Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Cleide Guimarães Machado (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary)

On June 29, 2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Civil Public Action (CPA) against Cleide Guimarães Machado for deforesting an area of 292.84 hectares between 2011 and 2020 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant’s occupation of the land was illegal, as it was part of an Agro-Extractivist Settlement Project (PAE) owned and managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractivist communities. This CPA is one of 22 lawsuits filed by the MPF as a result of an investigation conducted under Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49 into illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agro-Extractivist Settlement Project (PAE), though each case involves different defendants. The lawsuit is based, among other things, on Brazilian environmental law concerning the constitutional protection of the environment, allegations of deforestation, propter rem civil liability for environmental damage (including climate damage), and collective moral damages. It also references the unauthorized emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation, calculated at 160,574.33 tons of carbon dioxide, which directly contribute to Brazil's deviation from its climate goals—placing it out of step with both national and international commitments established under the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the lawsuit seeks: (i) reparation for the damage caused by illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation for intermediate and residual material environmental damage; (iii) payment of compensation for climate damage; and (iv) payment of compensation for collective moral damages. On May 13, 2022, Clair Cunha da Silva filed an answer, arguing that she lacked standing to be sued, as she only took possession of the land in 2019. She contended that the initial complaint alleges deforestation occurred between 2011 and 2020, yet there is no evidence that she engaged in deforestation after acquiring possession. Among other arguments, she claimed that the propter rem nature of environmental obligations applies only to the recovery of the area and that, due to the absence of proof linking her to the deforestation, there is no causal connection that would justify holding her civilly liable for material and moral damages. She, therefore, requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.