- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Brazil
- /
- Tocantins
- /
- IBAMA vs. Brandão e Jovino
About this case
Filing year
2023
Status
Pending
Court/admin entity
Brazil → Tocantins → Tocantins Federal Court
Case category
Suits against corporations, individuals → Corporations → Climate damage
Principal law
Brazil → Federal Constitution of 1988Brazil → Forest Code (Law No. 4.771 of 1965)Brazil → National Environmental Policy Act (Law No. 6.938 of 1981)
At issue
Restoration for environmental and climate damage caused by deforestation in the Cerrado.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Summary
On September 11 2023, Brazil’s Federal Environment Agency (“IBAMA”), filed a public civil action (environmental class-action) against two individuals, Brandão de Souza Rezende and Jovino Moreno de Miranda seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages. The plaintiff claims that 489,0545 ha (hectares) of native Cerrado forest were cleared at the Jatobá farm without prior authorization from the competent environmental agency. It highlights the great importance of the Cerrado and that the advance of illegal deforestation of the biome contributes to the climate crisis. According to remote sensing images, the plaintiff claims that the area continues to be exploited (even though it has been embargoed by IBAMA), without regeneration measures having been adopted. It argues that the defendants are civilly liable for the specific environmental damage caused by the irregular suppression of native forest in the Cerrado and the existence of resulting environmental damage that includes damage to fauna, soil, climate and biodiversity, among other harmful consequences related to deforestation. Several measures to secure the prohibition of further exploitation of the deforested area are requested as an injunction. In a definitive manner, it is requested that the defendants be ordered to (i) recover an area corresponding to the deforested one, (ii) pay collective moral damages in the amount of R$3.693.828,63, (iii) pay for the transitory and residual damage caused to ecological heritage, in addition to compensation for the economic profit obtained illegally, including climate damage.
On October 10, 2023, the judge did not grant the injunction and IBAMA filed an Interlocutory Appeal.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Renewable energy
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Climate finance
Public finance actor
Adaptation/resilience