IBAMA v. Estate of Celestino Alecio and others (Deforestation and climate damage in Ulianópolis)

On September 20, 2020, the Federal Environment Agency (IBAMA) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the estate of Celestino Alécio Fuchina Facco, Tereza Stefanello Facco, Tiago Stefanello Facco, Lucas Stefanello Facco and Natascha Maria Pedroso Facco, seeking compensation for environmental damage caused by the deforestation of 913.35 hectares of native vegetation in the municipality of Ulianópolis in Pará. IBAMA mentions a series of damages resulting from deforestation, including global warming and climate impacts. As a preliminary injunction, it requested that the economic use of the area be prohibited for the duration of the case, that funding and tax incentives and access to credit lines be suspended, and that the defendants' assets be declared unavailable to guarantee the restoration of the damage. On the merits, it requests the environmental recovery of 913.35.60 hectares of Amazon rainforest and the payment of compensation for the interim and residual damage caused to the environment, as well as moral damage and compensation for the illicit economic profit.
 On July 3, 2022, Observatório do Clima filed its amicus brief to subsidize the decision on the merits regarding the need for express recognition of the climate damage. It argues that international commitments and national legislation guarantee the right to climate stability, an integral part of the fundamental right to an ecologically balanced environment. According to the NGO, the plaintiff's claim for compensation for interim and residual damages includes climate damage, with global warming and climate impacts having been expressly mentioned in the initial petition as damages resulting from deforestation. However, it claimed that, when the case was filed, there was no methodology to quantify the damage, leading IBAMA to request that it be calculated at the liquidation stage. Observatório do Clima then submitted a Technical Note with a methodology for quantifying and pricing the carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere due to the deforestation of the area mentioned in the initial petition. Based on the standard price of US$5.00/tCO2e, practiced by the Amazon Fund to raise funds for forest preservation, the climate damage in this case was calculated at R$23,159,018.18. It argued that climate damage resulting from illegal deforestation is an environmental damage that cannot be ignored, especially considering the principle of full reparation of environmental damages. On March 5, 2024, the court granted the admission of the NGOs Observatório do Clima and Instituto Arayara as amicus curiae. 

 In August 2025, a judgment was issued that partially granted the requests. The defendants were ordered to regenerate the deforested area, and the determinations made in the preliminary injunction were upheld. The requests for compensation for collective moral damages, compensatory material damages, and climate damage were denied due to a lack of evidence of current harmful conduct or a direct causal link attributable to the successors. In justifying the denial of these requests, the court acknowledged that the area had been degraded in the past but was undergoing a process of regeneration, as the defendants presented technical reports, images, notarial deeds, and documents from the PRA (Environmental Regularization Program) that corroborated their claims and justified the lack of a judgment ordering payment. Specifically regarding the request for consideration of climate damage caused by degradation, requested by the Climate Observatory in its capacity as amicus curiae, it was argued that, despite being a tool of notable value and importance and whose technical and regulatory advancement would be undeniable, it would not be possible to assess this damage in the present case, since the request was presented in an accessory capacity, without full adversarial proceedings from the parties and without expert technical evidence, which makes it impossible to directly determine a value based on external parameters or generic estimates, such as pricing per ton of CO2 emitted. The judgment granted preliminary injunction ex officio for the immediate prohibition of planting, trading of agricultural products, timber or livestock, including cattle, in the respective area.