Case Name: IBAMA vs. Brandão e Jovino (Illegal deforestation in the Cerrado)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) against Brandão de Souza Rezende and Jovino Moreno de Miranda. This ACP is part of a set of 2 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to challenge illegal deforestation in the Cerrado. The action is based on administrative process no. 02029.001395/2012-17, initiated on November 22, 2012, which investigates the deforestation of 489.0545 hectares of native Cerrado forest on the Jatobá Farm, in the municipality of Itapiratins/TO, without authorization from the competent environmental agency. The great importance of the Cerrado is highlighted, and the advance of illegal deforestation of the biome contributes to the climate crisis. According to remote sensing images, the plaintiff alleges that the area continues to be exploited (even though it has been embargoed by IBAMA), without regeneration measures having been adopted. The plaintiff argues for the civil liability of the defendants for the specific environmental damage of the irregular suppression of native forest in the Cerrado, and the existence of resulting environmental damages that include damage to fauna, soil, climate, biodiversity, among other harmful consequences related to deforestation. Thus, in addition to in-kind reparation, IBAMA alleges the need for reparation of interim damage, residual damage, and environmental moral damage, as well as restitution of the illicit enrichment obtained. Therefore, it requests, as a preliminary measure, a prohibition on exploiting the deforested area in any way during the course of the litigation, the suspension of tax incentives or benefits, the suspension of access to credit lines granted with public funds, the freezing of the defendants' movable and immovable assets, and the registration of the existence of the Public Civil Action in the property registry. Ultimately, the defendants are ordered to (i) fulfill the obligation to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area, (ii) pay collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 3,693,828.63 (three million, six hundred and ninety-three thousand, eight hundred and twenty-eight reais and sixty-three cents), (iii) pay for the temporary and residual damages caused to the ecological heritage, in addition to compensation for the illicitly obtained economic benefit, the value of which will be determined in the settlement of the judgment, and (iv) register the legal reserve of the property. The amounts corresponding to the indemnities must be reverted to the Fund for the Restoration of Damaged Assets.

The court denied the request for urgent relief, finding that the necessary requirements for its granting had not been demonstrated. It argued that IBAMA has its own self-executing instruments for cases of non-compliance with measures imposed by the agency itself. IBAMA filed an interlocutory appeal (1048550-38.2023.4.01.0000 - TRF1) against the decision.

In their defense, the defendants allege that i) the Jatobá Farm is undergoing environmental regularization, having prepared and submitted to the state environmental agency (NATURANTIS) the Environmental Control Report and Plan (RCA/PCA) concerning extensive cattle farming, with the aim of obtaining environmental licenses; ii) that the area in question has been kept fallow since the administrative embargo, with no agricultural, extractive, or alternative land use activity carried out on the site, with the aim of allowing the natural regeneration of native vegetation (which has already been fully completed). For these reasons, they argue that there is no basis for claiming environmental damage, paying compensation for the allegedly unlawful act, or prohibiting the exploitation of the area, since, given that the deforestation was carried out without a license, the fine was applied and the offenders have already been penalized. The defendants further request that the case be dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of procedural interest and standing of IBAMA and the lack of standing of the defendant Brandão de Souza Rezende (since he was no longer the owner or possessor at the time of the damage).

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)

Case timeline

Case documents