Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Carlos Eduardo de Oliveira Lima (Deforestation and climate damage in the Antimary PAE)

In September 2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (Ação Civil Pública - ACP) against Carlos Eduardo de Oliveira Lima for deforestation of an area of 144.65 hectares between 2017 and 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was unlawful, as it is part of an Agroextractivist Settlement Project (Projeto de Assentamento Agroextrativista - PAE), owned by and of interest to the Federal Union, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), and occupied by traditional extractivist communities. This ACP is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the MPF following an investigation conducted under Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agroextractivist Settlement Project (PAE), but involving different defendants. The claims in the action are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, particularly the constitutional protection of the environment, allegations of deforestation, strict liability (responsabilidade civil propter rem) for environmental damages—including climate-related damages—and collective moral damages. The claim also identifies unauthorized greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the illegal deforestation as environmental liabilities. These emissions, calculated at 84,681.52 tons of carbon dioxide, are directly linked to Brazil's deviation from its climate goals, conflicting with the country’s national and international commitments under the National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law No. 12,187/2009) and the Paris Agreement. The relief sought includes, among other requests: (i) the reversal of the burden of proof ab initio; (ii) the immediate cessation of activities causing further damage; (iii) restoration of the environment to its prior condition, or alternatively, in case of non-compliance, payment of compensation aimed at environmental restoration; (iv) payment of compensation for intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (v) payment of compensation for climate-related damages; and (vi) payment of compensation for collective moral damages. In August 2024, a defense was filed requesting the dismissal of the case due to the inadmissibility of the initial petition and contesting the service by publication. On the merits, the defense sought the dismissal of the action. It was argued that the alleged violation was not adequately substantiated, as there was insufficient evidence to establish the defendant's responsibility for the alleged environmental damages, and the causal link—essential for civil liability—was lacking. Additionally, the defense argued that the reparatory and compensatory claims could not be combined, that the amount of compensation for material damages was disproportionate, and that collective moral damages related to the environment should not apply. In the alternative, if liability were to be recognized, the defense requested a reduction in the penalty amount based on the defendant's economic capacity.