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
Air pollution: it damages your health from day one
Although they occur seasonally each year, respiratory diseases are becoming increasingly severe, said pediatrician Gina Pinilla, who works in Bogotá. As air quality decreases, health complications increase for children who come to the emergency department. What Dr. Pinilla has observed in more than a decade of experience as a doctor is no mere impression. A study conducted by a multidisciplinary team of researchers in Colombia shows that health damage from poor air quality is noticeable from day one. Hospital admissions increase over the first 24 to 72 hours and can extend for almost two weeks. It’s the first multi-city study conducted in Colombia and Latin America to determine the relationship between air pollution and respiratory and circulatory diseases in the population, explained lead researcher Dr. Laura Rodriguez of the Industrial University of Santander. Each contaminant affects us differently One of the findings that most caught the researchers' attention is that harms caused by pollutants are different for children and adults. Children suffer from respiratory diseases, while adults face cardiovascular complications. "Children between 5 and 9 years old face greater impacts and are more likely to have an episode that takes them to the emergency room,” explained Dr. Rodriguez. “But this doesn't mean that the younger ones are unaffected. When a child has respiratory complications, he or she may stay hospitalized for up to a week and be connected to respiratory support. "There are children who need prolonged hospitalizations. For a week, they are dependent on oxygen, whether from a nasal cannula or oxygen machines,” Dr. Pinilla added. “Then they are left with side effects and get sick often." The particular mixture of pollutants found in the air also affects each age group differently. "Pollution in every city has its own behavior: interaction, quantity and the change in makeup between cities," said Dr. Rodriguez. In Bogotá, for example, pollution by sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are related to circulatory diseases in people over 60. Pollution by nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and PM2.5 particles significantly increases the risk of hospitalization in people under the age of 15. The researcher says that the damage caused by nitrogen dioxide is not given much importance, despite being associated with cardiovascular disease in adults. And, when that pollutant is combined with sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, its effects are enhanced. Pollution harms, even in small quantities An important takeaway from this study is that contaminants can begin to damage public health even before they reach maximum allowable limits. Nitrogen dioxide, for example, is considered harmful, yet regulations have set very high emission limits. "Reaching these limits is very difficult. The city has to be in absurdly high pollution for the alerts to sound," explained Dr. Rodriguez. “The health effects are not related to whether you are exposed to the limits or not, but to the type of mixture you are breathing, because the pollutants are potentiating each other.” In several Latin American cities, regulations allow pollution limits that exceed the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). For example, the WHO recommends a maximum average of 20 µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) of PM10 (solid particles such as ash, soot and dust), but Bogotá has an average of 38 µg/m3. Other cities in the region have even higher annual averages: 40 (Monterrey), 55 (Mexico City), 62 (Lima) and 69 (Santiago). What does this information mean for your city? When poor air quality reaches its most critical levels, hospitals are left without beds and many children with respiratory illnesses remain in the emergency area, explained Dr. Pinilla. It's a common situation because there are no action plans for environmental contingencies. For Dr. Laura Rodriguez, the most important result of her research would be that it helps institutions take action to confront the issue. She recommends local governments and health institutions: Control and regulate the air quality parameters of industrial emissions, and consider monitoring other pollutants. Increase efforts to communicate to the public about the risks of pollution levels in their cities. Prepare hospitals, especially in the first months of the year when pollution reaches its highest level, aggravated by changes in the climate. She emphasized the importance of making intersectoral and multidisciplinary plans and investigations to understand the panorama of air pollution, and to ensure that this information gets into the hands of the appropriate authorities. The study was also conducted by Julián Alfredo Fernández-Niño (U. del Norte, Barranquilla), Néstor Rojas (U. Nacional), Luis Camilo Blanco (U. Santo Tomás) and Víctor Herrera, U. Autónoma de Bucaramanga). Consult it here.
