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
Working to protect coral reefs in Mexico and throughout Latin America
In the Gulf of Mexico, 27 coral reefs form a submarine mountain range that runs between six islands in an area stretching for miles. Hundreds of colorful fish species, sea urchins, starfish, and sea grasses share the reef with an abundance of other life forms. This is the magnificent Veracruz Reef, the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf. Unfortunately, planned expansion of the Port of Veracruz, recently approved by the Mexican government, will damage the reef and harm the creatures that depend on it for survival. The project will also harm the nearby Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, a jewel of Mexico’s Emerald Coast, because developers will mine it for rock to use in port construction. The environmental authority approved the port development in 2013, even though Mexico declared the Veracruz Reef System a National Protected Area in 1992. What’s more, Mexico is a party to the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the protection of wetlands of international importance—which includes the Veracruz Reef. Despite the reef’s recognized significance, the government has officially reduced the size of the protected area to make way for the larger port. "Now is a good time to call the attention of world leaders and diplomats to Mexico’s unsustainable actions," said AIDA legal advisor Sandra Moguel. Mexico is preparing to host the December 2016 Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, an international treaty to sustain the rich diversity of life on Earth. AIDA and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), representing 13 organizations and individuals, have sent a letter (in Spanish) to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (The Secretariat is a neutral organization staffed by international civil servants, accountable to the Conference of Parties and its subsidiary bodies, and linked to the United Nations Environment Program.) The letter requests two things of the Secretariat: assess the harms that the expansion will cause, and ask Mexico to revoke project authorization because of the serious impact it will have on the diversity of life on the reef. "The manner in which the government has authorized this development project worries us," Moguel said. "Mexico has breached their international commitment to protect the rich biodiversity within its borders, particularly when it falls within natural protected areas." AIDA’s marine team has been working on similar cases in Mexico and throughout the region, gaining expertise in national and international laws that enable the protection of coral reefs. They have produced a report that synthesizes knowledge gained through years of such work, The Protection of Coral Reefs in Mexico: Rescuing Biodiversity and its Benefits to Mankind (in Spanish). "We want to interest and inform people working in wetlands protection," Moguel said. "There is a diverse array of legal tools at their disposal, which they may not be aware of," Moguel said. "In addition to describing our own legal work on this issue, we discuss the power of international treaties and commitments that nations must abide by." The report outlines the importance of coral reefs in the world—in Mexico in particular—explores case studies, outlines relevant international treaties and obligations, and looks to best practices from nations around the region for inspiration. AIDA Marine Senior Attorney Gladys Martínez said that reports such as these are intended to raise awareness of the legal means available to protect wetlands and to highlight the different methods that decision-makers can use. "AIDA selects emblematic cases like these of Mexico, to illustrate environmental problems that recur throughout the hemisphere," said Gladys Martínez. "The threats to the Veracruz Reef System are a sign of the urgent need for nations to take effective measures to protect coral reefs and comply with their international obligations." AIDA has launched a campaign to fund the marine program’s continued efforts to protect corals in the region. Our work will provide advocates and decision-makers with the practical resources, recommendations, and tools needed to improve coral reef protection. Your donation will directly support this work, and provide a brighter future for the brilliant array of life on the coral reefs of Latin America.
Read moreWorking to protect coral reefs in Mexico and throughout Latin America
In the Gulf of Mexico, 27 coral reefs form a submarine mountain range that runs between six islands in an area stretching for miles. Hundreds of colorful fish species, sea urchins, starfish, and sea grasses share the reef with an abundance of other life forms. This is the magnificent Veracruz Reef, the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf. Unfortunately, planned expansion of the Port of Veracruz, recently approved by the Mexican government, will damage the reef and harm the creatures that depend on it for survival. The project will also harm the nearby Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, a jewel of Mexico’s Emerald Coast, because developers will mine it for rock to use in port construction. The environmental authority approved the port development in 2013, even though Mexico declared the Veracruz Reef System a National Protected Area in 1992. What’s more, Mexico is a party to the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the protection of wetlands of international importance—which includes the Veracruz Reef. Despite the reef’s recognized significance, the government has officially reduced the size of the protected area to make way for the larger port. "Now is a good time to call the attention of world leaders and diplomats to Mexico’s unsustainable actions," said AIDA legal advisor Sandra Moguel. Mexico is preparing to host the December 2016 Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, an international treaty to sustain the rich diversity of life on Earth. AIDA and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), representing 13 organizations and individuals, have sent a letter (in Spanish) to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (The Secretariat is a neutral organization staffed by international civil servants, accountable to the Conference of Parties and its subsidiary bodies, and linked to the United Nations Environment Program.) The letter requests two things of the Secretariat: assess the harms that the expansion will cause, and ask Mexico to revoke project authorization because of the serious impact it will have on the diversity of life on the reef. "The manner in which the government has authorized this development project worries us," Moguel said. "Mexico has breached their international commitment to protect the rich biodiversity within its borders, particularly when it falls within natural protected areas." AIDA’s marine team has been working on similar cases in Mexico and throughout the region, gaining expertise in national and international laws that enable the protection of coral reefs. They have produced a report that synthesizes knowledge gained through years of such work, The Protection of Coral Reefs in Mexico: Rescuing Biodiversity and its Benefits to Mankind (in Spanish). "We want to interest and inform people working in wetlands protection," Moguel said. "There is a diverse array of legal tools at their disposal, which they may not be aware of," Moguel said. "In addition to describing our own legal work on this issue, we discuss the power of international treaties and commitments that nations must abide by." The report outlines the importance of coral reefs in the world—in Mexico in particular—explores case studies, outlines relevant international treaties and obligations, and looks to best practices from nations around the region for inspiration. AIDA Marine Senior Attorney Gladys Martínez said that reports such as these are intended to raise awareness of the legal means available to protect wetlands and to highlight the different methods that decision-makers can use. "AIDA selects emblematic cases like these of Mexico, to illustrate environmental problems that recur throughout the hemisphere," said Gladys Martínez. "The threats to the Veracruz Reef System are a sign of the urgent need for nations to take effective measures to protect coral reefs and comply with their international obligations." AIDA has launched a campaign to fund the marine program’s continued efforts to protect corals in the region. Our work will provide advocates and decision-makers with the practical resources, recommendations, and tools needed to improve coral reef protection. Your donation will directly support this work, and provide a brighter future for the brilliant array of life on the coral reefs of Latin America.
