Climate Damage in the Judiciary: IBAMA actions seek accountability for carbon emissions in deforestation cases
In recent decades, climate change has come to occupy a relevant space in the legal debate, given the increase in the occurrence and intensity of climate events and in the impacts caused by the emission of greenhouse gases (“GEE”). In this context, in addition to the discussion on the causes and consequences of climate change, the possibility of accountability for the damages arising from these emissions is gaining ground in Environmental Law.
It is in this scenario that the discussion on climate damage emerged, understood as the harm caused to the global climate system by activities that contribute to the increase in the concentration of GEE in the atmosphere or to the reduction of the capacity of ecosystems to absorb carbon. Although the Brazilian legal system does not yet present an express legal definition of the concept, the matter has already been developed by legal scholarship, by environmental agencies and by the Judiciary.
Among the activities commonly related to climate damage, deforestation is cited, given the understanding that the irregular suppression of vegetation not only causes environmental loss in the directly affected area, but also interferes with the stock of stored carbon and with the capacity of the ecosystem to act as a carbon sink. The relationship can be presented as follows:
DEFORESTATION → RELEASE OF THE CARBON STORED IN VEGETATION → GEE EMISSION → CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING → CLIMATE DAMAGE
On this basis, the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (“IBAMA”, Brazilian Federal Environmental Agency) began filing civil civil actions (“ACPs”) seeking not only the recovery of degraded areas, but also accountability for the climate impacts associated with deforestation. In these ACPs, the discussion covers the occurrence of climate damage, the link between the conduct of the party responsible for the deforestation and the GEE emissions, and the possibility of attributing an economic value to the damage.
2023 Case:
One of the ACPs filed by IBAMA in 2023 (case No. 1037196-19.2023.4.01.3200) seeks to hold the defendant liable for climate damages arising from the illegal deforestation of approximately 5,600 hectares of Amazon rainforest, in areas located in municipalities in the State of Amazonas. According to IBAMA, the interventions would have caused emissions estimated at 901,600 tons of carbon. In the claim, IBAMA requests, in summary:
Repair of the climate damage through the implementation of GEE sinks and of environmental compensation measures aimed at the mitigation and reversal of the climate impacts;
Financial compensation for the illegal GEE emissions, calculated based on the CSC, in the estimated amount of BRL 292.1 million; and
Restitution of the profits obtained from the illegal exploitation and destruction of the deforested area, to be allocated to the Fund for the Defense of Diffuse Rights.
The case stands out for the magnitude of the climate damage discussed and for the significant amount claimed as reparation, estimated at BRL 292 million, being one of the largest amounts under discussion in a lawsuit aimed at the reparation of climate damages in Brazil.
To economically quantify this impact, IBAMA relied on the Social Cost of Carbon (“CSC”), a methodology intended to attribute economic value to the damages associated with the emission of a given amount of carbon, allowing the quantification of the climate harm.
In deforestation cases, the calculation is carried out in two stages. First, the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere due to the environmental degradation is estimated. To this end, the affected area is identified and, based on the guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), the amount of carbon equivalent is calculated, resulting in the total volume of emissions attributed to the climate damage.
Next, these emissions are converted into a monetary value. For this purpose, the parameter adopted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”), according to which each ton of carbon corresponds to a cost of € 60.00, is used as a reference. Thus, the value of the climate damage is obtained by multiplying the total estimated emissions by the value of € 60.00 per ton, with subsequent conversion into the national currency, according to the prevailing exchange rate.
The case is still ongoing and there is not yet a final decision on the merits regarding the methodology used to prove and quantify the climate damage arising from the deforestation. However, a preliminary injunction was granted on July 12, 2024, which granted the following requests made by IBAMA, as set out below:
PRELIMINARY MEASURES GRANTED |
Freezing of the defendant’s assets up to the limit of BRL 292.1 million; |
Order to implement measures for the removal of carbon from the atmosphere, considering the estimated volume of 901.6 thousand tons of carbon emitted; |
Suspension of access to official credit lines and to tax benefits; |
Notice to financial institutions of the existence of the action, for purposes of compliance with climate governance policies; |
Prohibition of transactions involving equipment associated with deforestation, such as chainsaws and tractors, under penalty of a fine; and |
Prohibition of transactions involving the properties subject to the deforestation discussed in the case records, also under penalty of a fine. |
On August 3, 2026, IBAMA submitted its closing arguments, maintaining the existence of unequivocal climate damage and the need for full reparation, in addition to requesting the confirmation of the injunction already granted and that the claims set out in the initial complaint be upheld. Subsequently, on August 10, 2026, the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (“INCRA”) fully ratified the arguments of the environmental agency.
Other Cases
IBAMA has filed other ACPs on the same grounds as the 2023 case, all with claims for climate reparation, through the conversion of the carbon emission arising from a given conduct into an economic value subject to reparation.
