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
The Manaus Declaration on Human Rights in the Climate Emergency
Indigenous Peoples, local communities, Afrodescendants, tribal and rural communities, children and adolescents, women, LGBTQI+, non-governmental organizations, platforms, institutions, and individuals urge the Court and States to adopt minimum standards for the protection of human rights in the context of the climate emergency, as elaborated during the public hearings of the Advisory Opinion, particularly the one held in Manaus, Brazil, from May 25-29, where communities, peoples and civil society of the region met in an unprecedented judicial setting.We notice that the overall balance, after more than 30 years of international discussions regarding the climate emergency, is regrettable, as there is no evidence of an effective commitment by States to avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to grant reparations to those who have suffered climate damage, and to ensure that changes in their internal laws and policies, including economic policies, are compatible with the average global temperature limit set in the Paris Agreement.We highlight that several international courts, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, have the historic opportunity to formally clarify the human rights obligations of States in the context of the climate emergency through its advisory function, and in that sense, to set robust standards for the protection of rights based on current international standards relating to the protection those populations that have been historically excluded and discriminated against, and that are significantly more vulnerable to the climate emergency. Read and download the declaration
Read more
Declaration of Manaus urges the Inter-American Court to clarify State obligations in climate emergency
San Jose, Costa Rica - Today, a coalition comprising over 400 communities, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, and representatives of civil society presented the “Declaration of Manaus on Human Rights in the Climate Emergency” to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). The widely endorsed declaration calls on the Court to articulate, in its forthcoming Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights, minimum standards for respecting and protecting human rights in the context of the climate crisis. It draws upon the insights of more than 150 participants who contributed during the public hearings on the process of the Advisory Opinion mentioned.The hearings, conducted in Bridgetown, Barbados (April 22–25), Brasilia (May 24), and Manaus (May 25–29), Brazil, served as a forum for the presentation of compelling testimonies from individuals and entire communities impacted by the climate emergency. In Manaus, in the heart of the Amazon, there was a strong emphasis on the expectation that the Court would issue a robust advisory opinion aimed at ensuring the protection of both people and the planet.The Declaration urges the Court to clarify the human rights obligations of States and reinforce the accountability of corporations and financial actors for their role in the climate crisis."The role played by the IACtHR Advisory Opinion is strategic at a historic moment for climate justice globally. The Court’s decision can reinforce and expand on what has already been established by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on the obligations to protect the oceans from climate change. It will undoubtedly influence the subsequent interpretation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the duties of States to protect communities and the planet in the face of the climate crisis," said Marcella Ribeiro, senior attorney with the Human Rights and Environment Program of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense. "The standards set by the Court will set new paradigms for access to justice in the context of the triple planetary crisis, influencing pending and future cases, as well as laws and policies inside and outside the continent. Lastly, this decision has great potential to help overcome the political impasse in the international climate negotiations."The Declaration, signed by over 400 parties, requests the Court to:Acknowledge that in the face of the climate emergency, all human rights, including the right to a healthy environment, must be upheld by all States. This obligation should be interpreted under the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and in line with the average global temperature increase limit established by the Paris Agreement and informed by the best available science.Specify that States need to transition to fossil-free economies without harming local communities and causing environmental impacts that exceed planetary limits.Ensure public access to information and participation, as well as the right to climate justice. This includes providing legal and institutional mechanisms for communities affected by the crisis to seek legal recourse, as well as raising awareness and training the judiciary on climate-related issues.Protect and facilitate the work of environmental defenders in the context of the climate emergency and energy transition.Guarantee adaptation measures to address the effects of climate change, ensuring the protection of all human rights, especially for vulnerable or historically discriminated groups.Uphold the right to self-determination of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples by obtaining their consent for measures directly affecting them in the context of climate change and energy transition.Ensure that victims and survivors of climate-related harm are granted comprehensive and just reparations and that climate judgments have financial resources for their implementation. "The Manaus Declaration also addresses corporate responsibility for the crisis. We urge the Court to reinforce States’ obligations to regulate corporate actors and ensure that those responsible for human rights violations related to the climate crisis are held accountable," adds Luisa Gómez Betancur, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). "Consistent with the polluter pays principle in international law, fossil fuel and agribusiness companies that are the primary drivers of climate change must cover the costs of mitigation and adaptation, as well as provide