Case Name: Ministério Público Federal vs. Gilvan Souza e José dos Santos (Deforestation and climate damage in the Antimary Environmental Impact Assessment Program)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Gilvan Onofre Souza and José Milton Onofre dos Santos due to the deforestation of an area of 1,849.60 hectares between 2017 and 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the occupation of the land by the defendants occurred illegally because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit was filed following a set of 22 lawsuits filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), stemming from the same civil inquiry. The lawsuit was filed following the dismissal without prejudice of case 1022785-39.2021.4.01.3200, based on the identification of the individuals who allegedly deforested the same area that was the subject of the lawsuits. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, specifically regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, accusations of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 1,088,203.70 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). The granting of urgent relief is requested, as specified in the initial petition. On the merits, it is requested, among other things: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) the payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

The court granted the preliminary injunction, based on the principle of in dubio pro natura. It ordered the removal of all cattle from the area subject to the action within 15 days; the prohibition of issuing Animal Transport Guides (GTA) and invoices for the movement of cattle originating from or destined for the property; the suspension and prohibition of access to public financing and tax benefits linked to the rural property and to rural financing in the name of the defendants; and the suspension by IPAAM and INCRA of the CARs (Rural Environmental Registry) for the contested area.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 170 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 5th of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Forest Code (Federal Law 12.651/2012)
• ILO Convention 169 (Federal Decrees 5.051/2004 and 10.088/2019)
• National Environment Policy Act - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981)
• National Policy on Climate Change Act - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009)
• Paris Agreement (Federal Decree 9.073/2017)
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCC (Federal Decree 2.652/1998)

Case timeline

Case documents