Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Jorginei Anjos Batista (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 Jorginei Anjos Batista due to deforestation of an area of 124.47 hectares between 2015 and 2017, 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 regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, allegations of deforestation, strict liability for environmental damages—including climate-related damages—and collective moral damages. The claim also cites, as environmental liabilities, unauthorized greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the illegal deforestation, calculated at 69,196.81 tons of carbon dioxide. These emissions are directly tied 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) compensation for the damages caused by the unlawful deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation for intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iii) payment of compensation for climate-related damages; and (iv) payment of compensation for collective moral damages. In April 2024, the defendant filed a defense. He denied committing any environmental wrongdoing, emphasizing that the alleged deforestation occurred in 2015, at which time he no longer had possession of the area, which he had transferred to third parties in 2016 through a verbal agreement for the transfer of rights. He highlighted that the data relied upon in the action, originating from the Rural Environmental Registry (Cadastro Ambiental Rural - CAR), contain overlapping records, undermining the accuracy of the information and the proper identification of responsibilities. The defendant contested the existence of collective moral damages, intermediate and residual environmental material damages, and climate-related damages. He argued that the amounts sought as compensation are disproportionate and based on generic assumptions. Accordingly, he requested that the action be dismissed. A ruling was issued that recognized the relationship between deforestation and climate change, presenting extensive arguments regarding climate change and civil liability for climate damage, acknowledging such damage in the case. The court partially granted the claims, ordering the defendant: a) to comply with the obligation to restore the degraded area according to the Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); b) to a negative obligation, consisting of a prohibition on the defendant's use of the area, to allow for natural regeneration; c) to pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, the amount of which will be determined in a subsequent enforcement proceeding; d) to pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 1,809,496.47, using the Technical Note prepared by the Amazon Research Institute (IPAM) as the basis for calculating the quantity of carbon emitted and, for pricing purposes, the value of US$ 5 per ton, according to the Amazon Fund; e) to pay compensation for collective moral damages, amounting to 5% of the total material damages determined in the enforcement of the judgment. Finally, the court annulled the corresponding CAR and allocated all funds obtained to the Diffuse Rights Fund. The defendant filed an appeal seeking to overturn the ruling to dismiss the claims or to have the decision declared null and void.