Content uploaded by Letícia Couto Garcia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Letícia Couto Garcia on Jan 27, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
5
Communications
Brazil’s worst mining disaster: Corporations must be
compelled to pay the actual environmental costs
Letícia couto Garcia,1,4 DaniLo BanDini riBeiro,1 FaBio De oLiveira roque,1,2
Jose ManueL ochoa-quintero,1,3 anD WiLLiaM F. Laurance2
1Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, CP 79070-900, P.O. Box 549,
Campo Grande, MS, Brazil
2Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University,
Cairns, Queensland 4878 Australia
3Corporación para Investigaciones Biológicas, CIB, Cra 72 A No 78 B 141, Medellín, 050034 Colombia
Abstract. In November 2015, a large mine- tailing dam owned by Samarco Corporation
collapsed in Brazil, generating a massive wave of toxic mud that spread down the Doce River,
killing 20 people and affecting biodiversity across hundreds of kilometers of river, riparian
lands, and Atlantic coast. Besides the disaster’s serious human and socioeconomic tolls, we
estimate the regional loss of environmental services to be ~US$521 million per year. Although
our estimate is conservative, it is still six times higher than the fine imposed on Samarco by
Brazilian environmental authorities. To reduce such disparities between estimated damages
and levied fines, we advocate for an environmental bond policy that considers potential risks
and environmental services that could possibly be impacted by irresponsible mining activity.
Environmental bonds and insurance are commonly used policy instruments in many countries,
but there are no clear environmental bond policies in Brazil. Environmental bonds are likely to
be more effective at securing environmental restitution than post- disaster fines, which generally
are inadequate and often unpaid. We estimate that at least 126 mining dams in Brazil are vul-
nerable to failure in the forthcoming years. Any such event could have severe social-
environmental consequences, underscoring the need for effective disaster- management
strategies for large- scale mining operations.
Key words: biodiversity losses; compensation; environmental policies for mines; liability to damages;
Payment for Environmental Services; rehabilitation; restoration; tailings dam failures.
introDuction
Mining- related disasters have frequently been in the
headlines, most recently with the collapse of a major
mining dam in southeastern Brazil. This collapse released
an enormous flood of toxic mud that spread down the
Doce River in the state of Minas Gerais (Fig. 1), the
second- most extensive river of the Southeast Atlantic.
Immediately, about 17 km2 of land were directly
destroyed by the event, including the uprooted vegetation
of 8.35 km2 of critically imperiled Brazilian Atlantic
riparian forest (SOS Mata Atlântica and INPE 2015,
IBAMA 2016a).
This disaster killed 20 people and millions of fresh-
water fish, degraded local indigenous lands, and polluted
the sea in a vulnerable turtle- nesting area. One year later,
the limits of the disaster are still uncertain. There is
evidence that the 7000 km2 of toxic plume has reached
important biodiversity conservation areas in the Atlantic
Ocean, including Abrolhos National Park, one of the
most emblematic protected areas in Brazil, and three
other marine protected areas, Costa das Algas, Santa
Cruz, and Comboios in Espirito Santo state, threatening
endemic and rare species of marine fauna (Morandini
et al. 2009, Fioravanti 2016, IBAMA 2016b, Miranda
and Marques 2016). Models of river discharge dispersion
predict long- term consequences near the city of Rio de
Janeiro (Marta- Almeida et al. 2016) and the conse-
quences of the dam burst in the Atlantic Ocean are still
not fully assessed. Chemical contaminants, which could
accumulate in ocean sediments, can be reinjected into the
water column by disturbances (e.g., storms, animal
movements, human activities) resulting in recurring con-
tamination over time (Mahiques et al. 2016).
Ecological Applications, 27(1), 2017, pp. 5–9
© 2016 by the Ecological Society of America
Manuscript received 19 January 2016; revised 7 September
2016; accepted 12 September 2016. Corresponding Editor:
David S. Schimel.
4E-mail: garcialcbio@yahoo.com.br
6Ecological Applications
Vol. 27, No. 1
LETÍCIA COUTO GARCIA ET AL.
