Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Istefania Ferreira da Silva (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary)

On September 9, 2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Civil Public Action (CPA) against Istefania Ferreira da Silva for deforesting 81.95 hectares between 2011 and 2020 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because 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 part of a set of 22 lawsuits filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation conducted under Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49 into illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agro-Extractivist Settlement Project (PAE), though involving different defendants.

The lawsuit is based, among other elements, on Brazilian environmental law, emphasizing the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, and civil liability propter rem for environmental damage, including climate damage, and collective moral damages. It also highlights the unauthorized emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, estimated at 64,229.56 tons of carbon dioxide, which directly contribute to Brazil’s deviation from its climate goals—conflicting with national and international commitments made 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 MPF 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 November 14, 2022, Istefania Ferreira da Silva filed an answer, arguing that it was impossible to hold her liable on the grounds that there was no requirement to behave differently, given that the area she occupies is smaller than the established fiscal module and is used solely to ensure her survival and that of her family. In light of this, she requested that the case be dismissed.

In 2025, a judgment was issued recognizing the relationship between deforestation and climate change, presenting extensive arguments on climate change and civil liability for climate damage, acknowledging said damage in the case. The requests were partially granted, condemning the defendant: a) to fulfill the obligation to restore the degraded area according to the Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); b) to the obligation not to act, consisting of prohibiting the defendant from using the area, in order to allow natural regeneration; c) to pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, the value of which will be subject to settlement of judgment; d) to pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 1,679,602.94, using as a basis for calculating the amount of carbon emitted the Technical Note prepared by the Amazon Research Institute (IPAM) and, for pricing purposes, the value of 5 dollars per ton, according to the Amazon Fund; e) to the payment of compensation for collective moral damages, in the amount of 5% of the total material damages determined in the settlement of the judgment. Finally, it declared the respective CAR null and void and allocated all the resources obtained to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

The judgment became final and the case entered the enforcement phase.