Author: Enéas Xavier de Oliveira Jr, lawyer, PhD candidate in international environmental law at the Université de Montréal, researcher at NETI-USP (Center for the Study of International Courts at the University of São Paulo Law School) and at the Human Rights and Environmental Law Clinic of the State University of Amazonas.
The text below was drafted based on the judgment delivered by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice in Special Appeal No. 1.857.098/MS.
Environmental information constitutes a fundamental instrument for consolidating the Environmental Rule of Law. It serves as a normative basis for participatory ecological democracy and a concrete expression of the principle of maximum transparency. Its centrality stems from the very conception of the environment as a public interest asset, whose protection demands the broad circulation of data, knowledge, and socioecological assessments. In the Brazilian legal context, the scope, content, and legal implications of this right were thoroughly examined by the Superior Court of Justice in Special Appeal No. 1.857.098/MS [1].
As outlined in this landmark decision, environmental information must be understood in a broad sense, encompassing all data—written, visual, audio, electronic, or in any other format—related to the environment, its elements, natural resources, and any potential risks or impacts on human health and ecosystems [2]. This broad understanding reflects the legal content of statutes such as Law No. 10.650/2003 [3], Law No. 12.527/2011 [4] (Access to Information Law – LAI), and Law No. 6.938/1981, which together form a legal framework guided by transparency, accountability, and democratic oversight of environmental governance.
The right of access to environmental information is also grounded in international commitments, notably Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [5], which asserts that “each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities” and that States shall “make such information widely available.” This normative guideline affirms the centrality of access to information as a prerequisite for public participation and for achieving substantive environmental justice.
Building upon this principle, the Aarhus Convention [6]—adopted in 1998 under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—elevated the right to environmental information to the status of a fundamental human right. The treaty establishes positive obligations for State Parties to ensure non-discriminatory, intelligible, and timely access to environmental information, including through electronic platforms. It also mandates judicial and administrative review mechanisms to challenge unjustified denials of access. Comparative studies show that European law has significantly advanced by linking environmental information to the protection of fundamental rights and integrating environmental regulation with effective public participation [7].
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the Escazú Agreement [8]—adopted in 2018 under the auspices of ECLAC/UN—is the first legally binding regional treaty focused specifically on the so-called “access rights”: information, participation, and justice. The Agreement requires States to ensure that environmental information is generated, systematized, and disseminated in a proactive, systematic, and comprehensible manner, encouraging the use of open technologies, georeferenced data, and subnational dissemination [9]. It also affirms the interdependence of the three pillars of environmental democracy, integrating them as mechanisms for protecting the rights of present and future generations. In the Latin American context, the Escazú Agreement has also been highlighted as a key tool in combating environmental corruption by enhancing transparency in environmental licensing, enforcement, and policy monitoring [10].
The ruling of the Superior Court of Justice in Special Appeal No. 1.857.098/MS is particularly significant in that it established, with binding effect, the existence of three complementary dimensions of environmental transparency [11]: active, passive, and reactive. Active transparency refers to the duty of public authorities to disclose, on their own initiative, environmental information of collective or general interest. This obligation is preferably fulfilled via electronic means and is anchored in the constitutional principle of publicity. The State is prohibited from withholding such disclosure without express, concrete, and constitutionally grounded justification [12], always subject to judicial review.
Passive transparency, in turn, refers to the right of individuals to request specific information that has not yet been disclosed, with refusal permitted only in the limited cases prescribed by law. The ruling emphasizes that administrative practices that delay or obstruct access constitute mere pretenses of transparency and violate the core content of the right to information [13].
The Court also explicitly recognized the concept of reactive transparency, according to which, in the absence of a particular piece of environmental information under the custody of the State, the Administration may be required to produce it, provided the request is reasonable and compatible with available institutional resources and capacity. This dimension is grounded in Article 9, XI, of Law No. 6.938/1981 [14], and was interpreted by the Court as a positive obligation tied to the realization of fundamental environmental rights [15].
