Case Name: IBAMA vs. Espólio de Celestino Alecio e outros (Deforestation and climate damage in Ulianópolis)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) against the Estate of Celestino Alécio Fuchina Facco, Tereza Stefanello Facco, Tiago Stefanello Facco, Lucas Stefanello Facco, and Natascha Maria Pedroso Facco, seeking reparation for environmental damage caused by the deforestation of 913.35 hectares of native vegetation in the municipality of Ulianópolis, Pará. IBAMA cites a series of damages resulting from the deforestation, including global warming and climate impacts, without elaborating on the issue. It is argued that objective environmental civil liability and the obligation to repair, of a propter rem nature, justify filing the lawsuit against those who would be the current owners of the area. In preliminary proceedings, the plaintiffs request a ban on the economic use of the area during the course of the proceedings, the suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines, and the freezing of the defendants' assets to guarantee the remediation of the damage. In final proceedings, the plaintiffs request the environmental restoration of 913,356 hectares of the Amazon Rainforest and the payment of compensation for the interim and residual damages caused to the ecological heritage, in addition to compensation for moral damages and reimbursement for the illicitly obtained economic benefit.

In a preliminary decision, the court partially granted the provisional injunction, ordering (i) the prohibition of exploitation of the deforested area during the course of the case, (ii) the suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines, and (iii) the freezing of the defendant's assets relating to the properties where environmental degradation occurred.

In light of the aforementioned decision, Lucas Stefanello Facco and Tiago Stefanello Facco filed an interlocutory appeal, which is currently awaiting judgment.

In their defense, the defendants alleged lis pendens, lack of standing of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), lack of standing of the defendants because the area is currently in the name of third parties, inadequacy of the initial pleading, and lack of procedural interest in bringing the lawsuit. On the merits, they requested the complete dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. They argued that the area indicated by the environmental agency is suitable for economic exploitation, as environmental licenses for the development of productive activity in the location had been regularized. They asserted that the areas were maintained in natural regeneration, without worsening of the situation, and that the claim for damages claimed against the defendants was excessive.

The Climate Observatory and the Arayara Institute submitted a request to join the case as amicus curiae, which was granted by the court.

The Climate Observatory submitted a statement to support the decision on the merits regarding the need for explicit recognition of climate damage. They argue that international commitments and national legislation guarantee the right to climate stability, an integral part of the fundamental right to an ecologically balanced environment. According to the amicus curiae, the plaintiff's request for compensation for interim and residual damages includes climate damage, with global warming and climate impacts being expressly mentioned in the initial petition as damages resulting from deforestation. However, they alleged that, at the time the case was filed, there was no methodology that allowed for its immediate quantification, leading IBAMA to request its assessment during the sentence enforcement phase. The Climate Observatory then submitted, along with its statement, a Technical Note with a methodology for quantifying and pricing the carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere due to the deforestation of the area indicated in the initial petition. Starting from the standard price of US$5.00/tCO2e, practiced by the Amazon Fund to raise resources for forest preservation, the climate damage in this specific case was calculated at R$23,159,018.18. It was argued that the climate damage resulting from illegal deforestation is a type of environmental damage that cannot be ignored, especially considering the principle of full reparation for environmental damage.

In August 2025, a judgment was issued that partially granted the requests. The defendants were ordered to regenerate the deforested area, and the determinations made in the preliminary injunction were upheld. The requests for compensation for collective moral damages, compensatory material damages, and climate damage were denied due to a lack of evidence of current harmful conduct or a direct causal link attributable to the successors. In justifying the denial of these requests, the court acknowledged that the area had been degraded in the past but was undergoing a process of regeneration, as the defendants presented technical reports, images, notarial deeds, and documents from the PRA (Environmental Regularization Program) that corroborated their claims and justified the lack of a judgment ordering payment. Specifically regarding the request for consideration of climate damage caused by degradation, requested by the Climate Observatory in its capacity as amicus curiae, it was argued that, despite being a tool of notable value and importance and whose technical and regulatory advancement would be undeniable, it would not be possible to assess this damage in the present case, since the request was presented in an accessory capacity, without full adversarial proceedings from the parties and without expert technical evidence, which makes it impossible to directly determine a value based on external parameters or generic estimates, such as pricing per ton of CO2 emitted. The judgment granted preliminary injunction ex officio for the immediate prohibition of planting, trading of agricultural products, timber or livestock, including cattle, in the respective area.

 

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Forest Code (Federal Law 12.651/2012)
• 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)

Case timeline

Case documents