full reparation to victims for climate harm."Those supporting the Declaration are urging the IACtHR, as a guardian of human rights, to take a strong and forward-thinking stance. This approach should hold those who have had the most impact on the climate crisis responsible, guide inter-American policies towards environmentally sustainable economies, and establish a foundation for climate, environmental, and social justice worldwide, starting with Latin America."We hope that by listening to the testimonies of those of us who suffer the worst consequences of the climate emergency, the IACtHR will heed our call and order the States to respect our right to self-determination and the way in which we relate to our territories, prioritizing their care and conservation. For this reason, we join our voices in the Manaus declaration to remind the Court of the unique opportunity it has to mark a before and after in the fight for climate justice and the protection of our rights," said Everildys Córdoba Borja, legal representative of the Community Council of Black Communities of the Tolo River Basin and Southern Coastal Zone (COCOMASUR), Colombia.Read and download the declaration Press contactsNiccolo Sarno, CIEL, [email protected] Arista, EarthRights International, [email protected], +51 941 242 447Karina Saravia, CANLA, [email protected], +505 84331292
Read more
Mexican Supreme Court order to protect the Veracruz reef still unenforced
A port expansion project threatens the reef that hosts the greatest biodiversity of reef species in the western Gulf of Mexico. More than two years after the Supreme Court of Mexico ordered the adoption of several measures to protect the Veracruz Reef System and surrounding ecosystems affected by a port expansion project, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) still refuses to comply with the ruling, putting the largest reef in the Gulf of Mexico and its environmental benefits at risk. The environmental organizations Territorios Diversos para la Vida, A.C. (TerraVida), Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and Earthjustice denounce this failure to comply with the court order. The Veracruz Reef System—a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention since 2004—hosts the greatest biodiversity of reef species in the western Gulf of Mexico and is home to several critically endangered species such as the hawksbill sea turtle. The reefs are of high importance to the Veracruz community because they protect the coast from hurricanes and support local fishing and tourism. On February 9, 2022, residents of Veracruz won a victory before the Supreme Court in an amparo action filed to defend the Veracruz reef and other relevant ecosystems from the impacts of the port expansion. The highest court in Mexico determined that Semarnat violated the people of Veracruz’s right to a healthy environment after finding the project’s approval to be severely deficient. As a result, the Court ordered the revocation of the project’s permits, as well as a complete and holistic reevaluation of the project’s impacts, tasks that Semarnat has not yet complied with. "Today, the right to a healthy environment of the people living in the Veracruz-Boca del Río-Medellín metropolitan area continues to be violated because Semarnat, when re-evaluating the port expansion’s environmental impact after the court order, used outdated scientific information, failed to conduct a new evaluation, and allowed the port to again fragment its project by separating out the rock quarries and breakwaters," said Francisco Xavier Martínez Esponda, co-coordinator of TerraVida, the organization representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "In short, the project was never evaluated in a complete and holistic manner, as ordered by the Court, and therefore we remain unaware of the project’s true environmental risk." The environmental authority had authorized the project in a fragmented manner, dividing it into 15 sections, which it evaluated and approved independently, obscuring its full impact. Far from complying with the court’s order, on December 30, 2022, Semarnat's General Directorate of Environmental Impact and Risk conditionally reauthorized the Veracruz port’s expansion, but once again in a fragmented manner, without adequately assessing the full project using the best available science and without allowing for public participation, as the court required. In its decision, Mexico’s highest court also ruled that Semarnat was obligated, among other things, to seek international technical assistance to preserve the site within the framework of the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection and sustainable use of wetlands and coastal areas. To date, Semarnat has not yet finalized its request for international support. "In the absence of adequate and meaningful government efforts, there is a clear delay in obtaining expert advice from the Ramsar Convention," said Jorge Lu Palencia, an attorney with AIDA. "It is paradoxical that the expansion of the port has been authorized while still awaiting an independent technical evaluation, which, by its nature, should be prior to any decision that puts the ecosystem at risk." In addition, a scientific analysis prepared by independent researchers concluded that the mitigation measures proposed by the project promoter—the Veracruz Port System Administration—are not capable of avoiding the adverse consequences on the Veracruz reef because they were not based on a scientifically valid assessment of the project’s impacts. The scientific analysis shows that the environmental agency has not studied the potential impacts on the entirety of the reefs within the Veracruz Reef System National Park. In addition, dredging activities were carried out without considering the direct impact on the invertebrate species that inhabit the marine sediments. In view of the situation, the analysis recommends an external evaluation provided by a public research center. For these reasons, the organizations, at different times, have requested the Fifth District Court in Veracruz—in charge of supervising compliance with the judgment—to withhold from ruling on compliance with the judgment until these deficiencies are corrected. Press contacts Gabriela Sánchez, TerraVida, [email protected], +52 5511429935 Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107
Read more