These three dimensions were systematized into binding theses established by the Court [16]: (i) the duty to proactively publish non-confidential environmental information (active transparency); (ii) the right of any person to request specific environmental information (passive transparency); and (iii) the right to demand the production of environmental information not yet existing (reactive transparency). A presumption in favor of transparency is also affirmed, placing the burden of justification on the State rather than on the citizen [17].
Furthermore, the protection of the right to environmental information requires not only substantive norms but also appropriate procedural safeguards. The effectiveness of this right depends on access to judicial mechanisms such as writs of mandamus, habeas data, and public civil actions, which are to be understood as instruments of environmental justice and ecological accountability [18].
Of particular relevance is the critique of the “simulacrum of transparency” [19], a term used in the judgment to describe formal administrative practices that obstruct the meaningful exercise of the right to information. The partial, delayed, or imprecise provision of data constitutes a form of structural ineffectiveness incompatible with republican principles of public administration [20].
The Court further reinforced the reversal of the burden of proof in favor of transparency, establishing that it is the responsibility of the State to justify any refusal or omission—not the citizen’s to demonstrate the legitimacy or necessity of their request [21]. This inversion is consistent with the principle of maximum effectiveness of fundamental rights and the principle of good faith in public administration.
From a substantive perspective, the right to environmental information is of a diffuse and collective nature, which justifies its protection by any citizen, civil society organization, or the Public Prosecutor’s Office, regardless of individual interest. This broad legal standing aligns with the participatory democratic model set forth in Brazil’s 1988 Constitution [22].
Equally important is the recognition of the interpretive authority of international environmental instruments, even when not formally incorporated into domestic law. The judgment explicitly references the Rio Declaration, affirming its relevance as a constitutional interpretive norm and as a means of fulfilling Brazil’s multilateral commitments [23]. Also noteworthy within the Inter-American Human Rights System are the American Convention on Human Rights and key rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, such as Claudio Reyes v. Chile, Baraona Bray v. Chile, and Advisory Opinion No. 23/17 [24].
The Court also emphasized that the concept of environmental information must be interpreted dynamically and in light of scientific and technological developments, emerging socio-environmental risks, and evolving forms of public participation. This includes expanding the scope of information subject to mandatory disclosure to encompass data on regulatory algorithms, climate traceability, and digital environmental justice.
Ultimately, the overarching purpose of environmental information lies in enabling the qualified participation of civil society in public decision-making and in ensuring democratic oversight of State action. The absence or opacity of such information leads to civic disempowerment, curtails public debate, and exacerbates structural socio-environmental inequalities. Thus, environmental information is not merely a vehicle for knowledge—it is a means of legal and political empowerment.
Beyond its instrumental value, environmental information stands as an autonomous fundamental right, often associated with the so-called fourth generation of fundamental rights—alongside democracy, pluralism, and intergenerational solidarity. It guarantees not only individual liberty but also collective autonomy, political self-determination, and access to environmental justice.
Finally, environmental information is indispensable to preventing harm, holding public actors accountable, and designing sustainable public policies. Its absence jeopardizes the integrity of democratic processes and the legitimacy of administrative and judicial decisions on environmental matters. Recognizing environmental transparency as a pillar of ecological governance thus represents not merely a legal obligation, but a civilizational commitment to building a more just, informed, and life-affirming society.
[1] BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Recurso Especial n. 1.857.098/MS. Relator Ministro Og Fernandes. Brasília, 11 maio 2022.
[2] Idem.
[3] BRASIL. Lei nº 10.650, de 16 de abril de 2003. Dispõe sobre o acesso público aos dados e informações ambientais. Brasília: Câmara dos Deputados, 2003.
[4] BRASIL. Lei nº 12.527, de 18 de novembro de 2011. Regula o acesso a informações previsto na Constituição Federal. Brasília: Câmara dos Deputados, 2011.
[5] ASSEMBLEIA GERAL DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. 12 August 1992. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. 1). Annex I – Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
[6] UNECE – UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). Aarhus, 25 jun. 1998. United Nations, Treaty Series, v. 2161, p. 447.
[7] GOMES, Carla Amado; LANCEIRO, Rui Tavares. O acesso à informação ambiental no direito internacional e no direito da União Europeia. Revista Argumentum. V. 19, n. 2, Marília: 2018, p. 583–613
[8] ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN. Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement). Escazú, 4 March 2018. United Nations, Treaty Series, v. 98 C.N. 195 2018.
