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
Brazilian court reaffirms the power of litigation to strengthen climate action
In July, Brazil's high court ruled that the government has a constitutional duty to allocate the necessary economic resources to support the operation of its Climate Fund, a tool created to combat the climate crisis, which has been paralyzed in recent years. With this ruling, the Supreme Federal Court resolved the first climate litigation in its history and set an important precedent for Brazil and the world. The decision equates the Paris Agreement—which seeks to strengthen the global response to the climate emergency—with a human rights treaty, granting it a higher status than ordinary laws and other inferior norms such as Executive Branch decrees. This may give way for courts and judges in other Latin American countries to make the same recognition. "The Supreme Federal Court created a privileged framework of protection for climate change mitigation and adaptation, one that ensures one of the fundamental pillars of climate action: financing," explains Marcella Ribeiro, an AIDA attorney. "Furthermore, it made clear that the Executive Branch, by restricting resources that by law are destined for climate action, is failing to comply with international agreements and conventions on human rights to which Brazil is a party." The Brazilian Socialist Party, the Socialism and Liberty Party, the Workers’ Party and the Sustainability Network Party filed the lawsuit over the Brazilian government’s failure to provide resources to the Climate Fund in 2020, with support from the Climate Observatory and the Alana Institute. Litigation as a strategic tool The case of the Climate Fund in Brazil demonstrates that strategic climate litigation is an effective and necessary way to help the continent's governments and companies meet their climate commitments. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted that climate-related litigation is on the rise and, in some cases, has influenced the results and ambition of climate governance, understood as the way in which different actors—state, civil society, academia and the private sector—define, implement and monitor actions aimed at addressing the causes and consequences of climate change. "In the global south, Brazil is one of the countries where climate litigation is developing most strongly," highlights Javier Dávalos, AIDA senior attorney. "The country is characterized by a growing ecosystem of litigants and organizations that are taking the climate fight to court." Brazil's push for climate litigation in the region is critical because the country is home to 65 percent of the Amazon, a key ecosystem for global climate regulation and one that is at serious risk. Brazil emits the most carbon dioxide of any Latin American nation, with deforestation representing the largest source of these emissions. In this sense, it is fundamental that one of the judges who heard the Climate Fund case explicitly pointed out the large increase in deforestation in the Amazon in 2021— the highest in 15 years: more than 22 percent, and a total area of 13,235km². It is therefore essential to demand in court that the Brazilian state fulfill its obligations to protect the Amazon and the global climate. The importance of financing solutions Transitioning to a zero carbon economy and avoiding the worst physical impacts of climate change requires investing nearly $125 billion USD by 2050, according to the Net Zero Financing Roadmaps study commissioned by the United Nations High Level Champions. These resources must come from two complementary sources, private and public financing. Government financing of climate action represents a relevant public policy and thus must conform to a country's laws. In its ruling, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court recognized the Climate Fund as the main federal instrument for financing climate action and meeting national greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. It also noted that the government kept the fund paralyzed for two years. Considering that the resources intended to fight the climate crisis seek to materialize fundamental human rights, the court concluded that the government couldn’t restrict them. "Guaranteeing the allocation of resources for climate action means setting a clear limit from which we cannot retreat," Ribeiro said. "Despite the clear violation of the Brazilian state's duties regarding the right to a healthy environment, reflected in the dismantling of environmental norms and institutions, the Brazilian Supreme Court's ruling put a brake on the erosion of the legal protection of the environment and climate in the country." Learn about this and other cases on AIDA’s Plataforma de Litigio Climático para América Latina y el Caribe.
Read more
AIDA applauds recognition of healthy environment as a universal human right
The decision adopted by the UN General Assembly is a call for States to recognize that the defense of the environment is essential for existence on the planet. The historic resolution strengthens longtime efforts to guarantee this right in practice. New York, USA. In a landmark resolution, the UN General Assembly recognized a safe, healthy, clean and sustainable environment as a universal human right. Since this right was absent from then Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the decision marks a milestone for international human rights law. The resolution endorses language similar to that proposed in October 2021 by the UN Human Rights Council, which issued a draft resolution in June to the 193 members of the General Assembly. Sponsored by Costa Rica, Maldives, Morocco, Slovenia and Switzerland, the universal recognition of the right to a healthy environment was unanimously approved today, by a vote of 161-0. Liliana Avila, senior attorney of AIDA’s Human Rights and Environment Program, responds: "The United Nations recognition is a very important call for States to recognize that the environment involves essential elements without which our existence on the planet would not be possible. Most of the Constitutions in the continent already recognize the healthy environment as a right and citizens claim it daily through different mechanisms. The step taken today undoubtedly strengthens these efforts and advances us towards the construction of societies where this right is a reality." Gladys Martinez de Lemos, Executive Director, states: “Today marks a historic moment, one that enables citizens to demand the creation of measures to guarantee in practice a right that is now universally recognized. At AIDA we celebrate this new tool and reaffirm our 25-year commitment to protecting a healthy environment as a fundamental human right. The UN recognition represents a hope for justice for those who suffer from environmental degradation around the world—people like the residents of La Oroya, Peru, who have for decades breathed polluted air; families in Central America, forced to migrate due to the impacts of the climate crisis; coastal communities in the Caribbean who lost their homes due to the destruction of mangroves and reefs, natural barriers against storms and hurricanes; and the thousands of environmental defenders risking their lives to protect their territories." As a regional organization, AIDA would like to highlight the fact that a Latin American nation, Costa Rica, has led the proposal for recognition before the General Assembly. Its role was key to the result we are celebrating today. We also highlight the hard work of civil society organizations, social movements, local communities and indigenous peoples to promote this recognition. A healthy environment – recognized as a right by more than 150 States around the world – is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights. Its recognition as a universal human right can lead to more effective laws and policies, and can help to empower local communities in the protection of their territory. Press ConTACT: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +525570522107
