Case Name: Ministério Público Federal e INCRA vs. Carlos Eduardo de Oliveira Lima (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 Carlos Eduardo de Oliveira Lima for the deforestation of an area of 144.65 hectares between 2017 and 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 84,681.52 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.

The summons was served by publication, and the defendant was declared in default, with the Federal Public Defender's Office appointed as special curator.

In its defense, the defendant requested the dismissal of the case due to the initial pleading being defective and challenged the service of process by publication. On the merits, it requested the dismissal of the action. It was argued that the alleged infraction is not properly substantiated, that there is insufficient evidence of the defendant's responsibility for the alleged environmental damages, and that the causal link – fundamental for civil liability – is lacking. It was further argued that the claim for reparation and compensation cannot be combined, that the compensation amount for material damages is disproportionate, and that the application of collective moral damages to the environment should be excluded. Alternatively, should liability be recognized, a reduction in the fine amount was requested, based on the defendant's economic capacity.

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

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, compromises environmental public policies, and violates the human right to a safe and stable climate system, enshrined in Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (PC-32/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and the 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate. 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 him to (i) restore the degraded area through a PRAD (Plan for Recovery of Degraded Areas), refrain from further interventions, and (ii) pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages. (iii) payment of compensation for climate damages in the amount of R$ 2,100,101.59, adopting the price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2e, according to the Amazon Fund; (i) and payment of collective moral damages (5% of the total value of material damages), in addition to declaring the CAR linked to the area null and void. The resources obtained from this action must be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

The defendant appealed to the TRF1, arguing the nullity of the summons by publication due to the failure to exhaust all means of personal service, and requesting the total dismissal of the initial claims in view of: (i) the improper cumulation of a claim for in-kind reparation and compensation for material damages due to the same event (double jeopardy); (ii) the possibility of recovering the degraded area affecting the claim for material damages; (iii) the lack of proof of collective moral damages; (iv) the setting of values according to general parameters unrelated to the specific case.

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