Mato Grosso State Public Prosecutor’s Office vs. Carlos Aparecido da Silva (Illegal deforestation at the Dois Irmãos farm)

On June 10, 2024 the Mato Grosso State Public Prosecutor's Office (MPMT) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for an injunction, against Carlos Aparecido da Silva for deforestation of an area of 11.31 hectares on the Dois Irmãos farm, located in the state of Mato Grosso, as found in Civil Inquiry 025/2023. The MPMT alleges that the defendant is the owner of the property and that native vegetation was cleared without authorization from the environmental agency. It argues that the reparation of environmental damage requires, in addition to the recovery of the biome itself, the repair of the incidental factors of the degradation caused, such as the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and highlights the principle of climate integrity preservation enshrined in the Brazilian legal system. As an injunction for urgent relief, it requests, among other things, that the defendant be prohibited from economically exploiting the areas that could be used for deforestation without authorization from the environmental agency. In the final instance, the restoration of the degraded area and the payment of compensation for material and moral damages in the amount of R$ 93,498.53 (ninety-three thousand, four hundred and ninety-eight Brazilian Reais and fifty-three centavos) are requested. The action was initially filed with the Mato Grosso State Court under case number 1004977-80.2024.8.11.0006, and on June 10, the court granted the request for urgent relief. On July 11, 2024, the defendant filed its defense claiming that the area is part of the Agrarian Reform Settlement Project called Assentamento Limoeiro and that it has a land tenure relationship, with the Federal Government being the legitimate owner who must respond to the lawsuit together with National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA). He claims that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear the case and that he has authorization to exploit the area in question, and that the notice of infraction is generic. He therefore requested that his lack of standing to be sued be recognized, that the emergency relief granted be suspended, that the court declare that it lacks jurisdiction, and that the action be dismissed with the notice of infraction declared null and void. The lack of jurisdiction was recognized, and the case was referred to the Federal Court, now under number 1003895-08.2024.4.01.3601. By order of the court, the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) was included as a defendant in the lawsuit and the Federal Public Ministry (MPF) was included as a plaintiff. INCRA filed its defense, arguing that it lacks passive legitimacy due to the absence of a causal link between the environmental damage and INCRA's duty to oversee and monitor. The agency maintained that it fulfilled its legal duty to inform the settler of their legal obligations to comply with environmental legislation and that non-compliance would result in the termination of the contract between them, as per Normative Instruction 99/2019, which establishes administrative procedures for the titling of rural properties in Agrarian Reform Settlement Projects. It emphasized that the illegal deforestation did not occur during the property acquisition phase, but rather when the settlers had already entered the area and had already been informed of their duty to comply with the law, and that there was no omission, act, or contribution by the agency regarding the damage caused by the settler. It requested that the preliminary objection of passive illegitimacy be upheld, with its continued participation in the case in the capacity of an interveniente anômalo (non-aligned intervenor), and that the claims against it be dismissed.