Project
Amazon Watch / Maíra Irigaray
Barragem de Belo Monte no rio Xingu: 10 anos de impactos na Amazônia e de busca por reparações
A usina hidrelétrica de Belo Monte causou um desastre ambiental e social no coração da Amazônia: um dos ecossistemas mais importantes do planeta.
Essa situação só piorou desde que a usina começou a operar em 2016. A busca por justiça e reparação para as comunidades indígenas e ribeirinhas afetadas continua até hoje.
Em 2011, a Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos (CIDH) concedeu a essas comunidades medidas de proteção, que até hoje não foram totalmente implementadas pelo Estado brasileiro.
E, desde junho daquele mesmo ano, a CIDH mantém um processo contra o Estado por sua responsabilidade internacional no caso.
A CIDH pode encaminhar o caso à Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, que tem o poder de emitir uma sentença condenatória contra o Estado brasileiro.
Consulta o expediente de fatos do caso
Após 10 anos de operação da usina hidrelétrica e mais de 15 anos de violações de direitos humanos documentadas, é hora da justiça ser feita para as comunidades afetadas.
Leia a carta aberta das organizações que levam o caso à CIDH
Leia nosso comunicado à imprensa
Contexto
A usina hidrelétrica de Belo Monte — a quarta maior do mundo em capacidade instalada (11.233 MW) — foi construída no rio Xingu, no estado do Pará, norte do Brasil.
Foi inaugurada em 5 de maio de 2016, com uma única turbina. Naquela época, 80% do curso do rio foi desviado e 516 km² de terra foram inundados, uma área maior que a cidade de Chicago. Desse total, 400 km² eram de mata nativa. A usina começou a operar em plena capacidade em novembro de 2019.
Belo Monte foi construída e é operada pelo consórcio Norte Energia S.A., composto principalmente por empresas estatais. Foi financiada pelo Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES), que aportou ao consórcio 25,4 bilhões de reais (aproximadamente US$ 10,16 bilhões), o maior investimento de sua história. Portanto, o BNDES também é legalmente responsável pelos impactos socioambientais associados ao projeto hidrelétrico.
Décadas de danos ambientais e humanos
As violações dos direitos humanos e a degradação da Amazônia remontam ao início do projeto. Em março de 2011, a Norte Energia iniciou a construção da barragem sem consulta adequada e sem o consentimento prévio, livre e informado das comunidades afetadas.
A construção levou ao deslocamento forçado de mais de 40.000 pessoas, rompendo laços sociais e culturais. O plano de reassentamento em Altamira — cidade diretamente afetada pelo projeto hidrelétrico — incluía moradias na periferia da cidade, sem serviços públicos adequados, moradias dignas para as famílias reassentadas e moradias diferenciadas para aqueles pertencentes a comunidades indígenas.
A operação da barragem de Belo Monte impôs uma seca permanente e artificial na Volta Grande do rio Xingu, agravada pelas secas históricas na Amazônia em 2023 e 2024. Como resultado, a morte de milhões de ovos de peixe foi documentada por quatro anos consecutivos (de 2021 a 2024) e, nos últimos três anos, não houve migração de peixes rio acima para desovar e se reproduzir. Assim, a pesca artesanal, principal fonte de proteína para os povos indígenas e comunidades ribeirinhas, foi severamente afetada: o consumo de peixe caiu de 50% para 30% do total de proteínas consumidas, sendo substituído por alimentos processados. Em suma, houve um colapso ambiental e humanitário que resultou no colapso da pesca como modo de vida tradicional, insegurança alimentar e falta de acesso à água potável para milhares de famílias, empobrecimento e doenças.
Além disso, a construção da barragem aumentou o desmatamento e intensificou a extração ilegal de madeira e a insegurança em terras indígenas e tribais, colocando em risco a sobrevivência dessas comunidades. Outra consequência foi o agravamento da pobreza e dos conflitos sociais, bem como a sobrecarga dos sistemas de saúde, educação e segurança pública em Altamira, cidade considerada a mais violenta do país em 2017, onde houve aumento do tráfico de pessoas e da violência sexual. Também foram registrados casos de violência contra defensores de direitos humanos envolvidos no caso.
