Association of the Tenharim Morogitá Indigenous People (Apitem) vs. Federal Government, IBAMA, FUNAI, and State of Amazonas (Structural dispute over the Tenharim Marmelos Indigenous Land)

On November 2025 the Association of the Tenharim Morogitá Indigenous People (Apitem) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Federal Government, IBAMA, FUNAI, and the State of Amazonas with the aim of compelling the defendants to adopt structural and permanent measures to remove intruders from the Tenharim Marmelos Indigenous Land (TI Tenharim Marmelos), located between Humaitá and Manicoré, in Amazonas, where the Tenharim people, who call themselves Kagwahiva, live. It is alleged that the TI Tenharim Marmelos is the target of invasion, deforestation, logging, and real estate speculation caused by the advance of the agricultural and livestock frontier, being one of the most deforested territories in the country. The dispute affirm itself to be structural in nature, as it seeks to demand that the State formulate and implement a comprehensive territorial protection and monitoring plan and immediate repressive measures to protect the environment and ensure climate justice. It is alleged that the Tenharim territory has suffered violations since the opening of the Trans-Amazonian Highway (BR-230), already recognized by the 1st Region Federal Court (TRF1), which ordered the Federal Government and FUNAI to repair the damage caused, but there is a continuous omission by the State regarding the situation of the Indigenous Land. It is claimed that the invasions that have occurred in the Tenharim territory are supported by the issuance of forestry or agricultural exploitation licenses by state agencies without regard for indigenous rights. The territory also suffers from illegal mining that contaminates waterways, degrades forests, generates CO2 emissions and aggravates the climate crisis, threatening endemic species, the Tenharim's way of life and rights. It emphasizes that Brazil has made commitments to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in its NDC, and the Paris Agreement establishes duties to conserve and strengthen carbon sinks and combat forest degradation. The association also stresses that deforestation in indigenous territories has climatic dimensions that must be taken into account in the judgment of the lawsuit and points out that the Brazilian judiciary already has guidelines for recognizing climate damage in cases of deforestation and forest fires. Data from the CarbonCal Platform of the Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM) is presented to analyze the amount of carbon emitted by deforestation in the Indigenous Land and demonstrate the need for compensation for collective and climate-related moral damages, which should include, among other things, climate mitigation and adaptation measures. It points out that global warming is particularly intense in the Amazon and more specifically in the arc of deforestation, which could lead the forest to a “point of no return.” It highlights the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Advisory Opinion 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) on the duties of states in the context of climate change. Regarding AO-32/2025, it highlights that it defined climate damage as an autonomous form of human rights violation. In the context of urgent relief, the plaintiff requests a determination that (i) the defendants present an emergency plan for the removal of intruders from the Tenharim Marmelos Indigenous Land within 45 days; (ii) the Amazonas State Environmental Protection Agency (IPAAM) report on licenses, authorizations, or administrative registrations granted in the last five years; (iii) the Federal Government adopt immediate measures for the physical protection of community leaders in the Indigenous Land. On the merits, it requests (i) the defendants be ordered to adopt structural measures for local climate governance; (ii) the annulment of all administrative requirements and titles for use, exploitation, or research issued by the State of Amazonas or federal agencies regarding the Indigenous Land; (iii) the defendants be ordered, jointly and severally, to pay compensation for environmental damage and diffuse climate damage, in an amount estimated based on emissions caused by illegal deforestation and the social cost of carbon (SCC), to be reverted to the Tenharim community; (iv) a plan for the reoccupation of the Indigenous Land be carried out with the participation of federal entities.

On November 24th a preliminary injunction was issued that partially granted the urgent requests and determined for (i) the Federal Government, FUNAI, and IBAMA to present, within 90 days, an Emergency Plan for the Removal of Intruders from the Indigenous Land and (ii) IPAAM to report, within 30 days, under penalty of a daily fine, the existence of licenses, authorizations, or administrative records granted in the last five years for economic activities, forestry, mining, agriculture, or any other information on economic activities that overlap with the territory of the Indigenous Land. The court recognized the occurrence of illegal activities in the TI Tenharim Marmelos, such as forest degradation, invasions, and illegal logging, which place the territory under serious threat and are a mark of climate injustice. It understood that the lawsuit is a structural demand. It also recognized the scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. It recognized the role of indigenous peoples in defending the environment and addressing the climate crisis, highlighting the STF's understanding of the constitutional protection afforded to indigenous lands, which imposes on public authorities the duty to take swift action. It concluded that the evidence presented demonstrates risks of irreversible damage to the health and food security of indigenous peoples and the ecosystem, which justifies the need for urgent action. In deciding to compel the defendants to produce and make accessible data and information of relevant interest to the case, it highlighted the Escazú Agreement. It recognized the need to create an emergency plan for the removal of intruders from the indigenous territory, which should include measures for fire prevention.

IBAMA filed a defense asserting the absence of administrative negligence, highlighting the numerous enforcement actions carried out in the area. It stated that the removal of non-indigenous people from indigenous lands is not within the agency's institutional competencies, but rather a responsibility of the Federal Government, coordinated by the Civil House and involving indigenous affairs and public security agencies. It requested a review of the preliminary injunction and, on the merits, the dismissal of the claims.

The State of Amazonas filed a defense arguing, preliminarily, its lack of standing as a defendant. It alleged the inadequacy of the initial petition in relation to the state entity, requesting the dismissal of the case against the State or, alternatively, the dismissal of the claims.

In its defense, FUNAI argued that it has been adopting measures to monitor and protect the territory of the Tenharim Marmelos Indigenous Land, maintaining that the repression of invasions, the confrontation of criminal organizations, and the preservation of public order constitute public security activities that exceed its institutional competencies. It highlighted that the region presents a high degree of land conflict and the activity of illicit networks related to logging, mining, and land grabbing. It alleged that it cannot be converted into a "universal guarantor" of all illegality occurring on indigenous lands, that it maintains permanent technical monitoring of the area, and that it does not possess environmental police power to repress environmental crimes. It argued the absence of administrative omission and of a causal link between its actions and the alleged environmental and climatic damages, requesting the dismissal of the case in relation to FUNAI or, subsidiarily, the dismissal of the claims.

In its defense, the Union preliminarily alleged its lack of standing to be sued regarding the requests related to the execution of environmental and territorial protection actions, arguing that executive responsibilities in this matter belong to FUNAI, IBAMA, and other specialized agencies. On the merits, it argued that the action seeks to transfer functions proper to the Public Administration to the Judiciary, through the imposition of structural measures of territorial, environmental, and climate governance, in violation of the principles of separation of powers, administrative reserve, and the reserve of the possible. It argued that federal agencies already develop actions aimed at protecting the Tenharim Marmelos Indigenous Land and that there is no state omission capable of justifying judicial intervention in the formulation and implementation of public policies. It requested the recognition of its lack of standing to be sued or, subsidiarily, the complete dismissal of the requests and the revocation of the granted preliminary injunction.