Communications
An independent network of scientists analyzed samples
of the Doce River after the dam collapse and found ele-
vated arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel,
selenium, and manganese, all above legally mandated
levels (Escobar 2015, GIAIA 2016). Leaching/extraction
tests also suggested that Ba, Pb, As, Sr, Fe, Mn, and Al
have high potential mobilization from mud to water and
toxicological bioassays in mud and soil samples indicated
potential risks of cytotoxicity and DNA damage (Segura
et al. 2016). This contradicts reports from the Samarco,
the corporation responsible for the tailing (mine- waste)
dams, and the government stating that heavy metals in
the Doce River are within acceptable limits.
The Doce River and its tributaries host many endemic
fish and molluscs, including recently described species
(Roxo et al. 2014, Salvador and Cavallari 2014) that may
be locally endemic. Besides chemical pollution, the heavy
sludge that spilled into the river reduced oxygen availa-
bility, increased turbidity, interrupted reproductive move-
ments of many migratory fish species, and may be altering
the functioning of entire ecological networks (Lambertz
and Dergam 2015, Massante 2015). In the heavily frag-
mented Atlantic- forest biodiversity hotspot, active habitat-
restoration programs can require decades to restore some
complex ecological interactions and functions (Garcia
et al. 2015, 2016). A massive dam burst like that at the Doce
River could require considerably longer time periods for
rehabilitation and reclamation. Abandoned mines often
retain high levels of associated metals over many decades
(Younger 1997). Tailings spills that occur over large areas,
such as at Doce River, could potentially contaminate sedi-
ments and groundwater for long periods if an effective
effort is not made to remove the tailings by plowing con-
taminated soils (Fields 2001, Simón et al. 2001).
Environmental loss and corporate responsibility
The dramatic scale of this event raises a fundamental
question: How can disaster- management strategies incor-
porate the risk of serious loss of biodiversity and environ-
mental services?
Compensation payments are one useful policy instrument
for bringing some justice to those affected by human activ-
ities that cause social and environmental disasters. In the
case of the Doce River, beyond the human death toll and
water and soil contamination, important socioeconomic
activities such as fishing will have to be halted indefinitely.
In addition to funding needed for rehabilitation and recla-
mation activities, the compensation process should account
for the loss of key environmental services (Neves et al.
2016), including the loss of provisioning services like fishing.
Mining disasters have stimulated proposals of compen-
sation frameworks and mechanisms that account for envi-
ronmental services and restoration time lags (Laurance
2008, Bai et al. 2011, Vela- Almeida et al. 2015). One way to
set the appropriate compensation level is to multiply the per
FiG. 1. The region near the mine- tailing dam in Minas Gerais, Brazil (A) before and (B) after the disaster (red circle). Also
shown is the Doce River (C) immediately after the dam burst and (D) vanishing under an enormous wake of toxic mud. Photo
credits: panels A and B, NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team; panel C, Letícia Camarano;
and panel D IBAMA photo database. (Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com.)
BRAZIL’S WORST MINING DISASTERJanuary 2017 7
Communications
hectare environmental service value of the Doce River
region before the disaster by the Doce River watershed
area. A contingent valuation survey before the disaster esti-
mated a US$62.53·ha−1·yr−1 of Payment for Environmental
Services (PES) in some site of the watershed (Oliveira et al.
2013). The Doce River watershed spans 83 400 km2
(Euclydes 2010), roughly the size of Austria. The main river
was completely jeopardized as well as some tributaries (the
extension of water bodies directly affected was >650 km),
releasing toxic substances that can bioacccumulate through
the entire food web (Miranda and Marques 2016). Hence,
the spill likely impairs the whole watershed. Multiplying the
PES and watershed area values yields a total value of
US$521 million per year (values in Portuguese can be found
in Appendix S1). This value is conservative, as it does not
incorporate some vulnerable environmental services (such
as the value of individual species, pollination and seed dis-
persal processes, genetic resources, and oceanic impacts).