Em 2025, durante a 30ª Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Mudanças Climáticas (COP30), realizada no Brasil, o Ministério Público Federal classificou os danos causados por Belo Monte como ecocídio.
Foto: Amazon Watch / Maíra Irigaray.
A busca por justiça e reparação
Ao longo dos anos, o Ministério Público Federal do Pará, a Defensoria Pública e organizações da sociedade civil impetraram dezenas de ações judiciais em tribunais brasileiros para contestar as diversas irregularidades do projeto, bem como seus impactos. A maioria das ações permanece sem solução, algumas há mais de 10 anos.
Essas ações não obtiveram sucesso porque o governo federal tem reiteradamente anulado decisões favoráveis às comunidades afetadas, recorrendo a um mecanismo pelo qual o presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal pode suspender uma decisão judicial com base unicamente em argumentos genéricos como "interesse nacional" ou "ordem econômica".
Diante da falta de respostas eficazes em nível nacional, a AIDA — juntamente com uma coalizão de organizações aliadas — levou o caso à Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos (CIDH) e, em 2010, solicitou medidas cautelares para proteger a vida, a integridade e a saúde das comunidades indígenas afetadas.
Em 1º de abril de 2011, a CIDH concedeu essas medidas e solicitou ao Estado brasileiro a suspensão das licenças ambientais e de quaisquer obras de construção até que as condições relativas à consulta prévia e à proteção da saúde e integridade das comunidades fossem atendidas.
E, em 16 de junho de 2011, apresentamos uma denúncia formal à CIDH — juntamente com o Movimento Xingu Vivo Para Siempre, a Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira, a Diocese de Altamira, o Conselho Missionário Indígena, a Sociedade Pará de Defesa dos Direitos Humanos e a Global Justice — contra o Estado brasileiro por sua responsabilidade internacional nas violações de direitos humanos contra os povos afetados neste caso. A denúncia foi apresentada em dezembro de 2015.
Em 3 de agosto de 2011, a CIDH modificou as medidas cautelares para solicitar — em vez da suspensão de licenças e obras — a proteção dos povos que vivem em isolamento voluntário, a saúde das comunidades indígenas e a regularização e proteção das terras ancestrais.
Foto: Amazon Watch / Maíra Irigaray.
Situação atual
As medidas de proteção concedidas pela CIDH permanecem em vigor, mas o Estado brasileiro não as cumpriu integralmente, relatando apenas ações genéricas. As comunidades documentaram as contínuas violações de seus direitos. A situação que motivou o pedido dessas medidas — o risco à vida, à segurança e aos meios de subsistência das comunidades — persiste e se agravou com a usina hidrelétrica operando em plena capacidade e com as recentes secas extremas na Amazônia.
Além do ocorrido em Belo Monte, existe o risco de maiores danos sociais e ambientais decorrentes da implementação de outro megaprojeto de mineração na Volta Grande do Xingu. Lá, a empresa canadense Belo Sun pretende construir a maior mina de ouro a céu aberto do Brasil.
Os impactos sinérgicos e cumulativos da usina e da mina não foram avaliados. O Estado excluiu povos indígenas, comunidades ribeirinhas e comunidades camponesas do processo de licenciamento ambiental do projeto. Apesar disso, dos protestos indígenas e de outras irregularidades em torno do projeto, o governo do estado do Pará autorizou formalmente a mina em abril de 2026.
Belo Monte, assim como outras usinas hidrelétricas, agrava a emergência climática ao gerar emissões de gases de efeito estufa em seu reservatório. Além disso, é ineficiente diante das secas prolongadas e intensas causadas pela crise, pois perde capacidade de geração de energia.
