Project
Amazon Watch / Maíra Irigaray
The Belo Monte Dam on the Xingu River: 10 years of impacts in the Amazon and the search for reparations
The Belo Monte Dam has caused an environmental and social disaster in the heart of the Amazon—one of the most important ecosystems on the planet.
This situation has only worsened since the hydroelectric plant began operations in 2016. The quest for justice and reparations by the affected indigenous, fishing, and riverine communities continues to this day.
In 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) granted them protective measures that, to date, have not been fully implemented by the Brazilian State.
Furthermore, since June of that same year, the IACHR has yet to rule on a complaint against the State regarding its international responsibility in the case.
The IACHR may refer the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has the authority to issue a ruling condemning the Brazilian State.
Background
The Belo Monte hydroelectric plant—the fourth largest in the world by installed capacity (11,233 MW)—was built on the Xingu River in Pará, a state in northern Brazil.
It was inaugurated on May 5, 2016, with a single turbine. At that time, 80% of the river’s course was diverted, flooding 516 km² of land—an area larger than the city of Chicago. Of that area, 400 km² was native forest. The dam began operating at full capacity in November 2019.
Belo Monte was built and is operated by the Norte Energia S.A. consortium, which is composed primarily of state-owned companies. It was financed by the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES), which provided the consortium with 25.4 billion reais (approximately US$10.16 billion), the largest investment in the bank’s history. Therefore, the BNDES is also legally responsible for the socio-environmental impacts associated with the hydroelectric plant.
Decades of harm to the environment and people
Human rights violations and degradation of the Amazon have been occurring since the project’s inception. In March 2011, Norte Energía began construction of the dam without adequate consultation and without the prior, free, and informed consent of the affected communities.
The construction caused the forced displacement of more than 40,000 people, severing social and cultural ties. The resettlement plan in Altamira—a city directly affected by the hydroelectric dam—involved housing units located on the outskirts, lacking adequate public services and decent living conditions for the relocated families, with no special provisions for those from indigenous communities.
Belo Monte's operations have caused a permanent, man-made drought in the Volta Grande (or "Great Bend") of the Xingu River, exacerbated by the historic droughts in the Amazon in 2023 and 2024. As a result, the deaths of millions of fish eggs were documented for four consecutive years (from 2021 to 2024), and for the past three years, there has been no upstream migration of fish to spawn and reproduce. Thus, artisanal fishing, the main source of protein for indigenous peoples and riverside communities, was severely affected: fish dropped from 50% to 30% of total protein consumed, replaced by processed foods. In summary, there was an environmental and humanitarian collapse that resulted in the breakdown of fishing as a traditional way of life, food insecurity, and access to drinking water for thousands of families, impoverishment, and disease.
Furthermore, the construction of the dam increased deforestation and intensified illegal logging and insecurity on indigenous and tribal lands, putting the survival of these communities at risk. Another consequence was the deepening of poverty and social conflicts, as well as the strain on health, education, and public safety systems in Altamira—a city ranked as the most violent in the country in 2017, where human trafficking and sexual violence increased. Violence was also reported against human rights defenders involved in the case.
In 2025, during the 30th UN Climate Change Conference (COP30), held in Brazil, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office labeled the damage caused by the Belo Monte dam as ecocide.
The search for justice and reparations
Over the years, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office in Pará, the Public Defender’s Office, and civil society organizations have filed dozens of legal actions in Brazilian courts to challenge the project’s various irregularities and its impacts. Most of the claims are still pending resolution, some for more than 10 years.
These efforts have failed because the national government has repeatedly overturned rulings in favor of the affected communities by invoking a mechanism that allowed a court president to suspend a judicial decision based solely on generic arguments such as "the national interest" or "economic order."
In the absence of effective responses at the national level, AIDA, together with a coalition of partner organizations, brought the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and, in 2010, requested precautionary measures to protect the lives, safety, and health of the affected indigenous communities.
On April 1, 2011, the IACHR granted these measures and requested that the Brazilian government suspend environmental permits and any construction work until the conditions related to prior consultation and the protection of the health and safety of the communities are met.
And on June 16, 2011 —together with the Xingu Vivo Para Sempre Movement, the Coordinating Committee of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon, the Diocese of Altamira, the Indigenous Missionary Council, the Pará Society for the Defense of Human Rights and Global Justice— we filed a formal complaint against the Brazilian State for its international responsibility in the violation of the human rights of the people affected in the case. The case was opened for processing in December 2015.
On August 3, 2011, the IACHR amended the precautionary measures to request, instead of the suspension of permits and construction, the protection of people living in voluntary isolation, the health of indigenous communities, and the regularization and protection of ancestral lands.
Current situation
The protective measures granted by the IACHR remain in effect, but the Brazilian government has not fully complied with them, reporting only on general actions. The communities have documented the ongoing violations of their rights. The situation that prompted the request for these measures—the risk to the lives, physical integrity, and ways of life of the communities—persists and has worsened with the hydroelectric plant operating at full capacity and the recent extreme droughts in the Amazon.
