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
Costa Rica, Panama and Mexico: Lots of tourism, little sustainability
By Sandra Moguel, legal advisor, AIDA, @sandra_moguel Sun and sand tourism is one of the fastest growing economic sectors in the Americas. Indeed, an increasing number of foreigners, mostly Americans and Canadians, are opting to retire to beaches in Latin America. Mass tourism is having a negative impact on the region’s coasts and oceans. In this post, I’ll talk about what’s happening in Costa Rica, Panama and Mexico. Ecotourism and social problems Since the late 1980s, Costa Rica has become known for promoting a successful ecotourism industry. Leisure travel is now the country’s leading foreign exchange earner. According to official data, international tourism increased sixfold and the gross income it generated shot up twelvefold between 1986 and 2005. Thanks to ecotourism, Costa Rica nets over USD $1,000 per tourist today. But it’s not all icing on the cake. Despite its sustainable tourism fame, Costa Rica has fallen into the temptation of building massive resorts that feature “all-inclusive” services and end up causing a number of social problems. When mass tourism is prioritized, the results are mass displacements of people from their homes, unequal wealth distribution and a shortage of public services like energy supplies and garbage collection. Local populations also face a loss of identity, greater competition for resources like clean water and access to the beach, not to mention environmental damages. Panama Bay Like Costa Rica, Panama is not without its problems. The country’s environmental and tourism policies undermine the rights of indigenous communities and harm the environment. Demonstrating the power and determination of the tourism industry, a group of developers seeking to build mega-resorts in the protected area of Panama Bay have filed several lawsuits questioning the legality of a decree declaring the protected status of this ecosystem. In 2012, AIDA worked with its Panamanian partners to defend the bay, which so far has maintained its protected status. Mexico and competitive tourism In 2011, 22.3 million foreign tourists visited Mexico, contributing USD$1.18 billion to the economy, according to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). Mexico was ranked 43rd in the world for its potential to attract new tourism investment in 2011, according to the World Economic Forum’s Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report. Under the leadership of Felipe Calderón, who served as president between 2006 and 2012, efforts were made to raise Mexico’s profile as a global tourism destination and policies were implemented to create a more sustainable and competitive tourism industry. Despite the start of these policies and the approval of the General Tourism Law, Mexico’s plan to boost tourism numbers is wanting. For example, the law doesn’t have regulations that detail the new figures it has created, nor does it provide legal certainty to investors or the local communities about their involvement in making decisions about where they live. Research on Mexico’s tourism industry has found that authorities are failing in their responsibility to protect the environment. In its report Alternative Development Models and Good Practices for Sustainable Coastal Tourism: A Framework for Decision Makers in Mexico, The Center for Responsible Travel (CREST) found the country’s chief tourism bodies, the Secretary of Tourism (SEMARNAT) and the National Tourism Development Fund (FONATUR), in many cases did not follow international best practices for sustainable tourism, approving resorts that have caused social and environmental damage including in the use of energy generated from the burning of fossil fuels. The destruction of mangroves, wetlands and coral reefs not only negatively affect Mexico’s competitiveness as a tourist destination, but these bad practices also demonstrate that the country is failing to meet its international obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. For these reasons AIDA and Earthjustice, working as partners to represent 11 civil society organizations, submitted a citizen petition to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). In the petition, we denounced the Mexican government for not properly implementing its environmental legislation to evaluate the environmental impacts of planned mega resorts on the Gulf of California. This suggests that the government may have skirted important safeguards in order to attract more investment to the country, and thereby creating – possibly unfairly – competition with its trade partners, the United States and Canada. In large-scale tourism, local communities are generally not properly consulted during the planning stages of mega resorts and their development model. The WTO Global Code of Ethics for Tourism states that tourism professionals, particularly investors, “should deliver, with the greatest transparency and objectivity, information on their future programs and their foreseeable repercussions and foster dialogue on their contents with the populations concerned.” Mass tourism developments typically bring with them new hydropower plants, highways, airports and other major infrastructure projects. These do not necessarily favor the interests of local communities. In Resolution XI.7, the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty that protects wetlands of international importance and of which Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica are signatories, it is stressed that there is a need to implement closer collaboration between the tourism and conservation sectors and the rational use of the wetlands in order to maximize and sustain the long-term benefits derived from the expertise of each sector. It is worth noting Ramsar’s proposal because it shows the inconsistencies between environmental and tourism policies. An example of successful environmental and tourism management is Argentina, where the two sectors complement each other through close coordination. The country’s National Parks Administration (APN) is a public body that functions under the aegis of the Ministry of Tourism. The infrastructure of bathrooms, visitor centers, signage and marked pathways reflects the sustainability of the business plan and management of tourism sites. There still is a great deal of work to be done to achieve sustainable tourism in Latin America. Great strides can be made if we strengthen tourism and environmental policies and establish methodologies for public consultation that foster community involvement.
