Case Name: IEA e Ministério Público Federal (MPF) vs. União Federal, IBAMA e ICMBio (RESEx Chico Mendes)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the IEA against the Federal Government, IBAMA, and ICMBio. It seeks to prevent the continuation of illegal deforestation in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve (RESEx), recover deforested areas, and hold the defendants accountable for their omission in protecting the environment. It is argued that deforestation causes irreparable damage to the Amazon Rainforest and affects the rights and way of life of the traditional extractive community, which is based on the sustainable exploitation of natural resources. The plaintiff emphasizes that the RESEx is an instrument of social justice and a vehicle for protecting the forest. It alleges that the increase in deforestation is due to the weakening of public policies, land invasions, road construction, high density of access roads, fires in the region, among other factors. According to the plaintiff, there has been a drastic increase in deforestation since 2019. According to the RESEx Utilization Plan, which is part of the Conservation Unit's Management Plan, deforestation in areas where rubber plantations are located cannot exceed 10% of the area, with a maximum limit of 30 hectares. However, this percentage of deforestation has been exceeded in approximately half of the rubber plantations. The IEA (Institute for the Environment) highlights that the unit plays a strategic role in providing environmental services to the population of the Acre River basin, due to its water supply. The author emphasizes the deforestation reduction targets in the Legal Amazon, as per the Amazon Deforestation Prevention and Control Plan (PPCDAm) foreseen in Federal Law 12.187/2009 (National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC), which, according to the IEA, are not being met. It stresses that, since the Federal Government, IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), and ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation) are not fulfilling their management and control duties, they are contributing to the damage to the RESEX and the community. It highlights the vital role of the forest in the carbon cycle and that approximately 3,067,326 tons of carbon were released into the atmosphere due to illegal deforestation in the RESEx (Extractive Reserve). It affirms the need for full environmental remediation, in addition to the obligation to restore the standing forest. It understands that a future expert assessment should be carried out to calculate compensation for associated damages, such as climate damage. It emphasizes the vulnerability of the community, which justifies the payment of compensation for collective moral damages. It argues that there is a need to develop a Forest Restoration and Deforestation Control Plan for the territory. Finally, among the requests, it requests that the Public Civil Action be granted for: (i) payment of compensation for material damages caused to the environment in at least R$ 183,817,104.00; (ii) payment of compensation for collective moral damages in the minimum amount of R$ 100,000,000.00; and (iii) immediate reforestation of the entire deforested area above the established limit, to be carried out in accordance with the Forest Restoration and Deforestation Control Plan. Furthermore, it requests the presentation of documents in the case file proving the actions that the defendants have taken to prevent and mitigate the damage resulting from deforestation. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF), which would act as custos legis, requested (i) its migration to the active side of this lawsuit, to act in active joint litigation with the plaintiffs; (ii) the publication of a call for interested associations to intervene in the process as joint litigants; (iii) that a public hearing be held in the Chico Mendes RESEX during the proceedings to hear from the communities involved and to assess the socio-environmental damages described; and (iv) the full granting of the requests made by the plaintiffs.

The court then granted the request for the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office to join the proceedings, upheld the decision denying the summons of the other associations mentioned, and postponed the analysis of the request for public hearings to the evidentiary phase of the proceedings.

IBAMA and ICMBio filed respective objections defending their lack of standing as defendants, arguing that the situation in question does not constitute a case of liability for omission. They claim that promoting forest restoration and paying compensation for moral or material damages are not within their competence. They argue that the level of deforestation in the Conservation Unit has not yet reached the maximum limit allowed in its Utilization Plan, despite an increase in deforestation. IBAMA reported that it occasionally supports ICMBio in enforcement actions in the RESEX, but suffers from insufficient personnel to carry out these actions. ICMBio highlighted that 13 enforcement actions were carried out in the RESEX between 2021 and 2022, resulting in 116 infraction notices, and informed that in 2024 all actions will be aligned with the PPCDAm (Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon). The agencies argued that violations of environmental legislation are being observed by some of the RESEX residents themselves. They emphasized that state action is guided by the theory of the reserve of the possible, including in this case. Both requested the dismissal of the action without prejudice or that the claims be dismissed as unfounded.

The Union filed a response arguing its lack of standing as a defendant. It maintains that ICMBio is an autonomous agency with its own legal personality and, therefore, the claim pertains to the competence of that agency. It asserts that it is not within its competence to promote forest restoration or to pay compensation for moral or material damages, and that the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is a body that formulates public policies and guidelines. It alleged that since January 2023 it has had a secretariat dedicated to mitigating and preventing deforestation in the Amazon and implementing the PPCDAm (Amazon Deforestation Prevention and Control Plan). It reported that violations of environmental legislation have been committed by some of the RESEX (Extractive Reserve) residents themselves. It mentions the principle of the reserve of the possible and that it is the responsibility of the Executive and Legislative branches to formulate public policies and define budgetary priorities. It requests that its lack of standing as a defendant be recognized and that the claims be dismissed.

A ruling was issued in which the judge accepted the preliminary objections of lack of standing raised by the Federal Government, IBAMA, and ICMBio, and consequently dismissed the case without prejudice. The judge highlighted that the management of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve is the responsibility of ICMBio, that the defendants demonstrated adequate oversight actions, and that there was no state omission. The decision stated that civil liability cannot be converted into a mechanism for the indiscriminate transfer of financial burdens from the offending individual to the State.

An appeal was filed by the IEA, in which it requests the complete reversal of the judgment to re-recognize the passive legitimacy of the defendants and the objective and joint responsibility of the public entities for the omission in the environmental and climatic protection of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 5th of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Environmental Crimes Law (Federal Law 9.605/1998)
• Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• ILO Convention 169 (Federal Decrees 5.051/2004 and 10.088/2019)
• National Environment Policy Act - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981)
• National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Traditional Peoples and Communities (Federal Decree 6.040/2007)
• National Policy on Climate Change Act - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009)
• National Policy on Payments for Environmental Services Act (Federall Law 14.119/2021)
• National System of Conservation Units Law - SNUC (Federal Law 9.985/2000)
• Paris Agreement (Federal Decree 9.073/2017)

Case timeline

Case documents