This estimated annual loss is still nearly six times higher
than the sum of all seven fines imposed by the Brazilian
Environment Agency (IBAMA), which totaled ~US$90
million (the values of the applied fines have reached the
maximum value allowed by Law). Subsequently, several
levels of Brazilian governments and Samarco tried to reach
an agreement on further restitution (~US$6.15 billion;
BHP Billiton 2016a), but the Brazilian Superior Court of
Justice suspended these negotiations (STF 2016). Even in
the unlikely event that this entire agreed- upon amount was
reinstated and solely allocated to rehabilitation and recla-
mation activities, it would only cover 12 years of environ-
mental service losses. Twelve years is only a fraction of the
time required for full environmental reclamation over such
a large and severely affected region. More hope for more
appropriate restitution comes from the Public Civil Suit
filed last May by the Brazilian Federal Public Prosecution
Service (~US$47.7 billion; BHP Billiton 2016b). This suit
includes 200 different requirements for social, environ-
mental, and economic compensation. However, even if this
suit is successful, it will be very challenging to get Samarco
to pay. Until now, Samarco has appealed on all fines, the
Public Civil Suit, and a number of ongoing legal cases.
According to Brazilian Environmental Agency (IBAMA),
from 2011 to 2014, only 8.7% of all levied environmental
fines were paid in Brazil. Hence, there is not much hope that
the fines imposed by the courts in this case will be paid.
In addition to setting appropriate compensation pay-
ments, a clear policy for compelling corporations to
maintain high levels of environmental risk management
could help prevent disasters (Gerard 2000, White et al.
2012, Edwards and Laurance 2015). For example, con-
sider the current policy on the management of tailing
ponds. Tailings of ores deposited in dams are not con-
sidered “hazardous waste,” so they are not subject to the
Brazilian Environmental Crimes Act. This means that the
hazardous waste- management plans, including measures
to reduce the volume and danger of waste and liability
insurance for damage to the environment or public
health, are not required for tailing ponds. A bill is being
considered by the Brazilian Congress to close this
loophole for dams near human communities, but this
proposal does not include protections for biodiversity. As
pointed out by Meira et al. (2016), the mining lobby in
Brazil is so powerful that the Samarco fine payments have
been made contingent on the company being allowed to
FiG. 2. (A) Available database of active mine- tailing dams in Brazil (orange circles) in different watershed region boundaries,
showing their distance from various conservation units (highlighted in green). Although 662 tailing dams are registered in Brazil,
coordinates are available for only 317 tailing dams from the national mining- dam cadaster in Brazil (DNPM 2015). (B) Inset of 293
available coordinates of tailings dams in Minas Gerais state, with the Bento Rodrigues Dam shown in detail (red circle) (see Data
S1, available data [up to 12 May 2016] for 426 registered mine- tailings dams from the Foundation of the State Environment; Minas
Gerais [FEAM]). (Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com.)
8Ecological Applications
Vol. 27, No. 1
LETÍCIA COUTO GARCIA ET AL.
Communications
reopen other mining activities in the region. In addition
to better laws and policies for controlling mining opera-
tions, new techniques for waste- storage facilities, such as
removing free water in tailings ponds, is essential strat-
egies for reducing risk (Franks et al. 2011, Jones and
Boger 2012).
As part of an environmental policy for mines, environ-
mental bonds could also be used to incentivize mining
companies to improve monitoring systems and man-
agement. In this case, an environmental bond is created
when corporate funds are deposited in advance of a
mining activity and are held in escrow until the end of
mining and released when reclamation operations are
successfully completed (Gerard 2000). The financial
coverage provided by this bond could be based on the
relative risk of the mining activity and the potential loss
of the environmental services. By making bonds man-
datory, companies that do not have the capital to cover
potential accidents or propose very risky operations will
not be able to go ahead with their initial plans. Hence,
they will have to reduce the potential size and/or risk of
their operation to move forward. If well planned, this
policy could markedly improve enforcement of environ-
mental regulations while encouraging mining corpora-
tions to minimize their risks and liability, thereby
increasing environmental safeguards. It would certainly
be better than the status quo. Although, some bills have
been introduced to legislate minimum compulsory envi-
ronmental insurance (e.g., Senate bill PL 767/2015), so
far, Brazil has lacked a clear policy strategy and regu-
latory framework for environmental bonds and insur-
ances. For instance, last July, the Minas Gerais state
Public Prosecution Service filed a bill (#3695/2016) origi-
nated in a popular initiative that includes an “environ-
mental bond” to social- environmental responsibilities in
case of damages, which would be mandatory for prior
mining licensing (Legislative Assembly of Minas Gerais
2016). There are several environmental bond or insurance
strategies used in other countries, including Australia and
the USA (Gerard 2000, Boyd 2002, White et al. 2012),
which could serve as a model for a similar policy in Brazil.
