Amazonas

Brazil

Pará

Paraíba

Acre

Pernambuco

Alagoas

Piauí

Paraná

Amapá

Rio de Janeiro

Bahia

Rio Grande do Norte

Ceará

Rondônia

Distrito Federal

Roraima

Espírito Santo

Rio Grande do Sul

Goiás

Santa Catarina

Maranhão

Sergipe

Minas Gerais

São Paulo

Mato Grosso do Sul

Tocantins

Mato Grosso

On January 22, 2024, Observatório do Clima has filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the federal environmental agency IBAMA and the National Department of Infrastructure and Transport (DNIT), seeking the annulment of the Preliminary License for the reconstruction and paving of the “middle section” of the BR-319 highway. 

The plaintiff claims that paving the BR-319 would open new fronts for deforestation and land occupation in the Amazon. It says that in 2005, IBAMA began the licensing process for the paving of the middle section of the BR-319 highway, during which the environmental agency showed great concern about the increase in deforestation around the highway, the threat to biodiversity, and the potential for the grabbing of public land in the Amazon. However, according to Observatório do Clima, IBAMA's issuance of Preliminary License (LP) 672/2022 did not consider the environmental agency's previous concerns. It claims that the license was granted (i) without a climate impact study; (ii) without prior consultation with the traditional communities that the project would impact; (iii) despite the lack of minimum environmental governance to deal with the complexity of the environmental consequences of the project; and (iv) contrary to the guidelines of a Working Group formed by environmental agencies and an Inter Ministerial Committee, which indicated the need to adopt a series of measures associated with environmental governance before issuing the preliminary license. It highlights the importance of the Amazon rainforest for climate balance. It points out that deforestation in the biome would increase carbon dioxide emissions, exacerbate climate change, and that the absence of Free, Prior, and Informed Consultation would infringe on the rights of indigenous peoples. Observatório do Clima argues that the Brazilian legal system requires environmental licensing to assess the climate variable and failure to do so would render the preliminary license granted null and void. Based on the above, it requests a preliminary injunction to suspend the effectiveness of LP 672/2022, the reversal of the burden of proof, and, at the end of the trial, the annulment of the preliminary license, as well as any administrative acts arising from it.

On May 16, 2024, DNIT presented its defense, arguing that it had no legal standing and that the chosen procedure was inappropriate, and requested that the injunction be rejected. It argued for the presumption of legitimacy of administrative acts and the impossibility of judicial interference in administrative merit under penalty of violating the principle of separation of powers. It argued that it could not guarantee the socio-environmental measures needed around the BR-319 project, which are the responsibility of environmental, indigenous, land, and other bodies and agencies. Thus, it stated that environmental licensing could not make up for the lack of structure of the various bodies and authorities involved in environmental inspection policies and the prevention and control of deforestation in the Amazon. As for the request for a climate impact study, it argued that such an impact would derive from the possible increase in illegal deforestation generated by insufficient environmental governance in the areas close to the highway and would not be related to the technological solution applied to the project. It claimed that there had been prior consultation with indigenous peoples. In this way, it argued that it had complied with the environmental licensing process determined by IBAMA.

On May 17, 2024, IBAMA presented its defense, arguing the presumption of legitimacy of administrative acts and the impossibility of judicial review. It argued that DNIT, the project's proponent, lacked the administrative competence to carry out environmental policy measures, especially in the context of licensing. As for carrying out a climate impact study, it mentioned that the technical analyses assessed the issues directly related to the subject, such as deforestation, changes in land use, and adapting the project to climate events, and that the EIA/RIMA contained data for defining measures to control and mitigate these impacts. It argued that halting the licensing process would imply additional costs in preparing new assessments and studies and that there was no risk of damage to the useful outcome of the process, among other allegations.

On July 24, 2024, an injunction was issued in favor of the plaintiff's claims. The decision stated that the presumption of legality of administrative acts is relative and that the judiciary can control their constitutionality and legality. It questioned the validity of the preliminary license given the potentially severe environmental damage, such as deforestation, loss of biodiversity, damage to the climate system, and impacts on indigenous and traditional communities, among others. In this sense, the judge stated that a balanced environment is a human right and essential for the enjoyment of other rights, such as life and health, and that the judiciary is responsible for guaranteeing its protection against harm. The decision recognized that the case aims to ensure that the licensing process is carried out responsibly and adequately, guided by the technique and the best science applicable to control risks and damages, to allow the BR-319 project to coexist without undermining the duty to protect the Amazon rainforest. To this end, the lawsuit seeks compliance with the legal procedures for conducting technical studies, including climate impact studies and prior consultation with indigenous peoples and traditional communities. The decision stated that environmental licensing must include a climate diagnosis to establish adequate and proportionate mitigation and compensation measures under Brazilian legislation and international commitments. It affirmed the importance of the dimensions of climate mitigation and adaptation. It considered that the insufficiency of public policies and the lack of adequate state structures to prevent the rehabilitation of the BR-319 highway from destroying the Amazon rainforest had been demonstrated, ruling that the project was environmentally unfeasible. It, therefore, granted the request for the immediate suspension of the preliminary license.