[9] Idem.
[10] TRANSPARÊNCIA INTERNACIONAL – BRASIL. Acordo de Escazú: uma oportunidade de avanços na democracia ambiental e no combate à corrupção no Brasil. São Paulo: TI, 2020.
[11] BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Recurso Especial n. 1.857.098/MS. Relator Ministro Og Fernandes. Brasília, 11 maio 2022, parágrafos 3 e 8.
[12] Idem, parágrafos 5-7.
[13] Idem, parágrafos 4-6.
[14] BRASIL. Lei nº 6.938, de 31 de agosto de 1981. Dispõe sobre a Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 2 set. 1981, artigo 9, XI.
[15] BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Recurso Especial n. 1.857.098/MS. Relator Ministro. Og Fernandes. Brasília, 11 maio 2022, parágrafos 8 e 9.
[16] Idem, parágrafo 14, Tese A.
[17] Idem, parágrafo 14, Tese B.
[18] Neste sentido: Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. Medio ambiente y derechos humanos (obligaciones estatales en relación con el medio ambiente en el marco de la protección y garantía de los derechos a la vida y a la integridad personal - interpretación y alcance de los artículos 4.1 y 5.1, en relación con los artículos 1.1 y 2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos). Opinión Consultiva OC-23/17 de 15 de noviembre de 2017. Serie A No. 23, para. 64.
[19] BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Recurso Especial n. 1.857.098/MS. Relator Ministro Og Fernandes. Brasília, 11 maio 2022, parágrafo 14.
[20] MACHADO, Paulo Affonso Leme. Direito Ambiental Brasileiro. 31ed rev., ampl. e atual. São Paulo: JusPodivm, 2025, p. 105.
[21] BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Recurso Especial n. 1.857.098/MS. Relator Ministro Og Fernandes. Brasília, 11 maio 2022, para. 14 Tese B.
[22] Neste sentido: BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Recurso Especial n. 1505923/PR 2014/0338886-7. Segunda Turma. Relator Ministro Herman Benjamin. 21 de maio de 2015. Ver também: XAVIER, Enéas. A Defensoria Pública como Vetor de Participação das Populações Vulneráveis na Ação Climática. Cadernos da Defensoria Pública do Estado de São Paulo, v. 10, n.44. São Paulo: EDEP, 2025, p. 447-475, disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390630842_A_DEFENSORIA_PUBLICA_COMO_VETOR_DE_PARTICIPACAO_DAS_POPULACOES_VULNERAVEIS_NA_ACAO_CLIMATICA. KISHI, Sandra Akemi Shimada. XAVIER, Enéas. Direitos de Participação como Mecanismos de Promoção da Justiça e da Litigância Climática. In: CAZETTA, Ubiratan. RAMOS, André de Carvalho (Orgs.). Litigância climática e atuação do MPF. Brasilia: 2025, pp. 312-345. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390920799_Direitos_de_Participacao_como_Mecanismos_de_Promocao_da_Justica_e_da_Litigancia_Climatica
XAVIER, Enéas. Participação da Sociedade Civil na Tutela dos Interesses Difusos: meio ambiente e justiça. Universidade Metodista de Piracicaba. Dissertação de Mestrado. Piracicaba: 2023. Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35295.78241
[23] Princípio 10 da Declaração do Rio se destaca como o primeiro instrumento jurídico internacional que expressamente trata os direitos de acesso em matéria ambiental de forma conjunta, compreendendo o direito de acesso à informação, o direito de participação e o direito de acesso à justiça.
[24] Sobre a matéria, ver: KISHI, Sandra Akemi Shimada. XAVIER, Enéas. Direitos de Participação como Mecanismos de Promoção da Justiça e da Litigância Climática. In: CAZETTA, Ubiratan. RAMOS, André de Carvalho (Orgs.). Litigância climática e atuação do MPF. Brasilia: 2025, pp. 312-345. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390920799_Direitos_de_Participacao_como_Mecanismos_de_Promocao_da_Justica_e_da_Litigancia_Climatica
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário