Mato Grosso

Brazil

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

Pará

Paraíba

Acre

Pernambuco

Alagoas

Piauí

Amazonas

Paraná

Amapá

In May, 2025, the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) due to the inclusion of Blocks PRC-T-54, PRC-T-100, PRC-T-101, PRC-T-117, PRC-T-118, PRC-T-119, PRC-T-122, PRC-T-134, PRC-T-135 for oil and gas exploration in the 5th Permanent Concession Offer Cycle. It is alleged that the blocks were included in the auction without prior, free, and informed consultation with the directly affected Indigenous peoples, thus violating ILO Convention 169. The Arayara Institute alleges that the ANP ignored the existence of overlapping blocks with Indigenous lands and several Areas of Direct Influence (AID). It emphasizes that the ANP issued a technical note recommending the exclusion of areas within a 10- and 8-km perimeter around Indigenous lands, as an oil spill could affect the entire surrounding ecosystem, and that the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) issued a recommendation that the auction be suspended. It emphasizes that the exploration of these blocks causes harm to the health, territorial, and cultural rights of the affected populations. When discussing the supply and impact of exploration of oil blocks overlapping or within areas of influence of Indigenous lands, the author mobilizes the concept of environmental racism by explaining the motivation for offering these areas in the auction. It argues that there is a contradiction between the reality of the climate emergency and the need for energy transition, and the fact that oil and gas exploration is still increasing. The action highlights the important role of indigenous peoples in combating climate change, which is only possible with the possession and autonomy of their traditionally occupied territories. Requests the granting of a preliminary injunction to (i) suspend the offering of blocks PRC-T-54, PRC-T-PRC-T-100, PRC-T-101, PRC-T-117, PRC-T-118, PRC-T-119, PRC-T-122, PRC-T-134, PRC-T-135, ordering the Federal Union and the ANP to refrain from approving, granting, and signing the contract for these blocks until the prior, free, and informed consultation has been conducted; (ii) if the contract has already been signed, requests that its effects be suspended until the prior consultation with the monitoring of the MPI and FUNAI has taken place. As final requests, requests the cancellation of the procedure for offering and granting the blocks or, subsidiarily, the suspension of the offering until the prior, free, and informed consultation with indigenous peoples and traditional communities, with the monitoring of FUNAI and MPI has taken place.

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.

This case is part of a set of 195 Public Civil Actions (ACPs) filed by the Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) under the fourth phase of the “Amazônia Protege” Project, coordinated by the MPF’s 4th Chamber, which aims, among other objectives, to ensure the reparation of environmental damage caused by deforestation in the Amazon.

The lawsuits were filed against several defendants, including individuals and legal entities, held responsible for illegal deforestation in polygons equal to or larger than 60 hectares during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, in the states of Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, and Mato Grosso. The actions are based on satellite monitoring of deforestation and seek to hold each party individually accountable, both those directly responsible for the deforestation and those who derive economic benefit from it, such as the registered landholders of the deforested areas.
To identify those responsible for the environmental damage, the MPF used public databases, including data from the Land Management System (SIGEF), the National Rural Property Certification System (SNCI), and the Terra Legal Program, all maintained by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), as well as information from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and, where available, Infraction Notices and Embargo Reports for the areas involved.

The lawsuits are grounded on the constitutional protection of the environment and on civil liability propter rem for environmental damages arising from deforestation, including climate damages and collective moral damages. They explicitly refer to the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) resulting from illegal deforestation.

Among the final requests, the MPF seeks:
 i) An order requiring defendants to pay a specific monetary amount corresponding to the material damage resulting from deforestation;
 ii) An order requiring payment for illegal CO₂ emissions, applying the National Council of Justice (CNJ) Environmental Litigation Protocol, with a valuation of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO₂;
 iii) An order requiring payment for collective moral damages;
 iv) Restoration of degraded areas, including suspension of their use to allow natural regeneration, and submission of a Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD);
 v) Allocation of all compensation funds to federal environmental agencies (IBAMA and ICMBio) operating in the respective states.

This case is part of a set of 195 Public Civil Actions (ACPs) filed by the Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) under the fourth phase of the “Amazônia Protege” Project, coordinated by the MPF’s 4th Chamber, which aims, among other objectives, to ensure the reparation of environmental damage caused by deforestation in the Amazon.

The lawsuits were filed against several defendants, including individuals and legal entities, held responsible for illegal deforestation in polygons equal to or larger than 60 hectares during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, in the states of Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, and Mato Grosso. The actions are based on satellite monitoring of deforestation and seek to hold each party individually accountable, both those directly responsible for the deforestation and those who derive economic benefit from it, such as the registered landholders of the deforested areas.

To identify those responsible for the environmental damage, the MPF used public databases, including data from the Land Management System (SIGEF), the National Rural Property Certification System (SNCI), and the Terra Legal Program, all maintained by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), as well as information from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and, where available, Infraction Notices and Embargo Reports for the areas involved.

The lawsuits are grounded on the constitutional protection of the environment and on civil liability propter rem for environmental damages arising from deforestation, including climate damages and collective moral damages. They explicitly refer to the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) resulting from illegal deforestation.

Among the final requests, the MPF seeks:
 i) An order requiring defendants to pay a specific monetary amount corresponding to the material damage resulting from deforestation;
 ii) An order requiring payment for illegal CO₂ emissions, applying the National Council of Justice (CNJ) Environmental Litigation Protocol, with a valuation of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO₂;
 iii) An order requiring payment for collective moral damages;
 iv) Restoration of degraded areas, including suspension of their use to allow natural regeneration, and submission of a Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD);
 v) Allocation of all compensation funds to federal environmental agencies (IBAMA and ICMBio) operating in the respective states.

Geography

Mato Grosso

Recent cases