O caso perante a Comissão Interamericana
Em outubro de 2017, a CIDH anunciou que decidiria conjuntamente sobre a admissibilidade (se o caso preenche os requisitos para admissão) e o mérito (se houve, de fato, violação de direitos humanos) da denúncia internacional contra o Estado brasileiro.
Quinze anos após a apresentação da denúncia, as comunidades afetadas e as organizações que as representam ainda aguardam essa decisão. Caso a CIDH conclua que houve violações de direitos humanos e emita recomendações que o Estado brasileiro não cumpra, poderá encaminhar o caso à Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, cujas decisões são vinculativas.
Uma possível decisão da Corte Internacional de Direitos Humanos neste caso estabeleceria um precedente jurídico regional em relação aos direitos dos povos indígenas e ribeirinhos, à participação pública em megaprojetos e à responsabilidade do Estado no contexto da crise climática. Isso é particularmente relevante à luz do Parecer Consultivo nº 32 da Corte, que reafirmou as obrigações dos Estados de proteger pessoas e comunidades em todo o continente da emergência climática.
Partners:
Related projects
5 milestones in the "Inhabitants of La Oroya v. Peru" case ruling
Our long-fought victory before the Inter-American Court sets important precedents for all communities seeking environmental justice in the Americas. The story of the community of La Oroya, Peru, in its quest for justice and reparations spans decades. The perseverance of the residents of this Andean town has borne fruit for the entire region, as they achieved a victory that sets important precedents for all communities seeking environmental justice on the continent. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of the community of La Oroya, holding the Peruvian state responsible for violating the right to a healthy environment and other related rights, such as health and life, of its inhabitants by failing to take timely and effective measures to protect them from extreme levels of pollution from a metallurgical complex. AIDA has led the case from its inception, bringing La Oroya's struggle to the Inter-American Human Rights System and providing legal representation to the victims before the Court. Why is the international court’s ruling in "Community of La Oroya vs. Peru" such a joy and a door opener for us? We explain below, how the ruling: 1. Responds to the first case of its kind before the Inter-American Court. This is the first time the Inter-American Court has ruled on a case of toxic air and environmental pollution in an urban community. In its ruling, the Court recognized the disparate impact on women, children, and other vulnerable populations. It also addressed the importance of the rights of access to information and participation. 2. Recognizes and values the importance of a healthy environment as a human right. The Court recognized this right as a jus cogens (mandatory) norm and clarified the obligations of states to ensure a healthy environment for all people. A key point of the judgment is that states must avoid, prevent, and control environmental damage and its effects on human health by using all the means at their disposal. 3. Opens the door to accountability. The ruling sets precedents to hold states and companies accountable for taking the necessary measures to avoid lifelong impacts on people's health and the environment. The Peruvian state must provide financial compensation to the affected people of La Oroya, provide free and specialized medical care, adopt non-recurrence measures, and monitor air and water quality in places where mining activities are taking place. 4. Establishes the responsibility of the State in a case of contamination. In addition to stating that companies must act with due diligence and respect for human rights, the Court concluded in its ruling that the Peruvian state should have acted to protect and guarantee the rights of the people exposed to the contamination, using, among other tools, the precautionary principle. 5. Sets precedents for the entire region. The ruling goes beyond the Peruvian context, as it is binding on States Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights and sets an important precedent in Latin America for the protection of the right to a healthy environment and for the adequate supervision by States of corporate activities.
