Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/brazil_dam_disaster
By: JP Tavares
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the KCL Latin American Society or El Cortao.
Note: This article was previously published to King’s College London’s The Political Economy Review on January 20, 2020. For similar publications visit; https://medium.com/the-political-economy-review
In November 2015, a Dam Collapse struck the township of Mariana, Brazil, causing one of the most pressing environmental disasters in Brazilian history. The surreal effect of a dam collapse in Mariana trailed mud and debris for an extension of 660km: the equivalent distance from Edinburgh to London. Four years later, the same form of collapse happened in the township of Brumadinho, raising concerns over current mining regulations.
After 5 years, it raises the question of whether reparations will be achieved, whether the mining firm will be held accountable and what alternatives could prevent similar disasters.
What has happened, and what has been done?
With over 40 townships damaged by water poisoning, and the livelihood of over 500,000 individuals affected, the crisis in Mariana is being treated as a criminal lawsuit to the mining firm Samarco, a joint venture between Vale and BHP Billiton.
According to the Brazilian Environmental Agency (Ibama), Brumadinho, with over 300 deaths, and a 250km extension of debris, lost approximately 300 football fields in forestry. In both townships, the resulting disasters led to surges in Zika, Dengue, Mental Illnesses and cardiovascular diseases, due to the precarious conditions following the disaster.
Guilherme de Sá, a District Attorney, claims that nothing has been done to prevent mines from ramping up production and acting irregularly. This is most likely due to precarious environmental licensing, such that the firms responsible are rarely held accountable for their acts.
Sá claims it would be ideal if the federal government had legislations which guaranteed reparations and safeguarded the civil rights of victims of environmental disasters. Likewise, according to Brazilian law, both Dams were considered to be at low risk of collapse: despite internal company files, which detailed the potential impact of the breakage months in advance of the disaster. The events of 2015 and 2019 bring into question the lack of licensing and environmental law, both of which prevent accountability in the face of environmental crimes.
The company denies all charges, claiming to have acted within Brazilian law and safety legislations. Likewise, even when security sirens failed to work during the disaster, Vale’s President stated that it would have been purposeless, given that “the sirens were engulfed by the collapse before its programmed signal”.
Through a program called ‘Renova’, Samarco claims to be paying monthly reparations for thousands of citizens. André Prado (D.A), claims that it is absurd that those responsible have been allowed to decide the terms for reparations. This is largely due to the dependence of mining to these regions, where Brumadinho and Mariana are, respectively, 60% and 80% dependent on mining for township revenue. Ironically, Samarco’s profits funded municipal public services, which were depleted with the collapse of the mine. Hence, with lengthy court cases and depleted public funds, Samarco had the leverage to set the terms for reparations.
Unfortunately, several of these reparations cannot be guaranteed. Leonardo Amarante, whose law office represents over 4,700 registered fishermen, claims that Samarco has offered little repayment for fishermen without legal representation, who accept the terms given the lack of alternatives.
“It’s been seven months without knowing what it is like to fish. The money paid by Samarco is barely enough to eat” - affirms the fisherman, Valdomiro de Jesus, speaking in regard to river poisoning and Renova’s repayments
Amarante claims that the tragedy goes beyond the material damage, and extends itself into a constant legal struggle, as several fishermen attempt to recover the income for a lost profession. There are over 60,000 legal actions and requests from the population to the judiciary, which have only stunted the possibility of full repayments.
Moreover, Samarco’s operations have been reopened by BHP and Vale, and no executive or engineer has been arrested: the lack of regulation has made accountability considerably difficult. Meanwhile, victims are still waiting for payments to recover their homes and livelihoods.
What is to be expected in the coming years?
The rising deforestation of the Amazon and the liberalization of pesticides and rural activities have been signals of environmental negligence, an attitude reflected in Bolsonaro’s latest interaction with a Belgian ambassador. In a 10 point plan, Bolsonaro’s government detailed why increasing mining activities in indigenous lands would be beneficial for the indigenous and foreign investors, which is suggestive to this continued culture of unaccountable mining.
“Brazil does not learn from its lessons in history” - D.A, G. de Sá
The delays from the Public Ministry and the lack of action from the Federal government have given little hope of proper reparations. This delay in Brazilian courts led to a collective $5bn lawsuit against BHP, filed in a court in Liverpool, representing over 235,000 people and institutions. The lawsuit claims that BHP increased production due to the falling price of iron, despite several internal safety warnings. One may also see hope in the expressed discontent and efforts from human rights activists, lawyers and civil organizations: an attitude that could potentially trigger a change in legislation.
In fact, the Senate has begun analysing a law (L2788/19) which specifies the national policy for the rights of populations damaged by dam collapses. This law facilitates repayments by specifying what qualifies as a dam burst ‘victim’. This harmonizes the state financing with legal processes.
However, guaranteeing the rights of victims for future dam bursts does not prevent the risk from poorly regulated mining, which raises the question of whether issues in mining regulations will be tackled. Nonetheless, as thousands struggle in court battles, this law could potentially ease the legal process for victims. Moreover, it should be hoped that mining will be more transparent in its planning, yet Bolsonaro’s attitudes and actions foreshadow a bleak future for environmental accountability.
The Public Ministry treats the collapse as a crime, but Samarco denies it, referring to it as a legal accident. The irreversible environmental damages have poisoned rivers and destroyed forestry, while causing long lasting social effects of misery, sickness and loss. After 5 years, the battle for reparations continues, yet lawsuits abroad and new laws have shed hope to victims.
This lack of regulation with mining is a symptom of a much larger, and recurring issue in Brazilian politics. Without the needed transparency and accountability, Brazil’s relationship with the environment will be no different to its relationship with corruption: impunity has, and will continue to consolidate crime.
JP is a second year Political Economy Student at King's, who is particularly interested in Brazilian current affairs and economic policy.
