Mato Grosso

Brazil

Rio Grande do Norte

Piauí

Rio de Janeiro

Rondônia

Espírito Santo

Roraima

Santa Catarina

Minas Gerais

Goiás

Maranhão

Rio Grande do Sul

Mato Grosso do Sul

São Paulo

Alagoas

Amazonas

Sergipe

Pará

Amapá

Acre

Tocantins

Bahia

Paraíba

Paraná

Ceará

Pernambuco

Distrito Federal

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.

In January 2021, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Mato Grosso (MPMT) filed a Public Civil Action (CPA), with a request for an injunction, against Joel Rubin, seeking compensation for material and moral damages resulting from the deforestation of 296.2541 hectares in a Legal Reserve (RL) area on Fazenda Silva I, located in the municipality of Nova Maringá, in Mato Grosso. The deforestation occurred without authorization from the environmental agency between 2015 and 2018. It is mentioned that the damage caused by the emission of greenhouse gases resulting from deforestation violates the provisions of the National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the State Policy on Climate Change (State Law 582/2017), contributing to global climate change. It is argued that the Brazilian legal system enshrines the principle of preserving climate integrity and warns of the intensification of global warming effects. It is alleged that environmental civil liability is strict, and the obligation to repair is propter rem. In the preliminary injunction, the plaintiff requests, among other measures, the prohibition of economic use of the area during the litigation, the restoration of the degraded or altered area, the suspension of financing, tax incentives, and access to credit lines, and the registration of the CPA  in the property’s deed. As a final request, the plaintiff seeks compensation for material environmental damages, estimated at R$ 12,169,649.70, and for moral damages, to be determined by the court.

In January 2021, the court partially granted the urgent injunctive relief, limiting it to the registration of the lawsuit in the property’s deed.

In September 2021, the defendant filed his response arguing that the property where the deforestation occurred was sold by him in 2017 to Milton Paulo Cella and, therefore, he is not the party responsible for the deforestation nor the proper party to be named as the defendant in the lawsuit. On the merits, the defendant requested the total dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. He argued in favor of restoration of the area over the payment of compensation, the impossibility of cumulating compensation for material and moral damages, and the absence of moral damages.

In its reply, the MPMT requested the amendment of the initial complaint to include Milton Paulo Cella and Diogo Ricardo Bavaresco as defendants, as they acquired the deforested area, which was accepted by the defendant.

Due to the connection of this lawsuit with others pending against the defendant in the Federal Court of the First Region, the case was transferred to the Federal Court under case number 1002350-88.2024.4.01.3604.

On December 20, 2018, Brazil’s Federal Environment Agency (“IBAMA”), filed a public civil action (environmental class-action) against Alto Norte Indústria, Comércio e Exportação de Madeiras Ltda. seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages based on an infringement notice for illegal wood storage without an environmental license. This public civil action is part of a set of 9 lawsuits brought by IBAMA on the same grounds, but against different defendants, to question illegal wood deposits and climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that the storage of wood without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. Thus, it seeks reparation for environmental damages provoked by it, including (i) the damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, and (iii) contribution to global warming. As for the climate damage, it claims that the unlawful conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest, but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere.

The plaintiff seeks redress through the determination of (i) an obligation to restore the vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of logs seized, amounting to 20.63 hectares, ideally in an area of the same biome in Indigenous Land, Conservation Unit or Agrarian Reform Settlement Project and (ii) an obligation to pay the climate damage based on the Carbon Social Cost (CSC) in the amount of R$ 2,003,342.17. It claims, based on the polluter pays principle, that the climate damage represents an external social cost that is not internalized by the illegal deforestation, leaving it to society. It also argues that climate damage can be quantified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions of the activity by the CSC. In this case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested, summing up to 7,571.21
tons of carbon.

The plaintiff requests, as an injunction: (i) suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines by the offender, (ii) unavailability of assets in the estimated amount for the obligation of the vegetation restorage and the obligation to compensate the climate damage, and (iii) judicial restraint order of the illicit polluting activity. On the merits, it requests the defendant's conviction in the obligation to do - to recover an area equivalent to that deforested - and the obligation to pay - in the amount related to the social cost of carbon.

In a preliminary decision, the court partially granted the injunction, considering that the danger of delay was evident, especially in view of the fragility of the ecologically balanced environment. Thus, it granted and ordered (i) the suspension of the right to participate in financing lines offered by official credit establishments; (ii) the restriction of access to tax incentives and tax benefits offered by the Government in the three spheres of the Federation; and (iii) the unavailability of the assets of Alto Norte Indústria, Comércio e Exportação de Madeiras Ltda. in the amount of R$ 2,224,949.63.

Mato Grosso

Recent cases