Read moreGroups support challenge to dam project in Panama for violating indigenous rights
Amicus brief highlights unlawful consultation process. Mexico City, Mexico – Civil society organizations filed an amicus brief yesterday in Panama’s Supreme Court of Justice in support of a challenge by indigenous people to the environmental review of the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam. Supporting a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Advocacy Center, Panamá (CIAM), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Earthjustice argue that the Panamanian government violated international law by approving the project without adequately consulting or obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of the affected Ngӓbe-Buglé indigenous peoples, and without adequately reviewing the environmental impacts to their lands. “Our lands and natural resources are the most important aspects of our culture, and we wish to thank the international organizations that are supporting our struggle to protect them,” said Goejet Miranda, President of a Ngäbe community movement to defend the Tabasará River from development projects. Once completed, the dam is projected to flood homes and religious, archaeological and cultural sites in the Ngӓbe-Buglé territories. The Barro Blanco dam will transform the Tabasará River from a vibrant source of food and water into a stagnant lake ecosystem, and will lead to the forced relocation of several families. Following a visit with indigenous communities in Panama last month, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples James Anaya concluded that the government should have ensured adequate consultation with the Ngäbe people before authorizing the project. “Indigenous people have special protections under international law,” said CIEL senior attorney Alyssa Johl. “And in the case of Barro Blanco, Panama violated international law by ignoring the Ngäbe peoples’ rights to consultation and to free, prior and informed consent, which require states to ensure that indigenous peoples are actively engaged in, and take ownership of, decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods.” The amicus supports CIAM’s lawsuit seeking to nullify the resolution that approved the project’s environmental impact assessment (EIA) and to suspend construction of the dam until an adequate EIA has been conducted. “Given Panama’s international human rights obligations,” explained AIDAsenior attorney María José Veramendi, “we expect that the Court will rule in favor of the affected Ngäbe people, strengthening the protection of indigenous communities with respect to development projects in Panamá and contributing to the development of a strong and coherent jurisprudence on the issues of human rights and the environment in the region.” The Barro Blanco project has also received criticism related to its registration under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a carbon-offsetting scheme established under the Kyoto Protocol. In theory, the CDM – with its dual objectives of reducing carbon emissions and achieving sustainable development – could be a valuable tool in the fight against climate change. However, among other problems, the CDM fails to ensure that its projects do not violate human rights. “Mechanisms to address climate change should do more than provide economic benefit for the companies developing the projects,” said Earthjustice attorney Abby Rubinson. “They must ensure protection of human rights and equitable solutions on the ground.” For more information view the amicus brief here.
