Case Name: Ministério Público Federal e INCRA vs. Ana Paula Moura de Souza (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 Ana Paula Moura de Souza due to the deforestation of an area of 354.37 hectares, between 2012 and 2020, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the occupation of the land by the defendant would have occurred illegally because it is an area included in an Agroextractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned by and in the interest of the Federal Union, managed by the National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This Public Civil Action is part of a set of 22 lawsuits filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office 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 Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argumentation of the lawsuit is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, with regard to 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, estimated at 251,107.86 tons of carbon dioxide and which are directly related to the Brazilian State's deviation 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 in the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9,073/2017). The following are requested, among other requests: (i) reparation for the damages caused by 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 defendant was summoned by public notice and the defendant was declared in default, appointing the Federal Public Defender's Office as special curator. In response, the defendant claimed that the expert report attached to the initial claim does not demonstrate the authorship of the alleged damage, so there is no proof of a causal link – essential for civil liability. The defendant argued that it is possible that the degraded area had already regenerated given the time lapse between the deforestation itself and the filing of the lawsuit, and argued that the amount of compensation for material damages was disproportionate and that collective moral damages to the environment should be excluded. On the merits, the lawsuit was dismissed. Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active pole as a litigation assistant to the author.

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)
• Unites Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCC (Federal Decree 2.652/1998)

Case timeline

Case documents