ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY INDEX SHOWS AMAZON STATES STILL LAGGING IN PROTECTION OF DEFENDERS, TRANSPARENCY, AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

A new survey released by Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV) and Transparency International Brazil shows that the states of the Brazilian Legal Amazon continue to display low levels of transparency, public participation, and protection for environmental defenders.  

According to the Environmental Democracy Index (IDA), only the Federal Government achieved an overall “good” classification, scoring 70.7 points out of 100. None of the nine Amazonian states assessed reached this level. Their average score was 40.8 points, classified as “fair.” 

Among the states, four received a “fair” rating and five a “poor” rating, on a scale ranging from “excellent” to “very poor.” Mato Grosso led the state ranking with 56.7 points, followed by Pará (55.3), Amazonas (43.8), and Maranhão (41.9) — the only four states to obtain a “fair” assessment. Next came Tocantins (39.6), Rondônia (36.2), Amapá (35.8), and Acre (35.5), all classified as “poor.” Roraima ranked last, with the lowest score among all evaluated entities, 22.8 points, also classified as “poor.” 

Table 1. Overall Score of Legal Amazon States in the 2026 Environmental Democracy Index 

The IDA was first launched in 2025. In this second edition, the assessment methodology was revised, meaning that the 2026 results are not directly comparable to those of the previous year, although some relationships can still be drawn.  

The Environmental Democracy Index is an initiative developed by Transparency International Brazil and Instituto Centro de Vida. It evaluates how the Federal Government and the states of the Legal Amazon promote rights acrossfour dimensions: access to information, public participation, access to justice, and protection of environmental defenders. The IDA analyzed 120 indicators to determine whether federal and state governments ensureeffective, fair, and inclusive socio-environmental governance and contribute to safeguarding socio-environmental rights.  

Four Dimensions Assessed 

Protection of Environmental Defenders 

The most critical dimension in the 2026 IDA is the protection of environmental defenders, with an average score of 15.1 points among the Legal Amazon states, classified as “very poor.” Roraima recorded the worst performance with only 0.8 points, followed by Acre (2.9), Rondônia (5.4), and Tocantins (5.7).  

These figures expose the near-total absence of essential protection mechanisms needed to ensure a safe environment for individuals, groups, and organizations working to defend environmental causes and protect territories, allowing them to operate free from threats and other forms of violence. Even the highest-ranking state, Mato Grosso, scored only 36.4 points, demonstrating that no state provides even a minimally satisfactory level ofprotection.  

Only three states have their own protection programs (Mato Grosso, Maranhão, and Pará); the others rely on the federal government.  

Another bottleneck identified concerns the preparedness of security forces. Among all entities assessed, only Amapá has a specific protocol for cases involving environmental defenders; only Mato Grosso has provided training on the issue; and only the Federal Executive Branch and Rondônia have protocols governing the use of body cameras in land and/or environmental conflicts.  

Table 2. Protection of Environmental Defenders 

Access to Public Participation 

Access to public participation also emerged as one of the weakest dimensions, with an average score of 37.6 points, classified as “poor.” 

Roraima had the worst performance with 12.3 points (“very poor”), while Tocantins performed best with 49.4 points—still only a “fair” rating and far from a satisfactory level.  

The results highlight weaknesses across the three participation mechanisms analyzed: environmental councils, protected-area councils, and public hearings related to environmental licensing processes.  

Table 3. Access to Public Participation 

The difficulty in ensuring effective public participation in environmental decision-making remains a structural bottleneck across nearly all states assessed, limiting social oversight and weakening the legitimacy of environmentaldecisions, especially those affecting local populations and their territories.  

Access to Information 

The access to information dimension scored an average of 44.7 points, classified as “fair,” though with significant disparities among states. Mato Grosso led with 74.3 points (“good”), while Maranhão ranked last with only 27.2 points (“poor”).  

Important information gaps were identified in categories such as vegetation-clearance permits, controlled burning permits, land regularization requests and proceedings, the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), and Animal Transit Permits (GTA).  

