Brazil
The case originated with a precautionary action filed by five civil society organizations, later converted into a public civil action (ACP), to challenge the environmental licensing process for the Nova Seival thermoelectric power plant (UTE), the largest coal-fired thermoelectric project in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. The organizations alleged serious procedural irregularities in the convening and holding of the project's public hearing, as well as critical omissions in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/RIMA), especially regarding climate impacts, synergies, and cumulative effects between the UTE and the Seival Mine.
The plaintiffs argued that the EIA/RIMA did not include analyses of emissions projections, human health risks, air quality, or impacts on water security. They also maintained that, in light of the climate emergency, the licensing process should incorporate the guidelines of the National Climate Change Policy (PNMC) and the Gaúcha Climate Change Policy (PGMC), including the requirement to conduct a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for projects with high pollution potential.
After the initial deferral of the precautionary measure, the judge authorized the conversion to ACP and, later, partially granted the preliminary measure: he annulled the virtual public hearing, suspended the environmental licensing and determined the incorporation of climate guidelines and the requirement of AAE in the Terms of Reference (TR) applicable to coal-fired thermoelectric power plants in Rio Grande do Sul.
The companies Copelmi Mineração and Energia da Campanha, as well as IBAMA, filed appeals, but the unilateral decisions and subsequent agreements maintained the provisional protection, based on the precautionary principle and the relevance of informed public participation.
In its ruling, the court reaffirmed the importance of climate justice, the UN-recognized human right to a healthy environment, the indivisibility of the global climate system, and the need to assess synergistic and transgenerational impacts. It determined that the licensing process was inconsistent with technical standards and international climate commitments undertaken by Brazil, thus upholding the ACP's requests.
In 2025, the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region partially upheld the ruling. Although it declared the requests related to the public hearing and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) moot (due to the project's withdrawal), it maintained the structural aspect: IBAMA's obligation to include the National Climate Change Plan (PNMC) and the General Climate Change Plan (PGMC), the Environmental Impact Assessment (EAA), and the health risk assessment in the licensing terms for thermoelectric plants in the RS. The Court emphasized that greenhouse gas emissions are a matter of transindividual public interest and that climate impacts must be mandatorily integrated into the environmental licensing process.
Implementation
The final ruling, partially confirmed by the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region, determined, in a binding manner, that IBAMA must incorporate into the Terms of Reference applicable to the licensing of coal-fired thermoelectric power plants in the state of Rio Grande do Sul: (i) the climate guidelines provided for in the National Climate Change Policy (PNMC) and in the Gaúcha Policy on Climate Change (PGMC); (ii) the requirement of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for projects with high pollution potential from coal burning; and (iii) the inclusion of analyses of risks to human health and of synergistic and cumulative impacts.
To date, there is no information in the records regarding the full implementation of these determinations by IBAMA. Given that the decision is recent (April 2025) and involves a structural change in licensing procedures, its implementation will likely require administrative adjustments, internal regulatory review, and coordination with other environmental agencies, which naturally entails a longer compliance period.
Among the main challenges identified are:
The absence of federal regulations on SEA forces IBAMA to adapt procedures even without a specific national regulatory framework.
The technical complexity of incorporating a robust climate analysis and integrated impact assessment.
The need to monitor compliance with future projects, ensuring that climate guidelines do not remain mere formalities.
In summary, the implementation is in its initial phase, requiring significant structural adjustments, with pending technical, regulatory, and institutional challenges.
The lawsuit highlighted that the project—the Nova Seival Thermal Power Plant, associated with open-pit coal mining—has a high potential for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contradicting the climate commitments assumed by Brazil under the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the National Climate Change Policy (PNMC), and the Rio Grande do Sul State Climate Change Policy (PGMC). The plaintiff organizations argued that the environmental permitting process did not incorporate a rigorous analysis of these impacts, violating the State's duty to mitigate climate change and the precautionary principle in the face of a climate emergency.
The authors stated that the EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report) contained serious omissions: the absence of climate modeling projected for the operational period; a lack of assessment of the cumulative and synergistic risks arising from the cluster of thermal power plants and mines in the region; and a lack of consideration of the effects of air pollution and GHG emissions on public health and local socio-environmental vulnerabilities. They also argued that the installation of the power plant would require a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), given its potential to affect sectoral policies and compromise state and national climate objectives.
The organizations argued that holding the public hearing without complete information prevented the affected population from adequately participating in a matter particularly sensitive to climate and environmental justice. They emphasized that decisions regarding major greenhouse gas emitters must consider Brazil's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and the unequal distributional effects of climate change on vulnerable communities.
In its ruling, the tribunal expressly accepted the relevance of climate arguments. It acknowledged that climate protection has a strong legal foundation, highlighting the UN General Assembly's recognition of the universal human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. It affirmed that licensing cannot ignore direct and indirect climate impacts and that a fragmented analysis of the mine and the power plant compromises an understanding of the overall climate risk. The tribunal also recognized that fossil fuel projects with high pollution potential require an integrated assessment of the climate system, cumulative impacts, and human health, affirming the global unity of the climate and the need to incorporate climate guidelines into the Terms of Reference for licensing. Finally, it based its decision on the principles of precaution, prevention, democratic participation, and environmental justice, upholding the determination to include climate and SEA requirements in the Terms of Reference for thermal power plants in Rio Grande do Sul.
- Gaucho Association for the Protection of the Natural Environment (AGAPAN)
- Gaúcho Institute of Environmental Studies (INGÁ)
- Preservation Institute
- National Agroecological Cooperative Terra e Vida Ltda. (COONATERRA - BIONATUR)
- Center for Popular Education and Research in Agroecology (CEPPA)
- National Agroecological Cooperative Terra e Vida Ltda.
- Inga Environmental Studies
- Preserve Institute
• Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources – Ibama
• Copelmi Mineracao Ltda.
• Energias Da Campanha Ltda.
• Union - Attorney General's Office
The action seeks to protect the territory located in the coal-mining region of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, particularly the area surrounding the municipalities of Candiota and Hulha Negra, where the Nova Seival Thermoelectric Power Plant (UTE) and its associated coal mine are planned. This area is part of a watershed characterized by ecological vulnerabilities, the presence of waterways susceptible to pollution, and ecosystems affected by historical mining activities.
The territory presents delicate socio-environmental characteristics: rural communities, family farmers, and low-income communities live near the proposed projects, often in areas exposed to air pollution, deteriorating water quality, and the cumulative impacts of multiple industrial activities in the region. This area already exhibits environmental and climatic vulnerabilities, making it particularly sensitive to increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the intensification of extreme weather events.
The authoring organizations emphasize that public health and water security for communities are directly linked to the integrity of local ecosystems. The construction of the plant and mine could exacerbate existing problems, affecting water sources used for human consumption, air quality, and traditional livelihoods linked to small-scale agriculture and livestock farming.
In this context, the action seeks to ensure that these populations, historically exposed to environmental liabilities and with limited capacity for political influence, can exercise their right to informed participation, climate protection and a healthy environment, preventing new fossil fuel projects from reproducing socio-environmental inequalities and injustices in the region.
- Paris Agreement
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
- National Climate Change Policy (NCCP)
- Rio Grande do Sul State Policy on Climate Change (PGMC)
- IBAMA Regulatory Instruction No. 12/2010
- CONAMA Resolutions
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 .