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.
After 10 years of the hydroelectric plant's operation and more than 15 years of documented human rights violations, it is time for justice to be served for the affected communities.
Read the open letter from the organizations bringing the case before the IACHR
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.
Photo: Amazon Watch / Maíra Irigaray.
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.
Photo: Amazon Watch / Maíra Irigaray.
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
Learn about the negotiations to reduce maritime shipping emissions
The decarbonization of productive and economic activities is essential and urgent to address the triple crisis –climate, pollution and biodiversity loss– that the world is facing.In maritime shipping –which moves 10 billion tons of cargo each year and accounts for 2.9% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide (CO2)– the global need to reduce and eventually eliminate these emissions is being addressed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN specialized agency responsible for setting standards for safe, efficient and environmentally sound shipping.The move toward decarbonization is critical because without significant change, shipping emissions could increase by as much as 50% by 2050.The IMO has a revised emissions reduction strategy that was agreed in 2023 by the 175 countries that make up the organization. It is expected to reduce emissions from the sector by up to 30% by 2030, 80% by 2040 and reach net zero by around 2050. Implementation of the strategy is currently the subject of international negotiations.AIDA is participating in these negotiations as part of the Clean Shipping Coalition, an international coalition of organizations. In addition, AIDA is coordinating efforts with Ocean Conservancy and Fundación Cethus to generate advocacy with Latin American countries and to collaborate with updated technical information on the progress of the negotiations and their implications for the region.The decarbonization of global shipping and its economic impact is a very important discussion for Latin America and the Caribbean. It is necessary that all countries and economic sectors align themselves with clear targets and that all impacts are assessed equally and fairly, as well as the ways in which countries can mitigate them. Read on to learn more about this important process. What measures are being discussed to reduce emissions from maritime shipping?Negotiations are underway at the international level to select the package of measures needed to meet the 2023 targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. This package will include both technical and economic measures. Its final structure will be decided in April this year at the IMO headquarters in London, marking a global milestone in the fight against the climate crisis.Technical measures include a global fuel standard, carbon capture on ships, energy efficiency measures for the fuels used, and reductions in ship speed. They all aim to make maritime transport as efficient as possible in terms of the fuels used and to gradually phase out the use of the most polluting fuels. This means using the least amount of energy, emitting the least amount of carbon dioxide and keeping the sector in operation.In addition to technical measures, economic measures are proposed to put a price on carbon emissions from maritime transport. Increasing the efficiency of ships is expected to have not only a technological component but also a market incentive. This combination is crucial for achieving emission reduction targets, as it will provide both the public and private sectors with the necessary resources:The economic resources to invest in the new technologies, new fuels, and other investments needed for the energy transition.An economic stimulus to close the current cost gap between fossil fuels and near-zero emission clean technologies. To define a price for carbon dioxide emissions, there are two main proposals:The first has a flexible structure with respect to emissions. In its simplest form, it takes account of differences in emissions when implementing the measure. To this end, a "permissible limit" of carbon dioxide emissions is envisaged, with ships being divided into those below and those above the limit. The former could receive a financial reward, and the latter would pay a fee for the carbon dioxide emitted under a system of emission quotas. In this sense, although there is a mechanism to regulate emissions below the set limit, the tolerance of these limits offers the possibility of an accelerated reduction, which could delay the energy transition that the climate crisis requires.The second has a universal structure, i.e. a fixed price for all CO2 emissions generated by the operation of the maritime fleet. The aim is to create a market stimulus that will increase the demand for new low-emission technologies (new ships and fuels) and encourage maritime operators to purchase them in order to avoid paying a fee. This measure is expected to provide more accurate monitoring of total emissions from ships, motivate a faster and more pronounced energy transition, and collect and then redistribute a significant number of economic resources among maritime operators and countries to mitigate the disproportionate costs and negative impacts of the decarbonization process. What does decarbonizing shipping mean for Latin America and the Caribbean?According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Latin America and the Caribbean is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change-related disasters, so actions