In addition to the impacts of Belo Monte, there is a risk of further social and environmental impacts from the implementation of another mining megaproject in the Volta Grande do Xingu. There, the Canadian company Belo Sun plans to build Brazil’s largest open-pit gold mine.
The combined and cumulative impacts of the dam and the mine were not assessed. The government excluded Indigenous peoples, riverine and peasant communities from the project’s environmental permitting process. Despite protests by Indigenous communities and other irregularities surrounding the project, the government of Pará formally authorized the mine in April 2026.
Like other hydroelectric dams, Belo Monte exacerbates the climate emergency by generating greenhouse gas emissions in its reservoir. And it is inefficient amid the longer, more intense droughts caused by the crisis, as it loses its ability to generate power.
The case before the Inter-American Commission
In October 2017, the IACHR announced that it would rule jointly on the admissibility (whether the case meets the requirements for admission) and the merits (whether a human rights violation actually occurred) of the international complaint against the Brazilian State.
Fifteen years after the complaint was filed, the affected communities and the organizations representing them are still awaiting this decision. If the IACHR concludes that human rights violations occurred and issues recommendations that the Brazilian State fails to comply with, it may refer the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, whose rulings are binding.
A potential ruling by the international court in this case would set a regional legal precedent regarding the rights of indigenous and riverine peoples, public participation in megaprojects, and state responsibility in the context of the climate crisis—a precedent that is particularly relevant in light of the Court’s Advisory Opinion No. 32, which reaffirmed the obligations of States to protect the people and communities of the continent from the climate emergency.
Partners:
Related projects
Supporting Mexico’s indigenous communities in their fight against Las Cruces Dam
AIDA filed an amicus brief demonstrating the international environmental and human rights obligations the Mexican government violated by authorizing the controversial hydroelectric project. It was written in support of a lawsuit filed by the Wixárika people of Nayarit, Mexico, whose land and sacred sites would be affected by the dam. Nayarit, Mexico. The Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) presented an amicus brief before the First District Court of Nayarit, demonstrating the international environmental and human rights obligations the Mexican government violated by authorizing the Las Cruces hydroelectric project. The brief supports the writ of amparo filed against the project by members of the Wixárika indigenous community. "When analyzing the project, Mexican authorities failed to adequately consult affected communities and obtain their free, prior, and informed consent. Above all, they failed to respect their rights to self-determination, autonomy, territory and cultural identity, and to a healthy environment," explained AIDA attorney Camilo Thompson. "In addition, authorities overlooked the risks of damage to the San Pedro Mezquital river basin and the ecosystem it feeds: the mangrove forests of Marismas Nacionales, an internationally protected site." The hydroelectric plant, promoted by the Federal Electricity Commission, threatens ceremonial sites on which the spiritual life of the Wixárika, Náyeris-Cora, Tepehuano and Mexicanero people depend. Members of the Wixárika tribe presented the demand for protection (amparo) in mid-2017 against the authorities that endorsed the project—the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and the National Water Commission. AIDA’s supporting brief, presented in March, details the international obligations Mexico breached by approving the dam—those contained in the American Convention on Human Rights, the Protocol of San Salvador, Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization on indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. After the request for protection was filed, the court ordered the suspension of project permits until the legal process has concluded and a decision has been made as to whether those permits are valid. Government authorities have argued that the project must continue because it is in the public interest, and that indigenous peoples can "re-organize their spiritual life in a context modified by the project’s construction." This position ignores the rights of communities, due process, and the environmental threats affecting the public interest. In order to safeguard the rights of affected communities, the court must now continue the legal process, confirm the project’s suspension, and issue the cancellation of all related permits. “The government must maintain the balance between the protection of human rights and the environment, thereby canceling the permits granted to the Las Cruces project and protecting the rights of the affected communities," Thompson said. "In this instance, Mexico has the opportunity to strengthen the global trend towards truly sustainable energy, moving away from large dam projects that emit greenhouse gases and aggravate climate change." Learn more about the case here. Press contact: Camilo Thompson, AIDA attorney, +521 9671302346, [email protected]
Read more
To keep corals healthy, we must protect herbivorous fish
We all know coral reefs are fragile environments, highly vulnerable to climate change and pollution. But did you know they also had to compete for light and oxygen with the tiny macro-algae that cover their surface? That’s why some of corals' best friends are herbivorous fish—species like parrotfish and surgeonfish that feed on algae, helping to keep corals healthy. But in the Caribbean, unsustainable fishing practices are causing a decline in populations of parrotfish (and other herbivorous fish), putting the health of corals at risk. That’s why, in AIDA’s marine program, we’re launching a large-scale project dedicated to the conservation of herbivorous fish throughout Latin America—focused on the nations of Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Panama. Herbivorous fish conservation The parrotfish is one of the most important fish living in coral reefs. They spend most of the day nibbling on corals, cleaning algae from their surface. They also eat dead corals—those bits and pieces that protrude from the reef—and later excrete