DF Brasília Brazil
In 2020, Brazil's Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a "Civil Action of Administrative Imprudence" (ACIA) against Ricardo Salles, then Minister of the Environment, requesting his preventive removal from office. The MPF alleged that the former minister had committed fraudulent acts contrary to the constitutional duty of environmental protection, promoting a deliberate dismantling of environmental policies through actions, omissions, and statements aimed at favoring interests unrelated to the Ministry's institutional purpose.
The accusation was structured around four main points: (i) Regulatory deconstruction, highlighting four acts considered illegal or abusive: Decree 10,347/2020 (transfers and public forestry concessions to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries), MMA Resolution 4,410/2020 (regularization of illegal logging in the Atlantic Forest), Decree 9,672/2019 (dissolution of the Secretariat of Climate Change and Forests), and Joint Resolution 298/2019 (alteration of the Federal Environmental Compensation Committee). The Public Prosecutor's Office emphasized the climate impact, especially due to the disappearance of the structure responsible for mitigation and adaptation policies, which would distance Brazil from international commitments such as the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, and the National Climate Change Policy (PNMC). (ii) Dismantling of transparency and participation bodies, with reduced social representation on the National Environmental Council (CONAMA) (Decree 9.806/2019), removal of environmental information from the Ministry's website, interference with INPE's data disclosure, and imposition of information restrictions on IBAMA and ICMBio. (iii) Budgetary dismantling, questioning the reduction of resources to IBAMA and the paralysis of the Amazon Fund, which affected REDD+ measures and the implementation of the Amazon Climate Change Policy (PPCDAm), exacerbating the increase in deforestation and jeopardizing climate goals. (iv) Dismantling of oversight mechanisms, accusing Salles of hindering the work of public servants through the dismantling of oversight, bureaucratization, appointments without technical criteria, improper exemptions, and increased risk in field activities.
The judge of first instance denied the request for an injunction to remove him from office. In its response, the Union maintained the legality of the actions, invoking the separation of powers and the discretionary nature of public policy. Salles asserted the absence of malice aforethought, denying any disruption of the organization and alleging the action was inadmissible from the outset. Subsequently, with the entry into force of Law 14.230/2021, which profoundly amended the Law on Improper Conduct, the court ruled the action inadmissible, considering that the alleged conduct did not fall under the new legal categories, which require explicit legal definition and specific intent.
In the lawsuit, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) developed an argument focused on the climate impacts stemming from decisions made by the then Minister of the Environment, Ricardo Salles. According to the MPF, various administrative measures taken under his administration allegedly caused a deliberate dismantling of Brazilian climate policy, with direct effects on Brazil's compliance with its obligations under international agreements.
The most compelling climate argument focused on the elimination of the Secretariat for Climate Change and Forests (Decree 9.672/2019). The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) asserted that this secretariat was the Ministry's central body for mitigation, adaptation, and coordination of actions against global warming. Its elimination—without reinstatement of its functions—would have meant that climate policy ceased to be a priority for the federal government. According to the lawsuit, this institutional elimination created a functional vacuum that weakened the capacity to formulate, implement, and monitor policies consistent with the objectives of the UNFCCC, the Copenhagen Accord, the Paris Agreement, and the National Climate Change Policy (PNMC).
The MPF also argued that the suspension of the Amazon Fund, a key mechanism for financing REDD+ initiatives and emissions reduction programs, had serious climate consequences. The dismantling of its committees (COFA and CTFA) would have prevented the continuation of projects essential for the protection of the Amazon, one of the planet's main carbon sinks. This was linked to the increase in deforestation in the region, which in turn increases greenhouse gas emissions and moves further away from national climate goals.
Another relevant climate argument focused on the relationship between budget cuts and weakened oversight. According to the MPF, the cuts to IBAMA, coupled with interference in the technical work of its staff, reduced its capacity to control deforestation and illegal resource exploitation, increasing climate vulnerability and the degradation of strategic forests.
Finally, the MPF argued that the sum of regulatory acts, omissions, and institutional discourses promoted an intentional environmental regression, incompatible with the principle of non-regression in environmental matters, resulting in a departure from Brazil's climate commitments and concrete risks to the global climate balance.
In the ruling, the court did not accept these climate arguments: it considered that initially the conduct was not adequately classified under the new Law 14.230/2021 and that specific intent was not demonstrated, leading to the inadmissibility of the action.
- Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF)
- Minister of the Environment, Ricardo Salles
- Federal Union
This lawsuit filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office does not seek to protect a specific territory in the traditional geographical sense—such as a delimited region or a localized community—but rather aims to safeguard the national environmental and climate heritage, affected by decisions attributed to the then Minister of the Environment. However, the impacts mentioned in the lawsuit allow for the identification of territories and populations potentially affected by the policies in question.
First, the Amazon region stands out, repeatedly mentioned in the action due to increased deforestation and the paralysis of the Amazon Fund and the PPCDAm. This territory comprises a vast area of rainforest, home to countless Indigenous communities that depend directly on the climatic and ecological balance for their subsistence, culture, and food security. The dismantling of policies to combat deforestation affects both these communities and the environmental balance of the entire country.
Furthermore, the elimination of structures dedicated to climate change policy and the protection of the rainforest impacts the entire Brazilian territory, as the loss of vegetation cover, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and the weakening of oversight affect air quality, climate stability, water availability, and national ecological resilience.
In short, although the action does not delimit a specific community to be protected, its effects are projected onto the populations that inhabit the Amazon, the groups dependent on sensitive ecosystems and, in a broader sense, Brazilian society, whose constitutional right to a balanced environment would be affected.
International agreements/treaties
- Paris Agreement
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
- Copenhagen Accord (2009)
National laws
- Federal Constitution
- Law 12.187/2009 – National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC)
- Law 8.429/1992 – Law on Administrative Improperness (LIA)
- Decree 9,672/2019 – The Secretariat of Climate Changes and Forests was terminated.
- Decree 10,347/2020 – Transfer of management of public forests to MAPA.
- MMA Dispatch 4.410/2020 – Allowed regularization of deforestation in Mata Atlântica.
- Joint Portaria 298/2019 – Altered the Federal Environmental Compensation Committee.
- Decrees 10.144/2019 and 10.223/2020 – Altered the governance of the Fundo Amazônia.
- Decree 9.806/2019 – Reduction of social participation in CONAMA.
- Law 14.230/2021 – Reform of the LIA, decisive for the rejection of the action.
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 .