Case Name: Defensoria Pública do Estado do Pará vs.Floyd Promoção e Representação LTDA e outros (Project 981 carbon credits and "forest carbon grabbing")

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Public Defender's Office of the State of Pará (DPE-PA) against Floyd Promoção e Representação LTDA.; Brazil Agfor LCC; Michael Edward Greene; Jonas Akila Morioka; and Avoid Deforestations Project Limited due to a project generating illegal carbon credits sold on the voluntary market. This ACP is part of a set of 4 actions filed by the DPE-PA with the same grounds, but questioning different carbon credit projects. The Pacajaí project (Project 981), the subject of the action, overlaps with the areas of the State Agro-extractive Settlement Projects (PEAEX) Joana Peres II - Dorothy Stang and Joana Peres II - Rio Pacajá. These PEAEX are public lands, whose real right of use is granted to traditional communities located in the municipality of Portel, in the state of Pará, who did not participate in the challenged project. Project 981 generates REDD+ assets (credits generated by avoided deforestation, sustainable management, and increased forest carbon stocks), was certified by an international company, and has been in place since 2008 to obtain carbon credits for forty years. The companies and individuals named in the lawsuit are responsible for, and are developers of, the project and/or alleged owners of rural properties. The Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA) alleges the illegality of the lands targeted by Project 981 because they are located on public lands within the perimeter of settlements, and that the project lacks authorization from the state of Pará, which constitutes land grabbing of public lands. It is emphasized that the project was implemented without prior study. The DPE-PA argues that the defendants acted in violation of the right to traditional territory, the right to prior, free, and informed consultation of traditional communities, did not comply with federal legislation on climate change, payments for environmental services, and the concession of public forests, and did not directly benefit the communities encompassed by the project. The plaintiff argues that the defendants' conduct gives rise to a duty to compensate for collective moral damages. In the context of provisional relief, the plaintiff requests (i) recognition of the possession of the affected traditional communities over their overlapping areas; (ii) a court order suspending Project 981 and an injunction preventing the defendants from entering the PEAEX (Extractive Environmental Protection Areas). On the merits, the plaintiff requests (i) confirmation of the urgent requests; (ii) recognition of the right to the traditional territory; (iii) invalidation of Project 981 and any legal transactions derived from it; (iv) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from entering the territories; and (v) an order for payment of collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 5,000,000.00 to be allocated to the Eastern Amazon Fund for the benefit of the communities in the agro-extractive territories of Portel.

Brazil Agflor and Michael Greene, a partner in said company, filed a defense, alleging preliminarily: (i) lack of standing of the Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA), due to the absence of a power of attorney to represent the communities; (ii) lack of standing, since they would not be responsible for land issues concerning the areas of Project 981; and (iii) inadequacy of the initial complaint, due to the lack of demonstration of a causal link between the defendant's conduct and the alleged damages, especially regarding the request for compensation for collective moral damages. On the merits, they argue, among other points, that the lands of Project 981 were not the object of land grabbing, indicating that, contrary to what the DPE-PA alleges, the community's areas unduly overlapped private properties. The only mention of the climate issue was limited to the potential role of carbon credit projects in reducing deforestation, mitigating the main cause of greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil. Finally, they request (i) their exclusion from the passive pole; (ii) total dismissal of the merits of the action; (iii) challenge to the value of the case; and (iv) carrying out an expert examination of documents relating to the properties discussed in the action.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 170 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Forest Code (Federal Law 12.651/2012)
• ILO Convention 169 (Federal Decrees 5.051/2004 and 10.088/2019)
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCC (Federal Decree 2.652/1998)

Case timeline

Case documents