In the lawsuits, IBAMA seeks, as preliminary relief, (i) the suspension of tax incentives or benefits and of access to credit lines granted by the Government, until the environmental damage is completely regenerated; (ii) the suspension of access to credit lines granted with public funds, until the environmental damage is completely regenerated; and (iii) the freezing of the movable and immovable assets of the Defendants, in an amount sufficient to guarantee the recovery of the environmental damage caused. On the merits, it seeks: (i) an order to perform the obligation of recovering the affected area, based on a Degraded Area Recovery Plan (“PRAD”); and (ii) an order to pay the social cost of carbon (“CSC”).
Among the lawsuits analyzed, the following stand out:
ACP No. | CONDUCT THAT GAVE RISE TO THE CLAIM | CURRENT STATUS |
1003478-16.2018.4.01.3100 | Illegal suppression of the Amazon biome, for keeping in storage 1,490.763 m³ of logs, of the species, arranged in 11 yards, without a license granted by the competent environmental authority. Associated value: BRL 1,697,706.00 | In the judgment enforcement phase. The judgment ordered the defendant
|
1000200-41.2018.4.01.3606 | Illegal suppression of the Amazon biome, for keeping in storage 1,836.74 m³ of timber, without a valid license for storage, granted by the competent authority. Associated value: BRL 2,224,949.63 | In the fact-finding phase, with a pending discussion on the regularization of the defendant side and the enforcement of the precautionary measures granted.
|
1000469-62.2018.4.01.3903 | Illegal suppression of the Amazon biome, for keeping in storage 2,063.65 m³ of logs, of the species commonly known as estopeiro, jatobá, angelim, (...) and others, totaling 787 logs, without a valid license for the entire storage period, granted by the competent environmental authority. Associated value: BRL 2,225,650.65 | At the appellate level, awaiting judgment of the appeal filed by IBAMA before the TRF-1.
|
1000185-42.2018.4.01.3907 | Illegal suppression of the Amazon biome, for keeping in storage 2,116.814 m³ of native timber, of the species listed in Seizure Term No. 824834-E, being 2,064.524 m of logs and 52.290 m³ of sawn timber, without a license granted by the competent environmental authority. Associated value: BRL 2,387,803.43 | At the appellate level, awaiting judgment of the appeals filed by IBAMA.
|
1000656-73.2018.4.01.3902 | Illegal suppression of the Amazon biome, for keeping in storage 2,957 m³ of logs, without valid authorization for storage. Associated value: BRL 3,189,130.41 | In the appellate phase, awaiting judgment of the appeal filed by IBAMA before the TRF-1.
|
1000275-31.2019.4.01.3902 | Illegal suppression of the Amazon biome, for keeping in storage 1,985.31 m³ of logs and products and 371.16 m³ of sawn timber without a license granted by the competent authority. Associated value: BRL 3,285,117.09 | In the judgment enforcement phase. A partially favorable judgment was rendered, ordering the defendant |
1000364-26.2019.4.01.3200 | Illegal suppression of the Amazon biome, for keeping in storage 601.28 m³ of sawn timber of various species and products and 2,224.22 m³ of logs of various species without a license granted by the competent authority. Associated value: BRL 4,250,592.08 | At the appellate level, awaiting judgment of the appeal filed by the defendant before the TRF-1.
|
1001659-42.2018.4.01.4200 | Illegal suppression of the Amazon biome, for keeping in storage 4,327.273 m³ of logs, of various species, without authorization from the competent agency. Associated value: BRL 4,666,969.34 | Awaiting judgment. |
1000083-80.2019.4.01.3908 | Illegal suppression of the Amazon biome, for keeping in storage 3,359.993 m³ of sawn timber without valid authorization for storage. Associated value: BRL 10,353,619.20 | At the appellate level, awaiting judgment of the appeal filed by the defendant before the TRF-1.
|
In the lawsuits analyzed by our Environmental Team, the quantification of the climate impacts plays a relevant role, since it is from the estimate of GEE emissions that it becomes possible to economically size the damage and establish the value of the reparation sought. In this context, the CSC emerges as one of the main parameters used by IBAMA to attribute economic value to the emissions arising from deforestation.
The Social Cost of Carbon as a possible parameter
The reparation of climate damage requires not only the identification of the emissions arising from the conduct, but also their quantification. In this context, such reparation may involve, in addition to environmental recovery measures, such as the preparation of a PRAD, or also pecuniary reparation in cases in which recovery is not possible, an additional stage of quantification of the damage. To define the value of this reparation, it is necessary to estimate the amount of carbon emitted and to establish a parameter that allows the climate damage to be converted into an economic value.
