Case Name: Defensoria Pública do Estado do Pará vs. Brazil AGFOR LLC e outros (Project 2252 for 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 Brazil AGFOR LLC, Michael Edward Greene, Jonas Akila Morioka, Amigos dos Ribeirinhos Assessoria Ambiental EIRELI, Associação dos Ribeirinhos e Moradores, BLB Florestal Preservação no Brasil Ltda., and the Municipality of Portel, due to projects 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 REDD++ 2252 project, the subject of the action, overlaps with areas of 5 State Agro-extractive Settlement Projects (PEAEX). 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 2252 generates REDD+ assets (credits generated by avoided deforestation, sustainable management, and increased forest carbon stocks), was certified by an international company, and has been established since 2016 to obtain carbon credits for thirty 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 where it is located. The Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA) alleges irregularities in the property registrations of the properties that comprise the project, and that the project lacks authorization from the state of Pará, which constitutes land grabbing of public lands. Furthermore, the mayor of Portel issued a Public Utility Decree authorizing its operation, which the DPE-PA argues is unconstitutional. It should be noted that the project was implemented without prior study. The Public Defender's Office of Pará (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, failed to comply with federal legislation on climate change, payments for environmental services and the concession of public forests, and did not benefit the communities directly affected by the project. It argues that the defendants' conduct gives rise to a duty to repair collective moral damages. In the context of provisional relief, it requests (i) recognition of the possession of the traditional communities affected by the project over their overlapping areas; (ii) the suspension of Project 2252 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 traditional territory; (iii) invalidation of Project 2252 and legal transactions derived from it; (iv) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from entering the territories. (v) the declaration of nullity of the Public Utility Decree issued by the Municipality of Portel; (vi) the condemnation to pay collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 5,000,000.00 to be allocated to the Eastern Amazon Fund in favor of the communities of 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 2252; 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 2252 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. They also state their willingness to enter into a conduct adjustment agreement.

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