The urgency of such actions is underscored by the fact
that there are hundreds of active mine- tailing dams in
Brazil (Fig. 2), with watersheds in Amazonia, the
Pantanal, Cerrado, Caatinga, and Atlantic Forest biomes
being at risk. According to the national mining- dam
cadaster in Brazil (DNPM 2015), the collapsed Doce
River dam was considered a low accident risk, and only
8% of existing tailings dams are considered high risk. We
believe these risks are underestimated. Brazil has had
more than 80 mine- related environmental disasters, and
an inventory of South American mining sites over the last
century found an overall failure rate of 19% (Azam and
Li 2010, Nazareno and Vitule 2016). On that basis, and
given the large number (662) of existing tailings dams in
Brazil (DNPM 2015) (Fig. 2 and see Data S1 for existing
tailings dams in Minas Gerais), we estimate that 126
existing mining dams could eventually be expected to fail.
Mining activities are having huge environmental and
social impacts in Brazil. The loosening of certain environ-
mental laws (Ferreira et al. 2014, Sugai et al. 2014,
Brancalion et al. 2016, El Bizri et al. 2016, Meira et al.
2016), the granting of new mining concessions in pro-
tected areas, and a ban on new protected areas in regions
of high mineral potential are being hotly debated both
publicly and in the Brazilian Congress. Despite recent
reverses in environmental law, there are bills that aim to
avoid new disasters currently being considered in the
Brazilian Congress (PL 4286, 4287/2016).The Doce River
calamity serves as a timely warning that urgent actions
are needed to limit the risks of serious mining damage
both in Brazil and worldwide.
acknoWLeDGMents
We thank Dr. Erik Nelson, Dr. Arnildo Pott, and two anony-
mous referees for helpful comments on the manuscript, Letícia
Camarano for sharing picture from Bento Rodrigues town and
surroundings after the disaster, and to the Foundation of the
State Environment–Minas Gerais (FEAM) for sharing the avail-
able data for 426 registered mine- tailings dams of Minas Gerais.
Literature citeD
Azam, S., and Q. Li. 2010. Tailings dam failures: a review of the
last one hundred years. Geotechnical News 28:50–53.
Bai, Y., R. Wang, and J. Jin. 2011. Water eco- service assessment
and compensation in a coal mining region—a case study in
the Mentougou district in Beijing. Ecological Complexity
8:144–152.
BHP Billiton. 2016a. Samarco—agreement reached with
Brazilians authorities. http://www.bhpbilliton.com/investors/
news/samarco-agreement-reached-with-brazilian-authorities
BHP Billiton. 2016b. Samarco update. http://www.bhpbilliton.
com/investors/news/samarco-update
Boyd, J. 2002. Financial responsibility for environmental obli-
gations: Are bonding and assurance rules fulfilling their
promises? Research in Law and Economics 20:417–486.
Brancalion, P. H. S., L. C. Garcia, R. Loyola, R. R. Rodrigues,
V. P. Pillar, and T. M. Lewinsohn. 2016. A critical analysis of
the Native Vegetation Protection Law of Brazil (2012):
updates and ongoing initiatives. Natureza & Conservação
14S:1–15.
DNPM. 2015. Cadastro Nacional de Barragens de Mineração.
Departamento Nacional de Produção Mineral. http://www.
dnpm.gov.br/assuntos/barragens/arquivos-barragens/cada
stro-nacional-de-barragens-de-mineracao-dentro-da-pnsb
Edwards, D. P., and W. F. Laurance. 2015. Preventing tropical
mining disasters. Science 350:1482.