Read more
Inter-American Court ruling on La Oroya case sets key precedent for the protection of a healthy environment
The Court found Peru responsible for violating the rights of residents of La Oroya, who have been exposed to unsafe levels of toxic contamination for generations. San José, Costa Rica. The ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case "Community of La Oroya vs. Peru" sets an important precedent for the protection of the right to a healthy environment across the Americas and for adequate state oversight of corporate activities. The first-of-its-kind decision holds Peru accountable for its failure to protect the inhabitants of the Andean city of La Oroya who were exposed to toxic pollution from a smelter complex that operated without adequate pollution controls for a century.The Inter-American Court heard the case in a public hearing against Peru. In the absence of effective responses at the national level and on behalf of the victims, an international coalition of organizations filed a complaint against Peru before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2006. In October 2021, the Commission established the Peruvian government's responsibility in the case and referred it to the Inter-American Court. In October 2022, more than 16 years after the filing of the complaint, the victims presented the case before the Court in a public hearing, represented by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH), with the support of Earthjustice."This ruling is a very important step forward and a key precedent for environmental justice in Latin America, as it is the first case in which the Court recognizes a state’s responsibility for violating the right to a healthy environment and the impact this has on the guarantee of several other rights," said Liliana Avila, coordinator of AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program. "The Court also referred to the collective and individual dimensions of this right, acknowledging the differential impact of its violation on children, women and the elderly, and the important role of environmental defenders."In its judgment, published on March 22, 2024, the international court established the Peru’s responsibility for the violation of the rights to a healthy environment, health, personal integrity, life with dignity, access to information, political participation, judicial guarantees and judicial protection of the 80 people involved in the case; for the violation of the rights of the children of 57 victims; and for the violation of the right to life of two victims. The Court also concluded that the State was responsible for violating the obligation of progressive development by adopting regressive measures in environmental protection."The decision is a fundamental precedent in international law that establishes the parameters of the State's obligation to regulate, control and remediate the effects of environmental pollution, as well as the obligations derived from the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right and its interdependence and indivisibility with other fundamental rights of human existence, such as health, life and personal integrity," said Christian Huaylinos, Legal Coordinator of APRODEH. "It is also a great satisfaction for the victim’s two decades long struggle.”For more than 20 years, the residents of La Oroya have been seeking justice and redress for the widespread contamination caused by the La Oroya smelter complex, which was operated by Doe Run Peru from 1997 to 2009. The town has been recognized as one of the most polluted places on the planet."Twenty years ago, when this fight started, I was carrying my banner saying that the health of the children is worth more than gold," recalls Don Pablo, a resident of La Oroya. "We never gave up, and now I am very happy with the Court's decision."In the judgment, the Court ordered the State of Peru to adopt comprehensive reparation measures for the damage caused to the population of La Oroya, including identifying, prosecuting and, where appropriate, punishing those responsible for the harassment of the victims; determining the state of contamination of the air, water and soil and preparing an environmental remediation plan; providing free medical care to the victims and guaranteeing specialized care to residents with symptoms and illnesses related to contamination from mining and metallurgical activities; ensuring the effectiveness of the city's warning system and developing a system for monitoring the quality of air, water, and soil; ensuring that the operations of the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex comply with international environmental standards, preventing and mitigating damage to the environment and human health; providing monetary compensation to victims for material and non-material damages."What we expect now is that the ruling will be implemented, that for the first time the State will fulfill its obligations and guarantee our rights as environmental defenders," said Yolanda Zurita, a resident of La Oroya and a petitioner in the case. "Compliance with this ruling is the least we expect from a state that is committed to guaranteeing the rights of its citizens."Since 1999, the government of Peru has known that almost all the children living near the complex suffer from lead poisoning yet failed to offer proper medical care and remediation. For decades, the population of La Oroya was exposed to extreme levels of lead and other harmful contaminants, including arsenic, cadmium, and sulfur dioxide. Nearly all the children in the case have had lead and other heavy metals in their blood at concentrations many times higher than the guidelines established by the World Health Organization. And many residents suffer from chronic respiratory illness, in addition to stress, anxiety, skin problems, stomach problems, chronic headaches, and heart problems, among others."This ruling issues a warning to governments across the Americas that they cannot sit idly by while multinational corporations poison local communities. Corporations will now be on notice that exposing families to unhealthy levels of industrial pollution is a violation of international law and governments must hold polluters accountable,” said Jacob Kopas, Earthjustice senior attorney. ResourcesCourt's press release on the judgment, available here (in Spanish).Official summary of the judgment, available here (in Spanish).Full text of the judgment, available here (in Spanish).Background information on the case, available here.Folder with photographs, available here.Press contactVíctor Quintanilla-Sangüeza (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 70522107
