Case Name: IBAMA vs. Madelin Madeireira Linhares LTDA (Illegal logging in Rorainópolis and climate damage)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by IBAMA against Madelin Madeireira Linhares LTDA seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages based on a Notice of Violation for depositing timber in logs without an environmental license. This ACP is part of a set of 9 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to question illegal timber deposits and climate damages. The plaintiff claims that the storage of timber without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. Thus, he seeks compensation for associated environmental damages including (i) damages caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, (iii) contribution to global warming. Regarding climate damage, he claims that illicit conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest, but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. The author intends to determine (i) the obligation to carry out vegetation recovery in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of seized logs, totaling 43.2727 hectares, and (ii) the obligation to pay for climate damage based on the Social Cost of Carbon (CSC). Based on the polluter-pays principle, he claims that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost that was not internalized by the illegal vegetation removal activity. He argues that climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the CSC. In the specific case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested, totaling 15,881.0809 tons of carbon. He expressly mentions environmental justice and argues that liability for climate damage consists of legally asserting the correction of the distortion of environmental burdens and benefits. The author requests, as a preliminary injunction: (i) suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines for the offender, (ii) unavailability of assets worth the estimated value for the obligation to undertake plant recovery and the obligation to pay for climate damage, and (iii) judicial embargo on the illicit polluting activity. He also claims the need to reverse the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be convicted of the obligation to undertake, to recover an area equivalent to the deforested area, and the obligation to pay, in the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon. The defendant filed a defense alleging, as a preliminary matter, the lack of jurisdiction of the court, the lack of standing to sue on the part of IBAMA and the occurrence of lis pendens. On the merits, he argued that there was an ongoing administrative proceeding, that there was no proof of a causal link, and that he disagreed with IBAMA's calculation methods for identifying the volume of seized timber and the collective environmental damage (CSC). A judgment was handed down dismissing the case without resolving its merits due to IBAMA's lack of standing to sue. According to the decision, based on the principle of predominance of interests in the division of environmental jurisdiction, there was no interest of the Union involved that would give rise to IBAMA's actions. In view of the ruling, IBAMA filed an appeal defending its active legitimacy in view of an express legal provision. In its counter-arguments, the appellee company insisted on its arguments contesting the dismissal of the appeal. Subsequently, the ruling annulled the sentence and recognized the active legitimacy of IBAMA to file the ACP for environmental damages, as well as the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. It was determined that the case files be returned to the origin for regular processing of the case.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• National Environment Policy Act - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981)

Case timeline

Case documents