El Bizri, H. R., J. C. B. Macedo, A. P. Paglia, and T. Q.
Morcatty. 2016. Mining undermining Brazil’s environment.
Science 353:228.
Escobar, H. 2015. Mud tsunami wreaks ecological havoc in
Brazil. Science 350:1138–1139.
Euclydes, H. P. 2010. Atualização dos estudos hidrológicos na
bacia hidrográfica do rio Doce. In Atlas digital das águas de
Minas: uma ferramenta para o planejamento e gestão dos
recursos hídricos. RURALMINAS & UFV. http://www.
atlasdasaguas.ufv.br/doce/resumo_doce.html
Ferreira, J., et al. 2014. Brazil’s environmental leadership at
risk. Science 346:706–707.
Fields, S. 2001. Tarnishing the earth: gold mining’s dirty secret.
Environmental Health Perspectives 109:474–481.
BRAZIL’S WORST MINING DISASTERJanuary 2017 9
Communications
Fioravanti, C. 2016. Impactos visíveis no mar. Pesquisa
FAPESP 242:42–47.
Franks, D. M., D. V. Boger, C. M. Côte, and D. R. Mulligan.
2011. Sustainable development principles for the disposal of
mining and mineral processing wastes. Resources Policy
36:114–122.
Garcia, L. C., R. J. Hobbs, D. B. Ribeiro, J. Tamashiro, F. A.
M. Santos, and R. R. Rodrigues. 2016. Restoration over
time: Is it possible to restore trees and non- trees in high-
diversity forests? Applied Vegetation Science 19:655–666.
Garcia, L. C., D. B. Ribeiro, M. V. Cianciaruso, F. A. M.
Santos, and R. R. Rodrigues. 2015. Flower functional trait
responses to restoration time. Applied Vegetation Science
18:402–412.
Gerard, D. 2000. The law and economics of reclamation bonds.
Resources Policy 26:189–197.
GIAIA—Grupo Independente de Avaliação do Impacto
Ambiental. 2016. Relatório-técnico determinação de metais
pesados na bacia do Rio Doce (período dezembro-2015 a
abril-2016). http://giaia.eco.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/
Relatorio-GIAIA_Metais_Vivian_revisto5.pdf
IBAMA. 2016a. NOT. TEC. 02001.000606/2016-36 CGMAM/
IBAMA. http://www.ibama.gov.br/phocadownload/noticias_
ambientais/nota_tecnica_02001_000606-2016_36.pdf
IBAMA. 2016b. Ibama e ICMBio apuram se lama da Samarco
atingiu Arquipélago de Abrolhos. http://www.brasil.gov.br/
meio-ambiente/2016/01/mancha-de-lama-da-samarco-pode-
ter-avancado-para-abrolhos
Jones, H., and D. V. Boger. 2012. Sustainability and waste man-
agement in the resource industries. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 51:10057–10065.
Lambertz, M., and J. A. Dergam. 2015. Mining disaster: huge
species impact. Nature 528:39.
Laurance, W. F. 2008. The real cost of minerals. New Scientist
199:16.
Legislative Assembly of Minas Gerais. 2016. Projeto de Lei No
3.695/2016 Estabelece normas de segurança para as barragens
destinadas à disposição final ou temporária de rejeitos de min-
eração no Estado. http://www.almg.gov.br/atividade_parlam
entar/tramitacao_projetos/texto.html?a=2016&n=3695&t=PL
Mahiques, M. M., T. J. J. Hanebuth, C. C. Martins, I. Montoya-
Montes, J. Alcántara-Carrio, R. C. L. Figueira, and M. C.
Bícego. 2016. Mud depocentres on the continental shelf: a
neglected sink for anthropogenic contaminants from the
coastal zone. Environmental Earth Sciences 75:44–55.
Marta-Almeida, M., R. Mendes, F. N. Amorim, M. Cirano,
and J. M. Dias. 2016. Fundão Dam collapse: oceanic disper-
sion of River Doce after the greatest Brazilian environmental
accident. Marine Pollution Bulletin 112:359–364.
