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
The IDB's opportunity to support the protection of the environment and human rights
The Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group) is uniquely positioned not only to support recovery efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region hard hit by the pandemic, but also to do so with respect for people and the environment. The IDB Group—composed of the IDB, which works with governments; IDB Invest, which collaborates with the private sector; and IDB Lab, the bank’s innovation laboratory— is the continent's most important development financing entity. In 2020, it approved a record US$21.6 billion for its 26 member countries in the region. In addition to the challenge of leading the recovery of public finances, the current economic and social crisis represents an opportunity for the IDB Group to successfully face another major challenge: the adoption of operational policies that comply with international environmental and human rights standards, as well as improved accountability processes. This is fundamental to the role the Bank plays in the region, and has become even more relevant in the current context: Regarding accountability and the evaluation of its current policies, it is important to consider that four hydroelectric projects financed by the IDB Group are or have been under scrutiny by the IDB's Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) due to the impacts caused by their implementation in indigenous and rural communities in Guatemala, Chile and Colombia. These projects, financed by IDB Invest, have affected the livelihoods of those who live in their shadow. AIDA—together with the International Platform Against Impunity and the Plurinational Government of the Q'anjob'al, Chuj, Akateko, Popti and Mestiza Nation—has supported members of the Mayan communities of the Ixquisis micro-region in Guatemala in the face of the destruction caused by two of these projects: the San Mateo and San Andres dams. Personally, I’ve seen first hand the damages caused to the indigenous population. I’ve heard the fear and uncertainty in the voices of local women as they explained how their rivers were polluted, their children fell ill, and their lives forever changed. “One day we will run out of water and we won’t be able to live,” a female indigenous leader from Ixquisis told me. “Our children will suffer.” The women of Ixquisis have played a central role in the complaint presented before MICI, as a primary question at play centers on the supposed violation of the Bank’s operational policy on gender, which recognizes that development projects often have differential impacts on local women. For the women, the rivers are a vital element, since they enable access to fresh water and food, also playing a key role in their interactions with each other. In the complaint, affected communities also denounced the projects’ lack of compliance with the Bank’s operational policies indigenous rights and the environment, and for the resulting damages. They argue that the company implementing the San Mateo and San Andrés dams acted without due diligence and violated the right to consultation and the free, prior and informed consent of affected indigenous peoples. In fact, the implementation of the projects actually ignored the results of a good faith consultation, carried out in 2009, in which the majority of the local population decided they did not consent to the implementation of such mega-projects in their territory. What’s evident is that the Bank’s capacity to supervise the projects it finances is limited and, despite meeting minimum standards, its operational policies are often ineffective. What’s more, spaces in which the Bank verifies compliance are reduced and the consequences for that non-compliance, uncertain. Earlier this year, MICI published a report on Chile’s Alto Maipo hydroelectric project, finding that the dam violated several operational policies, including that on gender. Yet that report has come under scrutiny for failing to offer restitution measures for the ongoing damages incurred by affected communities. In the coming months, the preliminary report on the Ixquisis case will be released. Affected communities hope that the recommendations it holds are reflective of the realities on the ground, and oriented toward the adoption of corrective measures, including the immediate divestment of financing. With this case, the Bank has a key opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to accountability, as well as its openness to assess compliance with its own operational policies and to remedy the damages that failure to comply has caused to vulnerable groups. It’s also an opportunity for the entity to take preventive measures and lay the groundwork for changing its practices. When he was elected president of the institution, Mauricio Claver-Carone promised to "act on priority issues in the region.” This includes an evaluation of any global context that affects the very development the IDB Group seeks to promote. These days, that includes not just the current public health crisis, but also the global climate crisis, the serious situation facing environmental defenders, and resolving a number of pending complaints on gender equity and respect for indigenous rights. The actions taken by the IDB Group as a result of the Ixquisis case may be the first step in establishing a fundamental precedent for the protection of human rights and the environment among international financial institutions, a contribution that is undoubtedly as, if not more, valuable than the economic one.
