CIVIL ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE MADEIRA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC COMPOUND

Multiple causal factors regarding the damage and scientific uncertainty as to its extent

Abstract

This research is intended to analyze the modalities and theories of civil liability, applicable in environmental matters, in order, at the end, to identify which theory of environmental civil liability and theory of causality would be more appropriate to the applicability in judicial process that have the background of claim the effects of intervention on the environment, perpetrated by large-scale projects such as the hydroelectric power plants on the Madeira River, in the face of the competition of multiple causal factors regarding the damage and scientific uncertainty as to its extent. It would be of great importance for the judiciary in Rondonia to define an equitable parameter for judgment on this issue, since, given the subjectivity of each magistrate, decisions are observed that are contradictory or disproportionate when confronted. Some judge unfounded claims because they understand that it is not possible to identify the isolated fact practiced by a certain agent in the composition of the environmental damage, or because they believe that traditional civil liability applies to the case; others for demanding the demonstration of adequate cause even if it adopts objective responsibility; and still others rule it out (lato sensu) based on environmental principles, especially precaution, based on objective responsibility backed by full risk. Thus, there is no consensus, and in the face of nonsense there is no manifestation of effective justice to society, nor to individuals directly or indirectly affected by divergent decisions for cases in identical circumstances. This scenario of legal uncertainty puts the judiciary into disrepute before society and erect the popular conception of the inefficiency of this branch judiciary, as it is not uncommon for people to report that they feel wronged with the perception that their neighbor has obtained "his right" and she has not, even being in factual circumstance parity.