aimed at achieving decarbonization targets in different sectors of the regional economy are essential to address the climate crisis.On the other hand, actions specifically aimed at decarbonizing maritime transport will have different impacts in the short, medium and long term in each of the countries of the continent. For example, the choice of one or the other proposal for the payment of a tariff for the sector's CO2 emissions - the flexible modality or the fixed price - will have a different impact in each country. What all scenarios have in common is that the region will be strongly affected by the process of decarbonizing maritime transport.In this context, it is important for countries to identify the scenarios that allow them a greater range of actions to compensate for these impacts and to ensure that the transition is equitable and fair, without leaving any country behind.In economic terms, the introduction of a universal price on CO2 emissions would allow States to receive part of the economic resources generated to compensate and mitigate the effects of decarbonization. The amounts and forms of this transfer of resources will be agreed within the IMO. The combination of more ambitious measures (technical and economic) is expected to raise up to $120 billion annually in the coming years. The flexible proposal for paying for emissions does not include mechanisms for redistributing resources, as these would go directly to ship operators and fuel producers. This would leave countries to mitigate the impact of decarbonization with their own resources.From an environmental perspective, without the incentive of a universal price, there is a risk that the flexible scheme will indirectly encourage the continued use of fuels that generate CO2 emissions, particularly in regions with limited economic resources to invest in the least polluting state-of-the-art technology. This would result in a delay in achieving emission reduction targets for the world's shipping fleet and would move countries away from meeting their climate change commitments under the IMO.In general, the costs of reducing CO2 emissions from shipping and other sectors, which are at the root of the current climate crisis, are a reality for all countries, although the impact varies by region. The active participation of Latin America and the Caribbean in the international discussions on this issue throughout 2025 is essential to ensure that the energy transition and the reduction of maritime emissions are fair and equitable. It is important that the countries of the continent adopt a position that allows them to protect their economic and environmental interests from the economic consequences of this process. If the IMO's decarbonization strategy does not live up to its ambitions, we will have a shipping industry that exacerbates the climate crisis and its impacts. The success of this strategy will be the achievement of a global consensus on environmental considerations. The equity and fairness of the transition must be one of the key elements. Recognizing the differentiated impacts of maritime decarbonization measures and their compensation, especially in the most affected countries, will ensure a triumph based on criteria of justice and environmental equity.
Read more
Cetaceans and salmon farming: Challenges for the conservation of marine biodiversity in Chilean Patagonia (executive summary)
In 2018, the environmental organizations Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Greenpeace, and the NGO FIMA joined forces to confront the threat of the expansion of salmon farming in the southern waters of Chilean Patagonia. Since then, we have been actively working to expose and stop the impacts of intensive salmon production in pristine ecosystems, including special protected areas. In 2021, a scientific study of whale-ship interactions in Chilean Patagonia was published, including a video of a blue whale navigating a high-traffic area. According to the study, the world’s largest and most endangered mammal shares space with up to 870 vessels daily in Chilean Patagonia, one of its main feeding grounds. The study confirmed that 83% of the vessels were involved in the aquaculture industry.This finding shed light on a new facet of the environmental issues facing Chilean Patagonia, home to nearly 30% of the world’s cetacean species, including the endemic Chilean dolphin. This led us to commission a scientific report from a multidisciplinary team of experts to make the information publicly available. The results provided evidence of the impacts of salmon farming on cetaceans in Chilean Patagonia and highlighted the lack of studies and information needed to understand the magnitude and consequences of these impacts, as well as the true risk involved.In addition to complementing the efforts of civil society to demonstrate the urgency of halting the expansion of salmon farming in the country’s southern seas, we hope that this report will specifically draw attention to the real and potentially irreversible problem affecting these emblematic species. We also hope that the report’s recommendations will encourage the development of conservation measures for cetaceans, even in a context of insufficient knowledge, in accordance with the Precautionary Principle — recognized in the General Fisheries and Aquaculture Law, national legislation, and international law — which establishes the obligation to act in favor of environmental protection, even in the face of uncertainty. Finally, we hope that this report will motivate further research necessary to implement concrete and effective protective measures to make our waters a safe space for whales and dolphinsRead and download the executive summary