Massante, J. C. 2015. Mining disaster: restore habitats now.
Nature 528:39.
Meira, R. M. S. A., A. L. Peixoto, M. A. N. Coelho, A. P. L.
Ponzo, V. G. L. Esteves, M. C. Silva, P. E. A. S. Câmara, and
J. A. A. Meira-Neto. 2016. Brazil’s mining code under attack:
giant mining companies impose unprecedented risk to biodi-
versity. Biodiversity and Conservation 25:407–409.
Miranda, L. S., and A. C. Marques. 2016. Hidden impacts of
the Samarco mining waste dam collapse to Brazilian marine
fauna – an example from the staurozoans (Cnidaria). Biota
Neotropica 16:e20160169.
Morandini, A. C., S. N. Stampar, A. E. Migotto, and A. C.
Marques. 2009. Hydrocoryne iemanja (Cnidaria), a new spe-
cies of Hydrozoa with unusual mode of asexual reproduction.
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United
Kingdom 89:67–76.
Nazareno, A. G., and J. R. S. Vitule. 2016. Too many mining
disasters in Brazil. Nature 531:580.
Neves, A. C. O., F. P. Nunes, F. A. Carvalho, and G. W.
Fernandes. 2016. Neglect of ecosystems services by mining,
and the worst environmental disaster in Brazil. Natureza &
Conservação 14:24–27.
Oliveira, A. C. C. O., M. B. Vilar, L. A. G. Jacovine, M. O.
Santos, and A. D. Jacon. 2013. Histórico e implementação
de sistemas de Pagamentos por Serviços Ambientais no
Estado de Minas Gerais. Sustentabilidade em Debate
4:139–160.
Roxo, F. F., G. S. C. Silva, C. H. Zawadzki, and C. Oliveira.
2014. Neoplecostomus doceensis: a new loricariid species
(Teleostei, Siluriformes) from the rio Doce basin and com-
ments about its putative origin. ZooKeys 440:115–127.
Salvador, R. B., and D. C. Cavallari. 2014. A new species of
Leiostracus (Gastropoda, Pulmonata, Orthalicoidea) from
Espírito Santo, Brazil. Iheringia 104:364–366.
Segura, F. R., et al. 2016. Potential risks of the residue from
Samarco’s mine dam burst (Bento Rodrigues, Brazil).
Environmental Pollution 218:813–825.
Simón, M., F. Martín, I. Ortíz, I. García, J. Fernández, E.
Fernández, C. Dorronsoro, and J. Aguilar. 2001. Soil pollu-
tion by oxidation of tailing from toxic spill of a pyrite mine.
Science of the Total Environment 279:63–74.
SOS Mata Atlântica and INPE. 2015. Análise do impacto sobre
áreas de Mata Atlântica do rompimento da barragem local-
izada no subdistrito de Bento Rodrigues, no município de
Mariana—MG. https://www.dropbox.com/s/blpifrcox1bpg3e/
091215_Atlas-Rio-Doce_Relatorio_final.pdf?dl=0
Sugai, L. S. M., J. M. Ochoa-Quintero, R. L. Costa-Pereira, and
F. O. Roque. 2014. Beyond aboveground. Biodiversity and
Conservation 24:2109–2112.
Superior Court of Justice (STF). 2016. Reclamação Nº 31.935—
MG (2016/0167729-7). http://s.conjur.com.br/dl/stj-suspende
-acordo-samarco.pdf
Vela-Almeida, D., G. Brooks, and N. Kosoy. 2015. Setting the
limits to extraction: a biophysical approach to mining activi-
ties. Ecological Economics 119:189–196.
White, B., G. Doole, D. J. Pannell, and V. Florec. 2012.
Optimal environmental policy design for mine rehabilitation
and pollution with a risk of non- compliance due to firm
insolvency. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics
56:280–301.
Younger, P. L. 1997. Longevity of minewater pollution: a basis
for decision- making. Science of the Total Environment
194–195:457–466.
supportinG inForMation
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1002/eap.1461/full