Read more
Investor Alert: Belo Sun discloses misleading information to investors regarding controversial gold mining project in the Brazilian Amazon
In a complaint to the Ontario Securities Commission, an international coalition of civil society organizations calls attention to the repeated dissemination of misleading information by Belo Sun Mining Corp (TSXV:BSX), including statements by CEO Peter Tagliamonte, downplaying socio-environmental, legal, and financial risks of the company’s “Volta Grande” project along the Xingu River. Canadian-based mining company Belo Sun Corp.(TSXV:BSX) is disseminating misleading and incomplete information to investors about the mining project it is trying to develop on the Xingu river (Volta Grande do Xingu), Pará State, Brazil. This is the central message of a warning letter sent to the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) on July 29rd by an international coalition of civil society organizations and networks including Amazon Watch, Earthworks, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), International Rivers, MiningWatch Canada, Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre and Rede Xingu+. The OSC is an independent Canadian Crown corporation responsible for protecting shareholders and investors from unfair, improper and fraudulent practices from companies and industries. Drafted by a legal team and supported by independent technical and scientific analysis, the complaint letter challenges recent statements by Belo Sun’s CEO Peter Tagliamonte. In a speech at the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) event in March 2021, the largest mining convention in the world, Tagliamonte cited the Covid-19 pandemic as the justification for repeated delays in the environmental licencing of the Volta Grande mine, claiming that the mining project was "fully authorized" and that construction was expected to begin at the end of 2021. Similar comments have been made in recent company statements, and by Tagliamonte himself in other occasions. According to the complaint, such declarations are patently false. There are seven public civil actions active in Brazilian courts asking for the suspension of permits and of the licencing process, filed by Federal and State public prosecutors’ and defenders’ offices. These lawsuits focus specifically on irregularities in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and the lack of free, prior and informed consultation and consent with Indigenous peoples and other traditional communities. The coalition argues that there is overwhelming evidence that Belo Sun breached the Securities Act disclosure requirements, which requires companies to disclose material changes “forthwith” (without delay). Companies must disclose factual and updated data to keep investors well informed. Misleading information disclosed by Belo Sun Mining Corp. According to the complaint, while the company acknowledges the generic risks associated with the licensing process, it fails to disclose the concrete details of the legal actions and suspensions in play regarding its project, relying on investors' lack of knowledge concerning licensing legislation in Brazil. One example refers specifically to the suspension of its construction licence (LI), due to the lack of "free and informed consultation" of Indigenous peoples. In its more recent Corporate Update, Belo Sun states that "it continues to advance financial discussions with various groups in preparation for the commencement of construction following the lifting of the suspension of the construction license (LI)". "The company has not even started a consultation process, - which is now delayed by COVID-19 - and it is already advertising the lifting of the suspension, as if it was just a matter of time", says Marcella Ribeiro, attorney from AIDA's Human Rights and the Environment Program. "The company is not in a position to guarantee the results of the consultation process, as negotiations around consent are time-consuming and will invariably result in major material changes to the project. None of that is being disclosed properly to investors", she adds. Among the risks associated with investments in Belo Sun, the complaint highlights the history of judicial proceedings; conflict around the project; the flaws and gaps in the environmental impact assessment; and the violation of the Indigenous Peoples’ right to prior consultation. The downplaying of environmental and social risks by the company’s studies and impact assessments has sounded the alarm among communities in the Volta Grande region, already affected by the Belo Monte dam. A series of independent technical studies challenge Belo Sun’s statements regarding impacts to water resources, to fauna and flora, and regarding dam safety. The company’s refusal to acknowledge impacts in Indigenous territories along the Xingu river has led to the court decision that suspended the installation licence of the Volta Grande project in 2017 until "free and informed consultation" was carried out. There are also increasing accounts of intimidation and harassment against project opponents, which demonstrate a much more complex and contentious situation as a result of the project than what has been disclosed by the company, the complaint stresses. The coalition concludes that "Belo Sun has failed to fully communicate to current and potential investors about the complex nature of its project" which has a "direct implication for delays, and raises fundamental questions about the project’s viability". The letter delivered to the OSC aims to increase visibility to the many irregularities of the project and to raise awareness among current and potential investors about the major reputational and legal risks attached to the project, at a moment when heightened attention is focused on the Amazon rainforest and its capacity to provide environmental services and mitigate climate change. About Belo Sun’s Volta Grande Project Proposed for development along the Volta Grande (Big Bend), a stretch of the Xingu River (a major tributary of the Amazon) that is one of the most biodiverse locations on the planet, Belo Sun’s project would be the largest open pit gold mine in Brazil. The region is home to indigenous people