Deforestation in Amazon: Only 5% pay fines
A survey by the Institute of Mankind and the Environment of the Amazon (Imazon), which examined over 3,500 lawsuits filed by the Brazil’s Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, found that accountability for illegal deforestation in the Amazon has increased. However, only 5 percent of the cases led to compensation. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the fines collected will be reinvested in the biome itself.
Punishing the region's illegal deforesters and recovering the damage that has been caused is one of the main challenges for justice in the environmental area, says Imazon.
According to Imazon researcher Brenda Brito, the rise in well-founded cases that hold deforesters accountable is a positive development. “[It’s encouraging] that the courts have consistently upheld convictions in lawsuits based on remotely obtained evidence, such as satellite images and database analysis. The challenge now is ensuring the effective payment of compensation and the restoration of deforested areas,” she said.
The survey tracked the outcomes of civil lawsuits filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office between 2017 and 2020, seeking compensation for material and moral damages and mandating forest restoration.
The analysis covered 3,551 lawsuits related to 265,000 deforested hectares, with claims exceeding BRL 4.6 billion in compensation. By December 2023, rulings had been issued in 2,028 cases—57 percent of the total—of which 695 established some form of liability. However, only 55 resulted in terms of conduct adjustment (TACs), in which those responsible for illegal deforestation committed to reparation measures.
Compensation
According to Imazon, of the BRL 251.9 million in compensation ordered by court rulings, only BRL 652.3 thousand has been paid—equivalent to 37 sentences, or just 5 percent of the total.
The research found that, although the Prosecutor's Office requested that the funds be allocated to environmental agencies in most of the lawsuits, public funds—such as the Diffuse Rights and National Environment funds—were the primary allocation in most of the rulings.
"Resolutions and recommendations from the National Council of Justice permit these funds to be directed towards activities in the Amazon, which would be ideal. For instance, transfers to public or private non-profit organizations involved in projects to restore native vegetation or combat fires. To make this happen, the courts and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office must publish calls for projects to be submitted and evaluated," says researcher Brenda Brito.
Recommendations
Imazon concluded that first-instance judges continue to reject evidence obtained through remote means—such as satellite images or data from public databases—and that there is inconsistency in the definition of compensation amounts in rulings.
To address both issues, the study recommends that the National Council of Justice increase the dissemination of its protocols, which allow for the use of such evidence and provide a methodology for quantifying climate damage caused by deforestation and forest fires. Additionally, it suggests implementing training programs in the courts.
According to the Institute, rulings need to improve how they determine the restoration of deforested areas and enforce this obligation. To address this, it suggests that the National Council of Justice organize and make georeferenced data on the areas available, enabling remote sensing monitoring by various organizations.
"In cases involving an uncertain defendant, the research suggests that the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, rather than filing multiple lawsuits, consolidate several deforested areas into a single request, enabling land and environmental agencies to impose embargoes," added Imazon.
