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

On September 13, 2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Civil Public Action (CPA) against Nilton Oliveira da Silva for deforesting an area of 181.40 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 Agroextractivist 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 Agroextractivist Settlement Project (PAE), although each case involves different defendants. The lawsuit is based, among other elements, on Brazilian environmental law, emphasizing the constitutional protection of the environment, allegations of deforestation, propter rem civil liability for environmental damage (including climate-related damage), and collective moral damages. The action also highlights the unauthorized emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, estimated at 107,470.09 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly linked to Brazil’s failure to meet its climate goals. These emissions place the country at odds with its national and international commitments 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 interim and residual material environmental damage; (iii) payment of compensation for climate-related damage; and (iv) payment of compensation for collective moral damage. On September 5, 2022, Nilton Oliveira da Silva filed an answer, arguing that he was not a legitimate party to the lawsuit due to an alleged lack of evidence proving that he owned the land and was responsible for the deforestation. Among other arguments, he requested an environmental forensic assessment to verify the alleged damage and its extent. He also contended that the public civil inquiry on which the lawsuit is based violated the principle of due process and that there was no demonstrated causal link to establish civil liability. Additionally, he argued that seeking compensation for material damage and requiring restoration of the degraded area was improper. He further maintained that if the plaintiff sought compensation for environmental damage, climate-related damage would already be inherently included, making it inappropriate to claim them separately. Finally, he requested that the lawsuit be dismissed.