Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Ana Paula Moura de Souza (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary)

On September 13, 2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Civil Public Action (CPA) against Ana Paula Moura de Souza for deforesting an area of 354.37 hectares between 2011 and 2020 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant’s occupation of the land was illegal, as 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 CPA is one of 22 lawsuits filed by the MPF as a result of an investigation conducted under Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49 into illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agro-Extractivist Settlement Project (PAE), though each case involves different defendants. The lawsuit is based, among other things, on Brazilian environmental law concerning the constitutional protection of the environment, allegations of deforestation, propter rem civil liability for environmental damage (including climate damage), and collective moral damages. It also references the unauthorized emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation, calculated at 251,107.86 tons of carbon dioxide, which directly contribute to Brazil's deviation from its climate goals—placing it out of step with both national and international commitments established under the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the lawsuit seeks: (i) reparation for the damage caused by illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation for intermediate and residual material environmental damage; (iii) payment of compensation for climate damage; and (iv) payment of compensation for collective moral damages. The defendant was summoned by public notice and declared in default, with the Federal Public Defender’s Office appointed as a special curator. On October 31, 2024, an answer was filed, arguing that the expert report attached to the initial claim does not establish the defendant’s authorship of the alleged damage, and therefore, no causal link—fundamental for civil liability—has been proven. It further contended that, given the time lapse between the deforestation and the filing of the lawsuit, the degraded area may have already regenerated. Additionally, it challenged the disproportionate amount of compensation for material damages and argued for the exclusion of collective moral damages related to the environment. On the merits, it requested the dismissal of the lawsuit. Subsequently, INCRA was included as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff. A judgment was issued in August 2025, in which the requests were partially granted, ordering the defendant to (i) restore the degraded area (354.37 hectares), (ii) refrain from using the area, in order to allow natural regeneration, (iii) pay compensation for material damages related to intermediate and residual environmental damages, (iv) pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 6,566,470.48, adopting the price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2e, according to the Amazon Fund, and (v) pay compensation for collective moral damages. It was determined that resources obtained from this action should be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights. The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment.