnerable to controlled fires, as well as local ecosystems that depend on climate stability and air and soil quality.
Although it is a key productive region for the São Paulo economy, the communities that inhabit it face tensions between the agricultural model based on burning and the need to guarantee a healthy, balanced environment compatible with the country's climate and environmental commitments. This motivated the action as a preventive measure and for collective protection.
International agreements/treaties
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
National laws
- Federal Constitution of 1988
- Law 6.938/1981 – National Environmental Policy
- Law 12.651/2012 – Forestry Code
- Law 5.197/1967 – Protection of wildlife
- Complementary Law 140/2011
- CONAMA Resolution 01/1986
- CONAMA Resolution 237/1997
- State Law 11.241/2002
- State Decree 47.700/2003
- Federal Decree 2.661/1998
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 .