Read more
How we protect Andean ecosystems from mining's impacts
Few places in the world are so vulnerable to environmental degradation from mining than Colombia. The country ranks second in coal reserves in South America and is home to what could be one of the largest gold mines in the Americas. This means it is imperative to deal with the environmental problems linked to mining. Paradoxically, Colombia has a rich ecology. This ranges from forests to fragile environments such as páramos, or high-altitude ecosystems that capture water from fog and supply it to lowlands. Both have a rich biodiversity that would suffer devastating impacts from mining. But it’s not just the environment. The ethnic and rural communities that rely on these natural resources for their livelihoods are the most susceptible to mining. AIDA has worked to protect these Andean ecosystems, which are vital sources of water. Due to a shift in national policy from agriculture to mining as Colombia’s economic and industrial priority, the threats of mining are intensifying. In response, AIDA has used political and legal strategies to strengthen and enforce environmental legislation in the country. We have turned to comparative and international law to clarify the country’s legal requirements and establish precedents for the creation of public policies that protect fragile environments from large-scale mining. In this effort, AIDA helped the Inter-Church Commission for Justice and Peace, a Colombian human rights group, to file a lawsuit against the Mandé Norte project of Muriel Mining Corp. in the northeastern department of Chocó. With the resolution of this case (see above, Spanish only), Colombia's Constitutional Court set a crucial precedent. It ruled that indigenous and tribal communities have the right to freely access information about the project and to express their prior consent for the construction of the mine, all while under the protection of national and international laws. Specifically, the court ordered the Colombian government to stop all work on the Mandé Norte mine until the company carried out extensive studies on the potential environmental impacts and made a new and adequate consultation of the affected communities. The Ministry of Interior and the mining company asked the court to reverse its decision. AIDA and other organizations submitted requests (see our interventions, Spanish only) to keep the ruling intact. This finally happened on March 12, 2012 when the court confirmed its decision (see the confirmation of the sentence, Spanish only). To the east of the Mandé Norte project, another such project is threatening the environment and communities in the Santander department. AIDA is working to stop the construction of Angostura, an open-pit gold mine that Canada’s Greystar Resources Ltd. – now called Eco Oro Minerals Corp. – plans to build in the Santurbán páramos, high-altitude wetlands that supply drinking water to 2.2 million Colombians and help to mitigate the effects of climate change. During the environmental licensing process for the project, AIDA helped to demonstrate that Colombia’s legal obligations as well as international norms prohibit mining in the páramos. Based on this argument, Colombia’s Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development rejected (Spanish only) the environmental impact assessment denied the environmental license for Angostura in May 2011. But as the decision didn’t cancel the mining licenses, Eco Oro said it would seek to build an underground mine. In January 2013, the ministry declared Santurbán a Regional Natural Park, a move that can prevent the development of mining concessions in páramos areas. Through all of this, we found evidence of violations to social and environmental standards in the national and international funding for the Angostura mine by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), an entity of the World Bank Group. Given the alleged noncompliance with these standards, we teamed up with the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and MiningWatch Canada to submit a complaint to the Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the independent complaints office of the IFC. We called for an audit of the project and a subsequent divestment. The CAO decided to audit the investment process. The outcome could set a precedent to ensure that the IFC does not finance mining in páramos, a key decision given that such initiatives are planned elsewhere in Colombia as well as in Ecuador and Peru. In addition to these efforts, AIDA has been actively involved in the debate (Spanish only) concerning a boundary demarcation of Colombia’s páramos as a way to protect these ecosystems. According to Colombian law, the geographical location and characteristics of páramo ecosystems must be mapped out to establish their legal perimeters. Once officially determined, the boundaries will provide the basis for conservation measures, in particular the prevention of activities that cause irreversible damage. Together with prestigious Colombian environmentalists and society as a whole, AIDA has taken action (Spanish only) to press the Ministry of Environment to endorse a demarcation based on scientific criteria by adopting a new atlas of the páramos drawn up by Colombian officials. At the same time, AIDA has worked with other environmental organizations to investigate La Colosa, a mining project that South Africa-based AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. plans to develop in the forest reserves and the large farmlands of Tolima, a central-western department of Colombia. In this case, we have sought a more active and informed participation of citizens and compliance with the highest environmental standards. AIDA also has joined forces with other organizations to file a suit with the goal of analyzing the constitutionality of Colombia’s National Mining Code. The Constitutional Court has set important precedents regarding the need to protect environmentally sensitive areas and the importance of the precautionary principle. It also has set a precedent for ensuring the independence of environmental authorities in regard to mining authorities when it comes to awarding environmental licenses for mining projects. In addition to Colombia, AIDA has been enlisted to help halt the construction of mines in Bolivia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama and elsewhere. To do this, AIDA has developed legal and scientific resources from our analysis of case studies and writing of reports. These resources can be useful for protecting the environment and the rural and indigenous communities that are the most affected by mining.
Read more