petition

ICMBio v. Sandra Silveira and others (Deforestation and climate damage in the Jamanxim National Forest) - petition

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

reply

ICMBio v. Sandra Silveira and others (Deforestation and climate damage in the Jamanxim National Forest) - reply

Filing Year For Action

On September 12, 2024, the Federal Environment Agency Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against Sandra Mara Silveira, the late Pedro Cordeiro's estates, Marcio Natalino Piovesan Cordeiro, Adrielle Silveira Piovezan and Davi Silveira Piovazan for illegal deforestation. Compensation is being sought exclusively for climate damage related to environmental offenses committed in an area of 7,075 hectares, comprised of three farms overlapping the Jamanxin National Forest. 

The plaintiff maintains that the case does not deal with the recovery of the degraded area or compensation for material damage and collective moral damage, which are already the subject of a lawsuit filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. The area had already been subject to several infraction notices, embargoes, and interdiction notices issued by IBAMA and ICMBio. The plaintiff claims that the climate damage results from illegal acts of deforestation, fires, the use of herbicides, the introduction of exotic species, the destruction of permanent preservation areas, and the prevention of regeneration of native vegetation to raise cattle in the federal public domain area. These actions are responsible for the illegitimate emission of greenhouse gasses (GHG), causing climate damage. In addition, keeping cattle aggravates the climate damage within the National Forest, considering the methane emitted. Based on the polluter pays principle, ICMBio claims that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost not internalized by the activity of illegally suppressing vegetation, translated into the social cost of carbon (SCC). It argues that the compensation for climate damage can be quantified by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC cost used by the OECD. ICMBio considers that the offenses were committed in specially protected territorial space, aggravating the environmental damage. It, therefore, requests a 50 percent increase in the value of the SCC, resulting in a quantum to be compensated of R$210,842,782.50. The plaintiff requests as an injunction (i) the immediate eviction from the area; (ii) a ban on exploitation of the area; (iii) the suspension of tax incentives and benefits and access to credit lines; (ii) the unavailability of assets in the amount estimated for the obligation to pay compensation for climate damage, and (iii) the unavailability of cattle in the area. It affirms the need to reverse the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to pay the amount of the social cost of carbon.

In February 2025, the defendants filed their defenses. Adrielle Mara Silveira, argued that the imputation stems exclusively from her family relationship with Sandra Mara Silveira - also a party to the lawsuit - without there being any demonstration of a causal link between her actions and the damage pointed out. The validity of the carbon pricing calculations presented by the plaintiff was also contested, due to the lack of a legal basis, recognized official parameters and adequate methodological support. Finally, she requested that the claims be dismissed, because there was no minimum proof of the authorship and materiality of the conduct attributed. Sandra Mara Silveira argued that the initial claim was generic and imprecise, as it did not specify the conduct attributed to the defendant, nor the amounts corresponding to the liability it sought to impose, and that the validity of the carbon pricing calculations presented lacked a legal basis and official parameters to be recognized. On the merits, she denied authorship of the environmental and climate damage alleged due to lack of proof, stressing that the environmental impacts described are the result of actions carried out by third parties. She therefore requested that the action be dismissed.