Read more
Colombia: Communities and workers win first court ruling on coal mine closure that protects their rights
The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) celebrates the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, which recognizes the rights to due process and participation of communities and workers in the closure of coal mining projects in the department of Cesar. This ruling comes after years of insistence by these groups, who filed a tutela lawsuit. In this case, AIDA contributed with a legal brief that includes the analysis it has conducted on the issue of closure and responsible exit in Latin America, from the perspective of the right to a healthy environment and other human rights.Below, we share the statement of the communities and workers on the occasion of the ruling.The Constitutional Court of Colombia issued the first ruling on mine closures in the country (T-029 of 2025). It guaranteed due process and, consequently, the effective participation of the communities and unions representing more than 20,000 people in the more than four municipalities affected by the environmental, social and economic impacts of the first irregular abandonment and closure of large-scale coal mines in Colombia.We, a group of affected communities and dismissed workers from Cesar and Magdalena, have led a legal action for more than four years to ensure a public dialogue through a large consultation table where the communities, dismissed workers, local authorities and the affected citizens in general of the mining municipalities of La Jagua, El Paso, Becerril and Ciénaga can know and participate in the definition of compensation and restoration measures that the multinational Glencore - Prodeco must carry out in these municipalities as part of its mining abandonment and closure plan, which is in the process of being approved by the National Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA).In this ruling, the court determined that the Seventh Administrative Court of Valledupar violated the fundamental right to due process by considering that the multinational company had complied with this participation process with a SINGLE socialization meeting held in November 2022 in these municipalities, which is clearly insufficient and does not comply with what was agreed in the minutes of the meeting, where the commitment of the parties was to convene the GREAT TABLE OF DIALOGUE AND CONCERTATION in the presence of the affected population of these four municipalities.The court ordered to initiate again the opening of the contempt proceeding against the legal representative of Grupo Empresarial PRODECO S.A. and to review the compliance with the judgment and the agreement contained in these minutes.We, as communities and unions of the mining corridor, supported by national and international civil society organizations, and represented in court by attorney Rocío Torres Bobadilla, consider that this public roundtable may be the last opportunity for us to make a balance of what has happened in our territories after 25 years of exploitation and achieve measures for Glencore to compensate and restore all the impacts caused.Therefore:We invite Glencore - Prodeco to a constructive dialogue, to avoid evasive maneuvers and to respect the importance of this judicial decision.We request the Colombian State, headed by the ANLA, the DEFENSORIA and the PROCURADURÍA to accompany us in this process, support this judicial decision and strengthen our protection measures to guarantee our safety as leaders in this process to comply with this ruling.We request national and international organizations to continue supporting us to guarantee a real and effective participation and that this GREAT CONCERTATION TABLE is fulfilled. Finally, we ask the entire population of the country and especially of the municipalities of La Jagua, Becerril, El Paso and Ciénaga to accompany us, support us and join us in a great process to DEFEND THIS JUDICIAL DECISION which is HISTORIC for our territory in order to restore and compensate the serious environmental and social impacts caused by the irregular mining closure and to find measures to address the great poverty and unemployment we are experiencing.Join us to be heard, to heal our territories and to recover our economy.Signed byJunta de acción comunal de BoquerónConsejo Comunitario Afrodescendiente Coafrovis de la Victoria de San IsidroRed de Mujeres del Municipio del Paso Asamblea Campesina del Cesar por la Restitución y el Buen Vivir Asociación de Usuarios Campesinos (ANUC) el Paso Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores del Carbón (Sintracarbón) Sindicato Nacional de los Trabajadores de la Industria Minero-Energética (Sintraminergetica) Sindicato Nacional de los Trabajadores Mineros Asociación del Reguardo Sokorhpa del Pueblo Indígena Yukpa Consejo Comunitario Caño Candela de Becerril Junta de Acción Comunal del Barrio Don Jaca en Santa Marta Corregimiento de Cordobita en Ciénaga (Madgalena) Vereda el Hatillo Representante Junta de Acción Comunal Sororia de la Jagua de Ibirico Centro de Estudios para la Justicia Social Tierra Digna Rocío Torres Bobadilla- environmental rights defender National and international organizations and defenders that SUPPORT US:Universidad del Magdalena Universidad del Magdalena Clínica Jurídica Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)London Mining Network PAX Holanda PAX Colombia CNV InternationaalSolifonds Multiwatch ASK Switzerland-Colombia Working GroupUrgewald Polen –Transiciones JustasAna Catalina Herrara - labor rights defenderÁngela Velandia Cruz – human rights defender
Read more