Read more
Inter-American Development Bank to investigate Ituango hydroelectric project
Washington D.C. In a historic decision, the Board of Executive Directors of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) approved an international investigation of the Bank’s private lending arm, IDB Invest, for its investment in the Ituango hydroelectric project. Located in the department of Antioquia, the Ituango dam has had a devastating impact on thousands of people across four departments and 27 municipalities in Colombia. The investigation’s main objective will be to determine whether—when financing this megaproject in a region of Colombia that continues to be affected by high levels of violence and resurgent armed conflict—the Bank complied with the social and environmental standards that it is obligated to uphold. The investigation will also examine whether any non-compliance by the Bank is connected to the serious harm that has been sustained by affected communities. “As those who have been affected by the Ituango dam, we demand that the investigation be rigorous and independent,” declared Isabel Zuleta, spokesperson for Movimiento Ríos Vivos in Colombia, which represents the affected communities. “For more than a decade, our communities have denounced the serious problems that the project has caused. These problems have been further exacerbated by the multiple emergencies that have occurred since 2018 and that continue to this day. We hope that, with this international investigation, the voices of victims and opponents of the project will finally be heard.” The investigation originated in a complaint filed by 477 people affected by the Ituango dam project. In the complaint, the affected communities—which are represented by Movimiento Ríos Vivos—emphasize that the Bank’s own policies require that the projects it finances must be sustainable, participatory, and in conformity with national legislation. In the case of the Ituango dam, none of this has happened. In the complaint, the communities indicate that the project lacked an adequate environmental impact assessment and that it did not allow for the participation of communities or provide access to information. They emphasize that the project has been advanced in a context marked by human rights violations, the disproportionate use of force, and increasing violence against people who defend their land and water. They also point out the pattern of discrimination faced by communities for deciding to oppose the project, as well as by women affected by the project. As the complaint lays out, all of this contradicts the social and environmental standards that the IDB must apply to its investments. Further, the complaint was filed in the wake of a humanitarian crisis that endangered the lives of thousands of people in the area surrounding the dam’s construction site. The crisis began after two of the dam’s diversion tunnels were blocked with cement, when a third tunnel became obstructed and the river’s flow increased dramatically. The resulting landslides and flooding forced thousands of people to be evacuated from their homes in a poorly planned, ad hoc manner, and many remain displaced to this day. No other development project in Colombia has caused a humanitarian crisis of this magnitude. This crisis reveals the inadequacy of both the impact assessment and the environmental regulation of the project, which—despite these deficiencies—was nevertheless approved. The state of emergency in the area affected by the crisis has yet to be lifted, and neither the government nor the regulatory agencies in Colombia have ruled out the possibility that the dam could collapse altogether. Even in this critical context, the affected communities sought to engage in a process of dialogue and dispute resolution with the company behind the dam project, which would have been facilitated by the IDB’s accountability mechanism. However, the company refused to participate in such a dialogue. For this reason, as the next step in the process following from the complaint, the accountability mechanism recommended this investigation. The communities affected by the Ituango dam, who live in the river basin of the Cauca River and its tributaries, are accompanied in the complaint process by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), and International Accountability Project (IAP). The Ituango dam is expected to be the largest hydropower plant in Colombia, capable of generating 2,400 MW of electricity. Although the dam’s 79-kilometer-long reservoir was filled nearly two years ago, however, the dam has yet to generate any electricity. Moreover, the project has flooded 4,500 hectares without first removing the area’s vegetation, which is now generating large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas. This flooding was undertaken even before the dam structure itself was completed and without informing, relocating, or compensating communities in the impacted area. IDB Invest has invested millions of dollars in the project and facilitated an additional billion-dollar investment in the project by other international banks. These investments have been maintained despite the grave crisis caused by the project. press contacts: Isabel Zuleta, Movimiento Ríos Vivos, [email protected] (Spanish only) Carla García Zendejas, Center for International Environmental Law, [email protected] Victor Quintanilla, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, [email protected] Alexandre Sampaio, International Accountability Project, [email protected] Note for editors: The investigation will be conducted by the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) of the Inter-American Development Bank. As an international accountability mechanism, the MICI addresses complaints from people and communities affected by IDB-funded development projects. The investigation will be carried out within a maximum period of nine months, in light of the high complexity of the case. Among the aspects of the project that will be investigated are the following: Whether the area of influence was adequately assessed and the affected population properly identified; The heightened levels of conflict and insecurity in the area surrounding the dam, and its differentiated impacts on women; The participation of communities, which—in the opinion of the communities themselves—has been seriously lacking; The relationship between the project and the damage caused; The deficiencies in the project’s resettlement plans and supposed compensation; The assessment of the risk of disasters, and access to information about these risks.
Read more
Defending my place in the fight for the climate
I started at AIDA as a law student exploring the possibilities of working in the field of environmental law. Four years later, I am the youngest attorney on the organization's legal team, supporting the efforts of the Marine Biodiversity and Coastal Protection Program. I always say that the best part of my job is being surrounded by so many young, powerful and exemplary women. Their teachings have cemented my path. Last month, I participated in the preparatory meeting for the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which took place in Costa Rica. It was my first time at such an event. It was there that I really felt the strength of women and the younger generations, who have united to demand our place at the table to discuss solutions to the climate crisis. In recent months, we’ve seen the strength of global and regional movements of young people outraged by what they see as the inaction of governments to curb global warming. For the most part, young women, adolescents and even girls have led these movements. The climate meeting in Costa Rica was no exception, and reflected the generational change we are experiencing. In that forum, young people of various professions and aspirations made our claim and sought to be heard. We were united by a common purpose: to guarantee our future and to be better than present generations in fulfilling that goal. Millennials (the generational group to which I belong) and the centennials (to which my 13-year-old sister belongs) are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of political inaction in the face of the climate crisis. It is our future that is at stake. Women are especially vulnerable to environmental degradation due to the special role we play in caring for natural resources and the people around us. That is why it’s good news that we’re rising up and demanding clear, concrete and, above all, urgent actions. This PreCOP was an opportunity for learning and growth. I identified with the emphasis that the government of Costa Rica placed on the protection of the ocean and solutions based in nature. And I was inspired to see more and more young women taking the lead in the determined and ambitious actions that the world's environmental and social crises require us to take.
Read more