Read moreFracking prohibited in New York, but promoted in Colombia
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is an unconventional form of extracting oil and gas. The technique requires drilling first vertically and then horizontally, and injecting a high-pressure mix of water, sand, and toxic chemicals. The injection fractures subsurface layers of shale, releasing the oil and gas contained within. Fracking has severe impacts on both the environment and human health: it contaminates surface and ground water sources, causes earthquakes and air pollution, and releases greenhouse gases, among other things. These effects have been documented in studies by the German Ministry of Environment, the US Government Accountability Office, the Canadian Council of Academies, and Anthony Ingraffea, a professor at Cornell University. On December 17, 2014 the Governor of New York announced the prohibition of fracking in the State because of the "significant health risks" posed by the practice.This argument stems from a two-year study conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which analyzed the impacts of fracking on human health and on air and water quality in communities throughout the state. The decision has been celebrated by environmental advocates and criticized by some investors who claim that it is denying the State economic benefits from the extractive industry. The debate over whether or not to permit fracking has been going on in other latitudes as well. In France, fracking was banned in 2011 by national law. After an oil company sued the government, the Constitutional Court upheld the ban in 2013. Bulgaria banned fracking in 2012, and Germany maintains a moratorium on the technique. Bans or moratoriums have also been issued by municipalities in the United States, Canada, Spain, Argentina, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Australia. Despite this international precedent, the Colombian government has promoted fracking. In 2008, the National Hydrocarbons Agency issued a study to identify the potential in unconventional hydrocarbons in the country. In 2012, the National Environmental Licensing Authority authorized a hydraulic fracturing project in Boyacá. That year, the Comptroller General of the Republic issued just one warning recommending that companies "take into account the precautionary principle regarding the latent risk hydraulic fracturing poses to environmental heritage through the possible contamination of groundwater and surface water sources, geological risk, and the risk to public health and nearby urban centers." In January 2015, in a special performance-monitoring warning, the Comptroller found that the State had not adopted the necessary measures. By the end of 2012, the Colombian government began creating a regulatory framework for fracking in Colombia. They contracted international experts to regulate and identify the impacts of the technique. An investigation by independent news site La Silla Vacía has found that several of these experts are linked to the oil industry. The Ministry of Mines and the National Hydrocarbons Agency then issued legal instruments that would serve as the framework for the start of fracking in the country. Francisco José Lloreda, president of the Colombian Petroleum Association, publicly stated that without fracking “we would have a fiscal catastrophe” within six or seven years. And the Minister of Mines, Tomás González, said that fracking is needed to finance the country’s peace process. Even before fracking began in Colombia, various sectors issued warnings. In August 2014, AIDA publicly urged (in Spanish) the government to apply the precautionary principle and prevent the serious and irreversible consequences of fracking. Later, in September, the National Environmental Forum and other organizations requested a conditional moratorium on fracking in Colombia. Additionally, Housing Minister Luis Felipe Henao voiced concern about the effect fracking would have on the water supply. He said, "To me, as Minister of Water, fracking scares me.… When you see what is happening in Santa Marta, you realize that one can invest a lot in pipes, but if you don’t have clean water supplies, you won’t do much more than carry air through them." From all these arguments, the obvious question arises: Why is fracking – which has been prohibited or restricted in various countries and municipalities – being promoted by the Colombian government? The most apparent response is that it will increase extraction of hydrocarbons and, as a consequence, the revenues of government and private industry. What government and industry do not see is that no amount of revenue is great enough to offset the social and environmental impacts of fracking, or of the possible new conflicts that may arise because of its effects on water resources. We have seen nationally (Guajira and Arauca) and internationally (Los Angeles and San Paulo) that without drinkable water, a successful economy,and even life itself are not feasible.
Read more