Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Istefania Ferreira da Silva (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary)

On September 9, 2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Civil Public Action (CPA) against Istefania Ferreira da Silva for deforesting 81.95 hectares between 2011 and 2020 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's 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 CPA is part of a set of 22 lawsuits filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation conducted under Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49 into illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agro-Extractivist Settlement Project (PAE), though involving different defendants. The lawsuit is 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 damage, including climate damage, and collective moral damages. It also highlights the unauthorized emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, estimated at 64,229.56 tons of carbon dioxide, which directly contribute to Brazil’s deviation from its climate goals—conflicting with national and international commitments made 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 MPF 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. On November 14, 2022, Istefania Ferreira da Silva filed an answer, arguing that it was impossible to hold her liable on the grounds that there was no requirement to behave differently, given that the area she occupies is smaller than the established fiscal module and is used solely to ensure her survival and that of her family. In light of this, she requested that the case be dismissed.