them as white sand. A key element to maintaining sustainable fisheries is catching only adult fish—those that have already matured and reproduced. But in the Caribbean right now, people are fishing juvenile parrotfish. Though not a commercial species, parrotfish are being captured because they’re some of the only fish left in the reef. The irresponsible nature of commercial fishing in the region has caused a drastic decline in both commercial and herbivorous fish. “A key element of maintaining a sustainable fishery is catching only adult fish, which have already matured and reproduced. But what’s happening in the Caribbean is the fishing of young parrotfish,” explained Magie Rodríguez, AIDA marine attorney. Most fishing is done with gillnets and hooks, which cause high levels of by-catch—unwanted populations of marine species caught in commercial fishing. Harpoons and traps are also used, which prevent younger, smaller fish from escaping and continuing their life cycle. Surgeonfish and damselfish are two other herbivorous fish—both small and quite beautiful—falling victim to irresponsible fishing practices. Their popularity in tropical home aquariums has led to a decline in their wild populations. Remember Dory, from Finding Nemo? She was a surgeonfish, and the movie’s popularity led to an increased demand for her species in aquariums. What the movie didn’t tell you is that the surgeonfish’s small, sharp teeth are highly adept at chewing algae, preventing the plantlife from essentially choking coral reefs of oxygen and light. Conservation strategies AIDA’s project for the conservation of herbivorous fish in the Caribbean is in its initial phases. Our objective is the implementation of diverse strategies, across the six Latin American nations, to protect these fish and, by extension, the reefs they call home. “To restore the balance of the coral ecosystem, it’s necessary to achieve the recovery not just of herbivorous fish populations, but also of commercial species,” Rodríguez said. So we’re talking not just about fishing bans, but also about the general adoption of sustainable fishing tools that take into account the tourism potential of coral reefs. The project will also contemplate adequate wastewater management strategies, consumer education, and collaboration between governments, NGOs, universities and scientists. Corals are, among other things, a source of economic income and food for coastal communities that live from fishing and tourism. Plus, they are natural barriers against storms and hurricanes. “Corals do a lot for us and we have to take care of them,” Rodríguez added. “We’ve come to find that the best thing we can do to keep corals healthy is to protect the herbivorous fish that call them home.”
Read moreTo keep corals healthy, we must protect herbivorous fish
We all know coral reefs are fragile environments, highly vulnerable to climate change and pollution. But did you know they also had to compete for light and oxygen with the tiny macro-algae that cover their surface? That’s why some of corals' best friends are herbivorous fish—species like parrotfish and surgeonfish that feed on algae, helping to keep corals healthy. But in the Caribbean, unsustainable fishing practices are causing a decline in populations of parrotfish (and other herbivorous fish), putting the health of corals at risk. That’s why, in AIDA’s marine program, we’re launching a large-scale project dedicated to the conservation of herbivorous fish throughout Latin America—focused on the nations of Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Panama. Herbivorous fish conservation The parrotfish is one of the most important fish living in coral reefs. They spend most of the day nibbling on corals, cleaning algae from their surface. They also eat dead corals—those bits and pieces that protrude from the reef—and later excrete them as white sand. A key element to maintaining sustainable fisheries is catching only adult fish—those that have already matured and reproduced. But in the Caribbean right now, people are fishing juvenile parrotfish. Though not a commercial species, parrotfish are being captured because they’re some of the only fish left in the reef. The irresponsible nature of commercial fishing in the region has caused a drastic decline in both commercial and herbivorous fish. “A key element of maintaining a sustainable fishery is catching only adult fish, which have already matured and reproduced. But what’s happening in the Caribbean is the fishing of young parrotfish,” explained Magie Rodríguez, AIDA marine attorney. Most fishing is done with gillnets and hooks, which cause high levels of by-catch—unwanted populations of marine species caught in commercial fishing. Harpoons and traps are also used, which prevent younger, smaller fish from escaping and continuing their life cycle. Surgeonfish and damselfish are two other herbivorous fish—both small and quite beautiful—falling victim to irresponsible fishing practices. Their popularity in tropical home aquariums has led to a decline in their wild populations. Remember Dory, from Finding Nemo? She was a surgeonfish, and the movie’s popularity led to an increased demand for her species in aquariums. What the movie didn’t tell you is that the surgeonfish’s small, sharp teeth are highly adept at chewing algae, preventing the plantlife from essentially choking coral reefs of oxygen and light. Conservation strategies AIDA’s project for the conservation of herbivorous fish in the Caribbean is in its initial phases. Our objective is the implementation of diverse strategies, across the six Latin American nations, to protect these fish and, by extension, the reefs they call home. “To restore the balance of the coral ecosystem, it’s necessary to achieve the recovery not just of herbivorous fish populations, but also of commercial species,” Rodríguez said. So we’re talking not just about fishing bans, but also about the general adoption of sustainable fishing tools that take into account the tourism potential of coral reefs. The project will also contemplate adequate wastewater management strategies, consumer education, and collaboration between governments, NGOs, universities and scientists. Corals are, among other things, a source of economic income and food for coastal communities that live from fishing and tourism. Plus, they are natural barriers against storms and hurricanes. “Corals do a lot for us and we have to take care of them,” Rodríguez added. “We’ve come to find that the best thing we can do to keep corals healthy is to protect the herbivorous fish that call them home.”
Read more