Read more
Irish company buying Colombian coal to be investigated for lack of due diligence with regard to human rights
The OECD accepted a complaint filed by civil society against the Irish state-owned company ESB for its failure of responsible business conduct in the purchase of coal from Cerrejón. The National Contact Point (NCP) for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Ireland agreed to evaluate the complaint filed against an Irish state-owned company, The Electricity Supply Board (ESB), for its lack of due diligence on human rights. ESB is a buyer of coal from Carbones del Cerrejón, the operator of the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America. The complaint was filed in January 2021 by a coalition of national and international organizations, including CAJAR, CINEP, AIDA, GLAN, ABColombia, Ask, and Christian Aid. The complaint also had the support of several leaders of Wayuu and Afro-Campesino indigenous communities that have been historically affected by this extractive coal mining megaproject. For years ESB, considered Ireland's largest energy company, has purchased coal from the Cerrejón mine, located in La Guajira, Colombia, for use in its Moneypoint power plant in County Clare. The complaint alleges non-compliance by the company, as the purchaser, with the OECD's standards of due diligence and responsible business conduct in environmental and human rights matters. In addition, the complaint alleges that ESB has failed to take the necessary actions to influence Carbones de Cerrejón's own due diligence in identifying, mitigating, and preventing human rights abuses linked to the mine. This failure comes despite well-documented evidence of serious violations against Wayuu and Afro-Colombian indigenous communities, including environmental impacts and threats to human rights defenders. Following an initial assessment of the complaint, the Irish government's NCP released an initial statement on Monday, July 18, stating that it found sufficient grounds for further examination of the issues raised. From the perspective of the denouncing organizations, the purchase of Colombian coal by ESB has been made in spite of the company having been aware of ample evidence of serious human rights violations and environmental impacts in the territory of indigenous Wayuu and Afro-descendant communities. The company itself, on its official website, stated: "ESB is well aware of Colombia's difficult history that has had serious impacts on its population for many years. We are also aware of the issues reported in the media regarding the Cerrejón mine, many of which are related to Colombia's past. We are committed to remaining attentive to all of these issues and will continue to work with Bettercoal to influence and drive improvements. We bring these issues to Bettercoal for assessment as a matter of course." Although ESB had indicated that it stopped buying coal from Cerrejón in 2018 because of human rights violations, it recently announced that in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war it was resuming its purchase of this coal for the coming months. "Six years ago, Ireland stopped buying Colombian coal, citing human rights concerns, and turned to Russia for the fossil fuel. Now, the European nation has resumed purchases from Colombia." On his recent visit to La Guajira in April of this year, Irish TD Gary Gannon criticized ESB for restarting coal imports from Cerrejón. Gary Gannon, who traveled to Colombia in April as part of the parliamentary delegation, said he had seen with his own eyes the devastating environmental impact of the mine and the pain of the indigenous communities displaced from their land for its expansion. "There is a disturbing double standard in this return to Cerrejón," he said. "We rightly say no to Russian coal after the invasion of Ukraine, recognizing the impact our business decisions can have on human rights. But that standard must apply everywhere, including Colombia." In the words of Wayuu leader Jakeline Romero Epiayu: "European countries, with total hypocrisy, send us messages of decarbonization, of abandoning the use of fossil fuels; but suddenly they put Colombia and La Guajira back in their focus to buy this coal that they continue to need, this coal that we have tirelessly said is stained with blood, stained with the lives of Wayuu men, women, boys, and girls." The complaint requested, among other recommendations, that ESB: end its commercial relationship with the purchase of Colombian coal, issue a public statement acknowledging the need for its cessation, request the mine's parent companies initiate progressive closure of the mine and remediate its impacts, compile and publish an effective human rights policy, and issue a formal apology to the affected communities. Following the issuance of this initial assessment, the Irish NCP will formally ask the parties if they are willing to participate in mediation, with the objective of reaching a resolution to the issues raised in the complaint. The goodwill offer is voluntary for both parties. If a mediated solution is not possible, the Irish NCP will conduct a review of the complaint. The outcome will be reflected in a Final Statement which may include recommendations on the implementation of the OECD guidelines. The Irish NCP also noted that it is still processing another complaint against CMC Coal Marketing Company, a Dublin-based company responsible for the marketing and sale of coal from the Cerrejón mine. In the wake of the war between Russia and Ukraine and the current context of increasing demand for Cerrejón coal, this complaint sends an important message that countries and companies that buy this coal must continue meeting their obligations with respect to human rights and corporate due diligence duties. José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers' Collective Center for Research and Popular Education Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) press contact: Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +525570522107
Read more