Read more
Communities in Nicaragua win Green Climate Fund withdrawal from project that violated their rights
In an unprecedented decision resolving a complaint filed in 2021, the Green Climate Fund terminated a forestry project because the developers failed to comply with the Fund's policies and procedures on socio-environmental safeguards. This non-compliance violated the human rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities. The Green Climate Fund, the world's leading multilateral climate finance institution, decided to terminate funding for a forest conservation project in Nicaragua because the developers failed to comply with the institution's policies and procedures on socio-environmental safeguards. The non-compliance violated the rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities, as the project threatened to exacerbate the situation of violence from which they were already suffering. The Fund had not made any disbursements for the project and project implementation had not yet begun.The decision, the first of its kind in the Fund's history, is in response to a complaint filed in June 2021 by representatives of the affected communities, with the support of local and international organizations, with the Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism. The Independent Redress Mechanism hears complaints from people who are or may be affected by projects or programs financed by the Fund."This decision is a recognition of the tireless efforts of the communities behind the case, who were able to demonstrate the difficult situation they face, as well as a reminder of the importance of involving local communities in all stages of a project, from its conception," said Florencia Ortúzar, Senior Attorney at AIDA, one of the organizations that accompanied and provided legal support to the complaint process.In the complaint, the communities argued that implementing the project— called Bio-CLIMA: Integrated Climate Action to Reduce Deforestation and Strengthen Resilience in the BOSAWAS and Río San Juan Biospheres— would have serious impacts because:There was no adequate disclosure of information, no indigenous consultation, and no free, prior, and informed consent.The project would cause environmental degradation and increase violence against indigenous communities due to land colonization.The conditions imposed by the Fund's Board of Directors for project approval (including independent monitoring of project implementation and ensuring the legitimate participation of indigenous peoples) were not met.There was a lack of confidence in the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, the entity accredited to channel the funds, as to its compliance with the Fund's policies.There was a lack of confidence in the ability of the Government of Nicaragua, as the implementing agency, to fulfill its obligations in the execution of the project. The goal of the project, for which the Fund committed $64 million USD in 2020, was to restore degraded forest landscapes in Nicaragua's most biodiverse region (home to 80 percent of the country's forests and most of its indigenous peoples) and to channel investments toward sustainable land and forest management.However, the project was designed without adequate consultation, with a complete lack of transparency on the part of the sponsoring bank and ignoring the difficult context of violence and lack of human rights protection still suffered by indigenous communities in Nicaragua, particularly in the project area.In recent decades, the harsh local situation has only worsened because of organized crime, drug trafficking, the expansion of agriculture and cattle ranching, and the promotion of extractivist policies, as well as the lack of state protection.The investigation launched by the Independent Reparations Mechanism, which included field work and face-to-face and virtual interviews with all stakeholders, confirmed some of the allegations made in the complaint, including the lack of adequate consultation processes and the lack of free, prior, and informed consent of the affected communities. This is stated in the investigation’s final report.In July 2023, the Fund's Board of Directors, which was called upon to decide on the future of the project based on the Investigation Report, delegated the task to the Fund's Secretariat. As a result, neither the IRM nor the claimants had any further say in the matter.Finally, on March 7 of this year, the Secretariat announced its decision: to terminate the project's financing agreement, acknowledging that the developers had failed to comply with the Fund's policies, as alleged by the communities in the complaint."The decision is a valuable lesson for the Green Climate Fund, whose policies and safeguards exist to prevent these unfortunate situations and must be applied rigorously and consistently from the conception of projects seeking funding," said Ortúzar. Press contactVíctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +52 5570522107
Read more