Case Name: ICMBio vs. Sandra Silveira e outros (Deforestation and climate damage in the Jamanxim National Forest)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) against Sandra Mara Silveira, the estate of Pedro Cordeiro, Marcio Natalino Piovesan Cordeiro, Adrielle Silveira Piovezan, and Davi Silveira Piovazan. The action seeks compensation exclusively for climate damages related to environmental infractions committed in an area of 7,075 hectares, comprising three farms overlapping the Jamanxim National Forest, as registered in the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR). In this sense, the plaintiff argues that the case does not concern the recovery of the degraded area nor compensation for material damages and collective moral damages, which are already the subject of ACP No. 1000979-55.2021.4.01.3908, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. The area had already been the subject of several infraction notices and embargo and prohibition orders issued by IBAMA and ICMBio. The plaintiff alleges that the climate damage stems from illegal acts of deforestation, burning, herbicide use, introduction of exotic species, destruction of permanent preservation areas, and prevention of native vegetation regeneration for cattle ranching in the federal public domain area. These actions are responsible for the illegitimate emission of greenhouse gases, causing climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that after the embargoes and fines imposed by environmental agencies, the illegal acts continued, increasing the social cost of these illegal activities in relation to climate change. Furthermore, by maintaining cattle ranching without proper registration, the defendants are committing sanitary fraud, and the climate damage within the conservation unit is aggravated by the presence of thousands of head of cattle, especially considering the methane emissions from the cattle. Based on the polluter-pays principle, it argues that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost not internalized by the illegal deforestation activity, translated into the social cost of carbon (SCC). ICMBio uses the CADAF Project methodology to estimate the amount of carbon stored and emitted per hectare due to deforestation in the Amazon biome, totaling 1,139,075 tons of carbon. It argues that the quantification of the compensation value for climate damage can be carried out by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC cost used by the OECD, of 60 euros per ton. It considers that the illegal acts were committed in a specially protected territorial area, which constitutes an aggravating factor for environmental damage since it negatively affects special, differentiated, and unique attributes that justified the creation of the Conservation Unit. Thus, a 50% increase in the value of the CSC is requested, resulting in a compensation amount of R$210,842,782.50. Furthermore, the action expressly mentions the situation of climate injustice generated by illegal actions of environmental damage. The plaintiff requests, as an urgent measure: (i) the immediate evacuation of the area; (ii) the prohibition of exploitation of the area; (iii) the suspension of tax incentives and benefits and access to credit lines; (iv) the freezing of assets in the estimated value for the obligation to pay compensation for climate damage; and (v) the freezing of livestock existing in the area, with its anticipated judicial sale. It asserts the need for a reversal of the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to pay the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon, with the requested aggravating factor, and that the amounts be reverted to the National Fund on Climate Change and to the fund established by the law that provides for the creation of ICMBio (Federal Law 11.516/2007).

In her defense, Adrielle Mara Silveira argued, preliminarily, that the proceedings were null and void due to the absence of a valid summons, and that the initial petition was generic and imprecise, as it did not clearly describe the illicit conduct that is intended to be attributed to the defendant, nor did it individualize her responsibility for the alleged environmental and climate damages. The defense argued that the accusation stems exclusively from her kinship with Sandra Mara Silveira—also a party to the action—without any demonstration of a causal link between her actions and the alleged damages. The validity of the carbon pricing calculations presented by the plaintiff was also contested, due to the absence of a legal basis, recognized official parameters, and adequate methodological support. Finally, she requested the dismissal of the claims, based on the lack of minimal proof of authorship and materiality of the attributed conduct.

In her defense, Sandra Mara Silveira requested the acceptance of the preliminary objections and the dismissal of the case without prejudice. She argued that the initial complaint is generic and imprecise, as it does not clearly specify the conduct attributed to the defendant, nor the amounts corresponding to the liability that is intended to be imposed, and that the validity of the carbon pricing calculations presented is questionable, as they lack a legal basis and official parameters for recognition. On the merits, she denied authorship of the alleged environmental and climate damages due to lack of evidence, emphasizing that the described environmental impacts are the result of actions carried out by third parties. Thus, she requested that the action be dismissed.

In his defense, Marcio Natalino Piovesan requested that preliminary objections be upheld to dismiss the case without prejudice or, alternatively, that the action be dismissed in its entirety.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Environmental Crimes Law (Federal Law 9.605/1998)
• Forest Code (Federal Law 12.651/2012)
• Kyoto Protocol (Federal Decree 5.445/2005)
• National Environment Policy Act - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981)
• National Policy on Climate Change Act - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009)
• National System of Conservation Units Law - SNUC (Federal Law 9.985/2000)
• Paris Agreement (Federal Decree 9.073/2017)
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCC (Federal Decree 2.652/1998)

Case timeline

Case documents