IBAMA, the Federal Union, and DNIT appealed the decision, and on October 7th, 2024, the Reporting Judge of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region decided to suspend the effects of the preliminary injunction. According to the judge, the appealed decision had mistakenly concluded that the granting of a preliminary license was related to the execution stage of the project. In fact, this administrative act was merely evaluative in nature.  It was argued that the permit issued fulfilled the objective of attesting to the environmental viability of the project. It argued that the EIA/RIMA adequately fulfilled its purpose of exposing the real and potential environmental damage resulting from the project. The decision also argued that there is no normative, jurisprudential, or doctrinal provision on the obligation to prepare a climate impact study. It concluded that the EIA/RIMA exhaustively identified the activities that generate GHG emissions, which would meet what the appealed decision qualified as a climate impact study. Finally, it understood that (i) the environmental licensing complied with the provisions of ILO Convention 169 regarding prior consultation, (ii) the EIA/RIMA recognized the need to implement public policies in the Amazon region, and (iii) stressed the importance of restructuring the BR-319 for the development of the region.

On May 21, 2024, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (CPA) against Gilvan Onofre Souza and José Milton Onofre dos Santos for deforesting an area of 1,849.60 hectares between 2017 and 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendants' occupation of the land was illegal because it was part of an Agro-Extractivist Settlement Project (PAE), owned and managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractivist communities. This ACP was filed following a set of 22 lawsuits filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49 into illegal deforestation carried out inside the Antimary Agro-Extractivist Settlement Project (PAE), and is the result of the same CI. The lawsuit was filed following the termination without resolution of the merits of case 1022785-39.2021.4.01.3200, based on the identification of the individuals who had in fact deforested the same area that was the subject of the lawsuits. The lawsuit is based, among other things, on Brazilian environmental law, concerning the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, propter rem civil liability for environmental damage, including climate damage, and collective moral damages. It also mentions the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 1,088,203.70 tons of carbon dioxide and which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change - PNMC (Federal Law 12,187/2009) and in the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9,073/2017). Urgent relief is requested under the terms specified in the initial petition. On the merits, it requests, among other things: (i) compensation for the damage caused by illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual material environmental damage; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damage; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damage.

On July 22, 2024, the court granted the injunction based on the in dubio pro natura principle. It ordered the removal of all cattle from the area subject to the action within 15 days; a ban on issuing Animal Transportation Guides (GTA) and invoices for the movement of livestock from or to the property; the suspension and prohibition of access to public financing and tax benefits linked to the rural property and rural financing on behalf of the defendants; the suspension by IPAAM and INCRA of the CARs for the contested area.


On November 26, 2024, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for an injunction, against Sebastião da Costa Mariano, due to the illegal deforestation of an area of 903.22 hectares in the Municipality of Boca do Acre/AM, which occurred in 2021 and was verified through Operation Smoke. Between 2021 and September 2024, in the same place, the defendant allegedly caused fires in the vegetation with the aim of clearing and maintaining pastures for cattle breeding. The lawsuit argues explicitly about the relationship between deforestation and climate change and its extreme effects at local and regional levels. It points out that Brazil's main source of greenhouse gas emissions is through deforestation, highlighting the situation in the Amazon and Brazil's commitments to reduce deforestation in the biome. It points out that the illegal deforestation in the case in point led to the emission of 534,613.750272 tons of carbon dioxide, which imposes the duty to compensate for material intermediate and residual climate damage. It uses the Amazon Fund's calculation basis to assign the value of US$ 5.00 for each ton of CO2 emitted, resulting in the quantification of compensation at R$ 15,236,491.88. It requests a preliminary injunction to, among other measures, remove the cattle herd from the area in question, suspend access to financing and suspend registration in the CAR. As final requests, it asks for (i) the defendant to be ordered to repair the environmental damage by recovering the area; to be ordered to pay compensation for the intermediate and residual material environmental damage, for the social cost of the illicit act, with restitution of the illegally obtained profits, in the amount of R$ 19,404. 778.48; the obligation to pay compensation for residual and intermediate environmental damage, in the amount of R$15,236,491.88; the obligation to pay compensation for collective moral damage in the amount of R$9,702,389.24 and (ii) the reversal of the amounts of the conviction to the federal inspection bodies (IBAMA and ICMBio).

Amazonas

Recent cases