Mining Dam Failures in Brazil: Comparing Legal Post-Disaster Decisions

Abstract

Mining dam failures have increased worldwide since the 1980s. Two large mining dam failures occurred recently in Mariana and Brumadinho, both in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. We hypothesize that there were significant differences in legal post-disaster decisions. The aim of this article is to understand the similarities and differences of post-disaster actions and controversies in Mariana and Brumadinho. We reviewed 686 news reports about court decisions and settlement agreements from the websites of state and federal courts and judicial institutions. After classifying the reports using an adapted protocol from a media health observatory, we conducted a thematic analysis. Our analysis suggests that there were significant differences in legal post-disaster decisions in the cases of Mariana and Brumadinho. In Mariana, there was privatization of post-disaster management, with the creation of the Renova Foundation, a mediated indemnity program, lack of access to information for those affected, and uncertainties in health and resettlement issues. In Brumadinho, there was faster implementation of the recovery and compensation measures, faster recognition of affected parties, and stronger participation of the population since the first hearings. Even though there were particularities in post-disaster management, the ultimate goal of the corporations responsible for the disasters was to protect their profits.

Rethinking disaster risk for ecological risk assessment

“…The dam likely failed because of time-dependent decay processes affecting its stability. Prior to collapse, the dam was rated as a small structure with a low risk of high damage, based on short-term monitoring and laboratory experiments which failed to account for long-term decay (Santamarina et al, 2019;Primo et al, 2021). That is, the probability of dam burst increased as time passed, meaning the likelihood of disaster was unappreciated.…”

“…That is, the probability of dam burst increased as time passed, meaning the likelihood of disaster was unappreciated. Perhaps more importantly, once the impact was realized, the "low risk" assessment of disaster and risk management led to distrust in institutions responsible for risk management (Primo et al, 2021).…”