Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Roges Pereira Sales (Desmatamento e dano climático no PAE Antimary)

In September 2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against Roges Pereira Sales for the deforestation of 287.96 hectares between 2015 and 2020 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was unlawful, as the area is part of an Agroextractivist Settlement Project (PAE), which is federal property under the management of the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and is occupied by traditional extractivist communities. This ACP is one of 22 actions brought by the MPF following an investigation conducted under Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, addressing illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agroextractivist Settlement Project, though involving different defendants. The legal arguments for the action are based, among other elements, on Brazilian Environmental Law, emphasizing the constitutional protection of the environment, allegations of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages (including climate-related damages), and collective moral damages. The MPF also highlights the environmental liability resulting from unauthorized greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by illegal deforestation, estimated at 161,016.06 tons of carbon dioxide. These emissions are directly linked to Brazil's deviation from its climate goals, violating commitments under the National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law 12,187/2009) and the Paris Agreement. The ACP includes the following key requests: (i) reversal of the burden of proof from the outset; (ii) immediate cessation of activities contributing to ongoing damage; (iii) restoration of the environment to its original state, or alternatively, payment of compensation aimed at achieving environmental restitution; (iv) payment of compensation for interim and residual environmental material damages; (v) payment of compensation for climate-related damages; and (vi) payment of compensation for collective moral damages. In August 2024, the defendant, represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office, filed an answer arguing the absence of both causation and authorship regarding deforestation. The defense also claimed that combining the requests for in natura restoration and compensation for material damages for the same act would constitute bis in idem. The defendant requested that the action be dismissed. A judgment was issued in August 2025, in which the court recognized the climate litigation nature of the action and stated that the deforestation of 287.96 hectares in the Antimary PAE constitutes environmental and climate damage, as it generates illegitimate greenhouse gas emissions and compromises Brazilian public policies and international commitments. Based on objective civil liability and the theory of integral risk, the court ordered the defendant to (i) restore the degraded area, refraining from further interventions; (ii) compensate for interim and residual environmental material damages; (iii) compensate for climate damages in the amount of R$ 4,210,569.96, 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 material damages); in addition to declaring the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry) linked to the area null and void. It ruled that the resources obtained from this action should be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights. The Federal Public Defender's Office filed an appeal with the TRF1 (Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region), requesting a complete reversal of the sentence.