In this scenario, the CSC has been used by IBAMA in ACPs as one of the possible ways to estimate the economic value of the impacts associated with GEE emissions. Its use, however, does not mean that it is the only possible method or that its application is appropriate in all situations, and its pertinence must be analyzed in light of the particularities of each case. Indeed, the very value attributed to the CSC is not a consensus. Estimates range from USD 14 per ton of CO₂, in a 2021 report of the U.S. government, to USD 308 per ton. Both values refer to emissions in 2020, but were calculated with different models and assumptions. One of the main reasons for this gap is the weight given to future damages: the less these damages are discounted, the higher the cost attributed to today’s emission. Therefore, the choice of a value requires explaining how it was calculated and why it is appropriate to the case analyzed
An example of application of the CSC is ACP No. 1003478-16.2018.4.01.3100 (included in item 1 of the table above), in which the private party was ordered to pay the amount corresponding to the CSC, in the amount of BRL 1,447,650.20.
On the other hand, there are decisions that did not uphold compensation claims based on the CSC, although they recognized the need to repair the environmental damage. In ACP No. 1000469-62.2018.4.01.3903 (included in item 3 of the table above), the claim for compensation based on the CSC was rejected due to the absence of expert evidence that would allow the climate damage to be quantified. In ACP No. 1000185-42.2018.4.01.3907 (included in item 4 of the table above), in turn, the claim for compensation based on the CSC was not upheld, citing the absence of legal parameters for setting the amount.
Thus, the decisions analyzed show that the recognition of climate damage does not necessarily imply the acceptance of a given method for its economic quantification. Although the CSC is one of the references used to estimate the value of climate impacts, its application remains subject to discussion in the judicial sphere, and it is not yet a definitive or universally accepted methodology.
Bibliography:
BRAZIL. Federal Decree No. 2,652, of July 1, 1998. Promulgates the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in New York on May 9, 1992. Brasília, DF: Presidency of the Republic, 1998. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/d2652.htm. Accessed on: Sep. 15, 2026.
BRAZIL. Federal Law No. 12,187, of December 29, 2009. Establishes the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) and makes other provisions. Brasília, DF: Presidency of the Republic, 2009. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2009/lei/l12187.htm. Accessed on: Sep. 15, 2026.
BRAZIL. Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Diffuse rights: institutional. Brasília, DF: Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Available at: https://www.gov.br/mj/pt-br/assuntos/seus-direitos/consumidor/direitos-difusos/institucional. Accessed on: Oct. 1, 2026.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUSTICE (CNJ). CNJ Recommendation No. 123, of January 7, 2022. Recommends that the bodies of the Judiciary observe international human rights treaties and conventions and use the judgment protocols. Brasília, DF: CNJ, 2022. Available at: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/5278. Accessed on: Sep. 14, 2026.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC). IPCC. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/. Accessed on: Oct. 1, 2026.
JUSCLIMA2030. IBAMA vs. Dirceu Kruger. Porto Alegre: JUSCLIMA2030, [n.d.]. Available at: https://jusclima2030.jfrs.jus.br/litigio/ibama-vs-dirceu-kruger/. Accessed on: Sep. 17, 2026.
JUSCLIMA2030. IBAMA vs. Silmar Gomes Moreira. Porto Alegre: JUSCLIMA2030, [n.d.]. Available at: https://jusclima2030.jfrs.jus.br/litigio/ibama-vs-silmar-gomes-moreira/. Accessed on: Sep. 17, 2026.
JUSCLIMA2030. IBAMA vs. V. de Souza Brilhante EIRELI. Porto Alegre: JUSCLIMA2030, [n.d.]. Available at: https://jusclima2030.jfrs.jus.br/litigio/ibama-vs-v-de-souza-brilhante-eireli/. Accessed on: Sep. 17, 2026.
REPÓRTER BRASIL. What is a carbon sink? São Paulo, 2024. Available at: https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2024/12/o-que-e-um-sumidouro-de-carbono/. Accessed on: Sep. 18, 2026.
ROSA, Rafaela Santos Martins da. Future climate damage and civil liability. 2023. Thesis (Doctorate in Law) – Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, 2023. Available at: https://repositorio.jesuita.org.br/server92/api/core/bitstreams/147ec371-308c-4ab2-965a-cc02d9ad3c01/content. Accessed on: Sep. 14, 2026.
SILVA, Amanda Souza da; SOARES, Inês Virgínia Prado. Climate damages and civil liability: perspectives for climate litigation in Brazil. Veredas do Direito, Belo Horizonte, v. 21, n. 49, 2024. Available at: https://revista.domhelder.edu.br/index.php/veredas/article/view/2930/27091. Accessed on: Sep. 17, 2026.
WAYCARBON. What is the social cost of carbon? Belo Horizonte, [n.d.]. Available at: https://waycarbon.com/pt/blog/qual-e-o-custo-social-do-carbono/. Accessed on: Sep. 18, 2026.
