Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Degmar Serrath de Menezes Caetano (Deforestation and climate damage in the Antimary PAE)

In September 2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against Degmar Serrath de Menezes Caetano for deforesting an area of 115.91 hectares between 2015 and 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant’s occupation of the land was unlawful, as the area is part of an Agroextractivist Settlement Project (PAE), which is federal property managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractivist communities. This ACP is one of 22 actions brought by the MPF following an investigation under Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, which addresses illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agroextractivist Settlement Project, though each case involves different defendants. The legal arguments for the action are based, among other elements, on Brazilian Environmental Law, emphasizing the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, and civil liability propter rem for environmental damages (including climate-related damages) and collective moral damages. The MPF also underscores the environmental liability arising from unauthorized greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the illegal deforestation, estimated at 126,491.02 tons of carbon dioxide. These emissions are directly linked to Brazil’s deviation from its climate goals, violating commitments under the National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law 12,187/2009) and the Paris Agreement. The ACP includes the following key requests: (i) reversal of the burden of proof from the outset; (ii) immediate cessation of activities contributing to ongoing damage; (iii) restoration of the environment to its original state or, alternatively, payment of compensation aimed at achieving environmental restitution; (iv) payment of compensation for interim and residual environmental material damages; (v) payment of compensation for climate-related damages; and (vi) payment of compensation for collective moral damages. In March 2022, the defendant filed an answer. Among other arguments, it was claimed that there is an overlap of Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) records and that, in fact, the deforested area is smaller than stated in the initial petition. Additionally, the defense argued that the compensation amounts are excessive, that there is no expert report confirming the value of the climate-related damage, and that there are no objective criteria for determining the amounts for interim and residual damages.