Case Name: Ministério Público Federal e INCRA vs. Nilton Oliveira da Silva (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 Nilton Oliveira da Silva for the deforestation of an area of 181.40 hectares in 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area within 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 ACP is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, for illegal deforestation carried out within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argument for the action is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation 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) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 107,470.09 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). Among other requests, the following is sought: (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) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

In his defense, the defendant argued his lack of standing due to an alleged lack of proof that he owns the area and is therefore responsible for the deforestation. On the merits, he argued for the complete dismissal of the action. Among other issues, he maintained the need for an environmental assessment to verify the alleged damages and their extent. He stated that the public civil inquiry that underpins the action violated the principle of due process and that there was no demonstration of a causal link to give rise to civil liability. Furthermore, he argued that the request for compensation for material damages plus the recovery of the degraded area is improper and that, by claiming compensation for environmental damages, climatic damages – by definition – are already included, and therefore their cumulation is also improper.

A decision was issued granting the request of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office to consolidate the public civil actions no. 1008097-09.2020.4.01.3200 and no. 1007382-64.2020.4.01.3200 into the present Public Civil Action. The request of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office is based on the relationship of contiguity, since there is partial identity of object because the present lawsuit contains the polygons that are the object of those actions, and additionally, includes a polygon that is located within the same CAR (Rural Environmental Registry).

In a ruling issued in February 2026, the court recognized the climate litigation nature of the lawsuit and the importance of the Amazon in climate regulation, stating that illegal deforestation generates illegitimate greenhouse gas emissions and compromises environmental public policies. It concluded that the defendant was objectively liable, based on the theory of integral risk and the propter rem nature of environmental obligations, and ordered the defendant to (i) restore the degraded area through a PRAD (Environmental Recovery Plan), refrain from further interventions, (ii) pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages; (iii) pay compensation for climate damages in the amount of R$ 2,839,589.54, adopting a price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2 and in accordance with the Amazon Fund; and (iv) pay collective moral damages (5% of the total value of material damages), in addition to declaring the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry) linked to the area null and void. The resources obtained from this action must be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

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