Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:23:54.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Route for Redress in the Samarco Case? An Overview of the Simplified Indemnification System’s (Un)Lawfulness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2022

Danilo B. Garrido Alves Open the ORCID record for Danilo B. Garrido Alves [Opens in a new window] ,
Daniela Arantes Prata  and
Camila Manfredini de Abreu
Danilo B. Garrido Alves*
Affiliation:
DPhil candidate, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; LLM, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Daniela Arantes Prata
Affiliation:
PhD candidate, London School of Economics, London, UK; LLM, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Camila Manfredini de Abreu
Affiliation:
LLM, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 5 November 2015, the Fundão Dam collapsed, causing the most devastating tailings dam disaster to date. The dam was operated by Samarco S.A., a joint venture by Vale, Brazil’s biggest mining company, and BHP Billiton, the world’s largest mining company.1 Its tailings travelled down the Doce River for ca 700 kilometres until they reached the ocean, affecting 42 municipalities, two states, and thousands of communities along the way. The disaster caused myriad social, environmental and economic impacts: nineteen individuals were killed, and thousands endured physical or psychological harm; water resources and the soil were polluted; habitats were irreversibly destroyed; and the local economy suffered long-lasting damage. Traditional and indigenous communities were especially harmed, as their historical, social, religious and cultural relationships with their land led to even more profound harms.2

Keywords

SamarcoFundão damaccess to remedynon-judicial remedyjudicial impartiality
Type
Developments in the Field
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Business and Human Rights in Latin America , October 2022 , pp. 475 - 480
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 PwC, Mine 2019: Resourcing the Future (2019), https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/energy-utilities-mining/publications/pdf/mine-report-2019.pdf (accessed 10 October 2021).

2 For more information, see Daniela A Prata, ‘Corporate Crime and Environmental Victimisation: Analysis of the Samarco Case’ (2020) 91:1International Review of Penal Law 203); and Camila Manfredini de Abreu, ‘Towards Effective Remedies for Violations of Human Rights by Corporations: Lessons from The Fundão Case’ (2020), LLM Thesis, University of Amsterdam.

3 National Council of Justice (CNJ), ‘Cases of Great Repercussion’ (2021), https://paineis.cnj.jus.br/QvAJAXZfc/opendoc.htm?document=qvw_l%2FPainelCNJ.qvw&host=QVS%40neodimio03&anonymous=true&sheet=shOBSPrincipal&select=LB513,Mariana (accessed 10 October 2021).

4 For accounts focusing on other aspects of the case, see Baskut Tuncak, ‘Lessons from the Samarco Disaster’ (2017) 2:1 Business and Human Rights Journal 157; Joana Nabuco and Leticia Aleixo, ‘Rights Holders’ Participation and Access to Remedies: Lessons Learned from the Doce River Dam Disaster’ (2019) 4:1 Business and Human Rights Journal 147; Francesca Farrington, ‘Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group: Implications of the UK High Court’s Decision’ (2021) 6:2 Business and Human Rights Journal 392.

5 Federal Government et al v Samarco et al, Proceeding no. 1024354-89.2019.4.01.3800, 12th Court (2015).

6 MPF et al v Samarco et al, Proceeding no. 1016756-84.2019.4.01.3800, 12th Court (2016).

7 There had been a number of concerns by academics, national authorities, and international bodies regarding, among others, the potential BRL 20bn cap on redress and the lack of participation of victims in the negotiations which led to the TTAC being signed. See, e.g., National Council of Human Rights (CNDH), ‘Report on the Samarco’s tailings’ dam and its effects on the Rio Doce Basin’ (May 2017); United Nations General Assembly, ‘Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises’ (2016) 8; MPF, ‘Technical Report no. 695/2016/SEAP’ (2016).

8 TTAC, Clauses 1, XII, XIII and XX; and 2.

9 Inter-defenders Group of Rio Doce (GIRD), ‘Technical Note no. 01/2017’ (2017); MPF, ‘Technical Report no. 695/2016/SEAP’ (2016); Grupo de Estudos e Temáticas Ambientais (GESTA), ‘Parecer sobre o Cadastro Integrado do Programa de Levantamento e Cadastro dos Impactados (PLCI) elaborado pelas empresas Samarco e Synergia Consultoria Ambiental’ (November 2016) 14, 64–65.

10 MPF, ‘Technical Report no. 279/2018/SPPEA’ (2018), 87–88.

11 TAC-Governance, Clause 98, sole para.

12 Federal Government et al v Samarco et al, Proceeding no. 1024354-89.2019.4.01.3800, 12th Court, Decision, 19.12.2019.

13 MPMG, ‘MPMG pede na Justiça extinção da Fundação Renova’ (24 February 2021), https://www.mpmg.mp.br/comunicacao/noticias/mpmg-pede-na-justica-extincao-da-fundacao-renova.htm (accessed 10 October 2021); MPF, ‘Caso Samarco: primeira rodada de discussões trata de repactuação’ (28 September 2021), http://www.mpf.mp.br/mg/sala-de-imprensa/noticias-mg/caso-samarco-primeira-rodada-de-discussoes-trata-de-repactuacao (accessed 10 October 2021).

14 There had been previous attempts at establishing a matrix of damages with broad victim participation, but none succeeded in having a binding nature. Guilherme de S Meneghin, ‘Esclarecimentos sobre a matriz de danos’ (11 December 2019), http://jornalasirene.com.br/direito-de-entender/2019/12/11/esclarecimentos-sobre-a-matriz-de-danos (accessed 10 October 2021).

15 Comissão de Atingidos de Baixo Guandu v Samarco et al, Proceeding no. 1016742-66.2020.4.01.3800, 12th Court, Decision, 01/07/2020, 18.

16 Ibid, 186.

17 Ibid.

18 Comissão de Atingidos de Baixo Guandu vs Samarco et al, Proceeding no. 1016742-66.2020.4.01.3800, 12th Court, Decision, 01/07/2020, 186.

19 Idem.

20 Município De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group Plc & Anor (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC) (9 November 2020).

21 The 12th Court decision was rendered on 1 July 2020, while the UK hearing started on 22 July 2020. Kirstin Ridley, ‘BHP faces first step in $6.3 billion UK claim over Brazil dam failure’, Reuters (14 July 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bhp-britain-court-dam/bhp-faces-first-step-in-63-billion-uk-claim-over-brazil-dam-failure-idUSKCN24F2TC (accessed 10 October 2021).

22 Art 24, 2015 Civil Procedure Code.

23 Art 105, I, i, 1988 Federal Constitution.

24 Art 14(1), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

25 Art 25, American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR).

26 It is an express requirement that both claims and judicial decisions be interpreted ‘in conformity with the principle of good faith’. Arts 332, para 2, and 489, para 3, 2015 Civil Procedure Code.

27 Federal Prosecutor’s Office v Comissão de Atingidos de Baixo Guandu et al, Appeal (AI) in Proceeding no. 1016742-66.2020.4.01.3800, 12th Court, 22/10/2020.

28 Idem.

29 Idem.

30 MPF et al v Samarco et al, Proceeding no.1016756-84.2019.4.01.3800, 12th Court, Motion for Disqualification, 30/03/2021.

31 MPMG et al v Judge of the 12th Court, Proceeding no. 1017945-29.2021.4.01.3800, Federal Regional Tribunal of the 1st Region, Decision, 23/05/2021.