Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Loacir Maria da Conceição (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 Loacir Maria da Conceição due to deforestation of an area of 110.66 hectares between 2013 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 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 illegal deforestation, calculated at 59,509.13 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) 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 restoring the environment; (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 February 2022, the defendant filed a defense. She stated that the total area of 180.7140 hectares has not belonged to her since 2014, following a verbal agreement with a third party identified as Áureo Miguel, with no formal documentation of the transaction. She claimed to have been unaware of the deforestation until being served in the action and argued that her socioeconomic condition prevents her from bearing the financial consequences of the claim. The defendant contested the admissibility of the claim, citing the lack of evidence linking her to the alleged damages. She argued that the Public Prosecution Service, with greater technical and financial resources, should bear the burden of producing the necessary evidence, rendering the reversal of the burden of proof inappropriate. She requested the dismissal of the action on the grounds of the absence of proven damages and the disproportionality of the amounts sought as compensation for collective moral damages. In a ruling issued in August 2025, the court recognized the "climate litigation" nature of the lawsuit and the importance of the Amazon in climate regulation, stating that illegal deforestation generates illegitimate greenhouse gas emissions and compromises environmental public policies. The judge concluded that the defendant was objectively liable, based on the theory of integral risk and the propter rem nature of environmental obligations, and ordered it to (i) restore the degraded area through a PRAD (Environmental Recovery Plan), refrain from further interventions, (ii) pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages; (iii) pay compensation for climate damages in the amount of R$ 1,475,826.52, adopting the price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2e, according to the Amazon Fund; and (iv) pay collective moral damages (5% of the total value of material damages), in addition to declaring the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry) linked to the area null and void. The funds obtained from this action should be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights. The Federal Public Defender's Office filed an appeal in the name of the defendant with the TRF1 (Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region), arguing the absence of evidence of authorship and causal link, the impossibility of reversing the burden of proof, the disproportionality of the sentence, and double jeopardy due to the accumulation of in-kind reparation and monetary compensation, requesting the complete reversal of the sentence.