This lack of transparency weakens society’s capacity to monitor public policies and identify and report potential irregularities, including environmental crimes and related offenses such as fraud and corruption.  

Table 4. Access to Information 

Access to Justice 

Access to justice recorded the strongest average performance (65.9 points), classified as “good.” Nevertheless, the result remains below what is required to ensure full access to justice in environmental matters, including rights protection, remediation of damages, and accountability for environmental violations.  

Pará stood out as the highest-scoring state with 84.8 points, the only state to achieve an “excellent” rating in any dimension, while Roraima recorded the lowest result with 38.7 points (“poor”).  

Despite ongoing challenges, this dimension improved compared to the first edition of the IDA due to factors including the creation of specialized structures and capacity-building initiatives on socio-environmental and landtenure issues by the Judiciary, Public Prosecutor’s Offices, and Public Defender’s Offices over the past year.  

Table 5. Access to Justice 

Federal Agencies Show Better Results 

Overall, the 2026 IDA average score for the Amazon states was 40.8 points, classified as “fair,” driven downward primarily by weaknesses in the protection of defenders and access to participation, which remain the main bottlenecks for environmental democracy in the Legal Amazon.  

The Federal Government significantly outperformed the states across all dimensions, with a final score of 70.7 points, the only overall “good” classification in the index. The strongest result was access to justice, with 92.5 points, exceeding even Pará, the top-ranked state in this category.  

Federal performance in the protection of environmental defenders also stood substantially above state levels, scoring 62.8 points, more than 25 points higher than Mato Grosso, the best-performing state in this dimension. The Federal Government also maintained a significant advantage in access to information (71.9) and public participation (55.5).  

“The 2026 IDA results show that we are still very far from guaranteeing essential rights in environmental matters in the Amazon,” said Olívia Ainbinder, Coordinator of the Socio-Environmental Integrity Program at TransparencyInternational Brazil.  

“These are the people who are often on the front lines reporting serious environmental crimes and corruption schemes linked to deforestation, land grabbing, and illegal mining. We need to protect them in order to protect theforest.”  

According to Ainbinder, by exposing structural shortcomings, the IDA aims to foster dialogue with the entities evaluated and encourage improvements in their policies and practices.  

For Júlia Mariano, socio-environmental analyst at Instituto Centro de Vida, promoting environmental democracy is becoming increasingly urgent in the Amazon, especially given today’s socio-environmental and climate context.  

“Promoting environmental democracy means guaranteeing the conditions for informed, safe, and effective public participation. This year’s IDA results show that Legal Amazon states remain far from an adequate scenario, andthat protecting the forest, protecting defenders, and ensuring social participation are still not treated as priorities. The IDA points to the problems, but it also provides a roadmap of what needs to change if we are to achieve real progress on the environmental agenda.”  

Environmental democracy is a crucial tool in combating corruption and environmental crime. Many environmental offenses today are associated with corruption practices, including fraud in licenses and permits, bribery, andmoney laundering involving assets such as gold, timber, and wildlife.  

Recommendations 

Based on this assessment, ICV and Transparency International Brazil recommend the following measures to strengthen environmental democracy in the Legal Amazon and at the federal level, with special attention to the weakestdimensions identified by the index:  

• Approval of the Escazú Agreement by the Federal Senate, following its approval by the Chamber of Deputies in November, to strengthen access to information, participation, justice in environmental matters, and the protection of environmental defenders;  

• Strengthening environmental defender protection programs at both federal and state levels in the Amazon, with adequate funding, social participation, training initiatives, and operational protocols for security forces; 

• Making essential environmental information publicly available in areas such as forest exploitation, environmental licensing and enforcement, environmental and land regularization, ensuring timely updates, completeness, and reusable formats; 

• Creating and strengthening specialized institutions and units focused on environmental issues, land tenure conflicts, Indigenous Peoples, and traditional communities within the Judiciary, Public Prosecutor’s Offices, PublicDefender’s Offices, and police forces, including training and mobile justice initiatives; 

• Improving public participation mechanisms in environmental governance, such as councils and public hearings, ensuring inclusiveness, balanced representation, and broad dissemination of activities.