such as Juruna (Yudjá), Arara, and Xikrin, along other isolated Indigenous and riverside communities. From the outset, Belo Sun has faced numerous lawsuits regarding the Volta Grande Project filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, the State Public Prosecutor's Office, the State Public Defender's Office, and the Union Public Defender's Office. All of these lawsuits refer to the multiple flaws in its licensing process and in the project’s technical studies. Among other things, the lawsuits seek the cancellation of the company's licences and the suspension of the project's licensing process. One of them resulted in a court decision, still valid, to suspend Belo Sun’s construction licence. press contacts Viviana Herrera, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected] Camila Rossi, Amazon Watch, [email protected] Cecilia Garcia, International Rivers, [email protected] Victor Quintanilla, AIDA, [email protected]
Read more
Litigation to promote (and accelerate) climate action
In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its first assessment report. It was the first time that the international scientific community officially and accurately demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions, produced by human activities, would lead to additional warming of the planet's surface, with global consequences. Over more than two decades of international climate negotiations and agreements to drastically reduce emissions, progress has been slow. And so, climate litigation has become a tool increasingly used by organizations and communities to hold governments and companies accountable for the climate crisis. Legal cases have forced nations to adopt more concrete and ambitious measures to curb emissions and mitigate the human rights impacts of the climate crisis. In May, a Dutch court set a landmark precedent when it ordered multinational oil company Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent over less than 10 years, marking a global environmental victory. "This judgment has been of great significance because Shell is one of the companies that most contributes to climate change," says Verónica Méndez, an attorney with AIDA's Climate Change Program. AIDA's legal and scientific team provides legal support and technical information to organizations and communities initiating climate litigation against governments and companies in Latin America. AIDA also developed a climate litigation platform, which systematizes key information on the cases developed in the region. The mapping of data is being done collaboratively with other organizations and will allow for the strengthening of joint litigation strategies. A brief overview of climate litigation Climate litigation includes cases that raise issues related to the legal obligations that states and companies have in relation to the climate crisis. They are brought before judicial bodies to seek, among other things, the enforcement of existing climate laws; an expansion in the scope of other laws to address climate change; recognition of the relationship between fundamental human rights and the impacts of the climate crisis; and compensation for loss and damage. This, according to a report prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with the Sabine Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University (New York), which assesses the global situation of this type of litigation. According to the report, as of July 1, 2020, at least 1,550 climate litigations have been registered in 38 countries, almost doubling the number of cases registered in 24 countries in 2017. The United States leads the list where the most litigation has been filed (1,200), followed by Australia (97), the United Kingdom (58) and the European Union (55). Climate lawsuits are also booming in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Chile. To date, AIDA has analyzed nearly 50 cases that will form part of the region's climate litigation platform. Challenges and opportunities in climate litigation While climate litigation seeks to achieve justice for communities affected by the impacts of the climate crisis, one of its great challenges lies the implementation of decisions. In 2018, a historic judgement ruled in favor of 25 young Colombians, who sued the government for deforestation in the Amazon and its direct link to the violation of the right to a healthy environment for future generations. This lawsuit is considered a climate litigation due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation. In it, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized the Colombian Amazon as an entity subject to rights and ordered the creation of an action plan to reduce deforestation, and the adoption of an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon. However, the conclusions of follow-up reports on the case indicate that, to date, there has not been full compliance with the ruling. "A judgment does not end with the sentence,” explains Méndez. “It must be followed up with to ensure compliance." Demonstrating that corporations and governments have an enormous responsibility in the fight against the climate crisis not only requires scientific information that proves that the emissions generated or allowed contribute to climate change. It requires linking the facts to human rights to provide more reasons for the courts to act and issue a favorable ruling. "A purely scientific climate change litigation has less chance of success," Méndez emphasizes. "It’s strategic to link a case to direct impacts on the human rights of those people who will be disproportionately affected." According to a report by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the outlook for climate demands in Latin America is encouraging because governments are making more commitments to climate action and, in addition, climate science is establishing direct links between extreme weather events and climate change. The coming together of communities and environmental organizations is crucial in the movement to accelerate strong policies and actions that will ensure a sustainable, just transformation for both people and the environment. Visit the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean
Read more