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
Leading participatory monitoring processes for Green Climate Fund financed projects
The Green Climate Fund (GCF), a multilateral climate fund under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), allocates funding for projects and programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building resilience to climate change impacts in developing countries. To date, the GCF board has approved 243 projects worldwide, committing 13.5 billion USD in total. Notably, approximately 26% of these projects and programs target Latin America.This financial mechanism has become a lynchpin of the climate finance architecture, challenging conventional approaches to international projects. It is governed by a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries (UNFCCC designations); robust environmental and social policies rooted in human rights; an indigenous people’s policy, backed by an advisory group that interfaces with the Secretariat and the Board; a stated preference for maximal information disclosure; a seat for active observers representing civil society organizations; strong ties to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement; and an explicit mandate to include a gender perspective. In fact, all approved projects and programs are required to integrate a Gender Action Plan (GAP). In addition, the GCF is mandated by its own policies to facilitate stakeholder participation mechanisms. These mechanisms encompass representation from diverse sectors, including the private sector, civil society organizations, vulnerable groups, women, and indigenous peoples.Though implementation of these safeguards and progressive policies is far from perfect, their existence lays the groundwork for stronger future implementation. Civil society, including feminist movements and organizations, engage with the GCF as a climate finance mechanism that should continue to be strengthened. The explicit analysis and commitment mandated for each project regarding social and gender considerations not only facilitate engagement but also uphold accountability.In late 2022, partner organizations of the Global Alliance for Green and Gender Action (GAGGA), including the International Analog Forestry Network (IAFN), Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, AIDA), Fondo Centroamericano de Mujeres (Central American Women’s Fund, FCAM), Fondo Tierra Viva (Tierra Viva Fund) and Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO), collectively launched a pilot initiative. The project aimed to facilitate participatory monitoring of the implementation of the project FP089 Upscaling climate resilience measures in the dry corridor agroecosystems of El Salvador (RECLIMA). 3 RECLIMA was approved by the Board of Directors of the GCF during its 21st meeting (B.21) in 2018. For the fieldwork, an alliance was formed with Unidad Ecológica Salvadoreña (Salvadorean Ecological Unit, UNES), a local ecofeminist NGO advocating for environmental and gender justice in El Salvador.The main objective of this project was to pioneer a participatory monitoring process for a GCF-funded project, with specific emphasis on gender equality. Each participating organization approached this collaborative initiative with genuine curiosity, eager to explore its feasibility and potential impact. There was also a collective commitment to openly share information about the process, results, challenges, and lessons learned. This report aims to summarize the outcomes of this exercise, providing an overview of the RECLIMA project and highlighting the importance of gender equality and participatory monitoring within climate projects; as well as sharing primary findings and key recommendations, tailored to GCF Accredited and Executing Entities. Read and download the report
Read more
How the Inter-American Court can help protect human rights in the face of the climate emergency
The climate crisis has been identified as the most urgent problem facing humanity and the greatest threat to human rights. In this context, what obligations do States have to protect people, especially those in vulnerable situations, from its effects? The Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights provide a powerful answer to this question, since their purpose is to specify the content and scope of the obligations to protect human rights that the States of the Americas have under their domestic laws and the treaties or conventions they have signed. The international court is currently in the process of issuing an advisory opinion to clarify these obligations, specifically regarding the climate crisis. The interpretations provided by the Court in this case will strengthen the arguments of organizations, communities, and other actors who decide to initiate climate litigation before national or international tribunals. It’s important, then, to understand what these advisory opinions are, why they are important, and how they relate to climate litigation; as well as this opinion’s potential for moving the region toward climate justice. What are the Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights? The Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court are pronouncements issued by this international court—at the request of both the members of the Organization of American States (OAS) and of some of its affiliated organizations—in order to interpret international treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights, to clarify their scope, to determine the specific obligations they impose, and to develop the guarantees they provide to the inhabitants of the continent. They are important because they consolidate the correct understanding of human rights and thus guide States on how to guarantee and apply them within their territory or jurisdiction. A clear example is Advisory Opinion 23 of 2017, in which the Court set a historic precedent by recognizing the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human existence and for the first time pronouncing on the content of this right. These declarations contribute to a better understanding of the obligations, authorizations and prohibitions deriving from each of the rights recognized in the international treaties signed by the countries of the continent. They therefore constitute a relevant element in determining the responsibility of a State for possible human rights violations resulting from its actions or omissions. What is the process by which advisory opinions are issued? Any member of the OAS or any of its member institutions may request an advisory opinion to ask the Inter-American Court how to interpret its provisions or those of "other treaties for the protection of human rights" in the hemisphere. The questions must be specific and justified. Once the consultation is received, the Court informs all member states and the organs of the Inter-American Human Rights System so that they may submit their written comments. At the same time, a period of time shall be opened for any interested person or entity to submit to the Court its considerations on the issues raised and how they should be resolved. The Court will then, if it deems it necessary, convene oral hearings to hear the States and other actors involved in the process. It may also ask questions and seek clarification on the written submissions it has received. The Court will then deliberate the matter in closed session and adopt the relevant decision, which will be communicated by its secretariat to all parties to the proceedings. How do advisory opinions contribute to climate litigation? Climate litigation has emerged as an important and increasingly popular tool in the fight against the climate crisis. It is essentially strategic litigation that seeks broad societal change through judicial decisions that hold governments, corporations, and stakeholders accountable for the causes and impacts of the climate crisis. Advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court can help achieve these judgments by providing authoritative interpretations of human rights treaties adopted by states in the region. They serve as a legal benchmark for judging the actions or inactions of state entities and private actors under their control that have exacerbated or threaten to exacerbate the climate crisis. Treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights establish guarantees for life with dignity, personal integrity and health, which can be invoked before courts as a basis for the obligations of States to adopt actions to adapt to and mitigate the climate crisis. Thus, the advisory opinions offer solid arguments to demand compliance with such actions as a way to protect human rights. Opportunities of the ongoing advisory opinion for climate justice In January 2023, Colombia and Chile requested an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court to clarify the scope of States' human rights obligations in the context of the climate emergency. Both States stated that their populations and others in the continent are suffering the consequences of the global crisis, particularly due to droughts, floods, and fires, among others. Therefore, they consider it necessary for the Court to determine the appropriate way to interpret the American Convention and the rights recognized therein "in what is relevant to address the situations generated by the climate emergency, its causes and consequences." This will be the first time that the international court will rule on the mandates, prohibitions, and authorizations to be derived from human rights in the specific context of the negative impacts of the climate emergency on individuals and communities in the continent. Once issued, this advisory opinion will clarify the legal obligations of Latin American states to address the climate crisis as a human rights issue. The Court's opinion could compel governments to recognize their competence to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support adaptation measures, and establish mechanisms to address loss and damage. Given this unique opportunity, AIDA is participating in the public consultation convened by the Court before it issues its Opinion. We have submitted a legal brief with arguments demonstrating the existence of an autonomous human right to a "stable and safe climate" as part of the universal right to a healthy environment, and the consequent obligations of states to prevent and avoid the harmful effects of the climate emergency on their inhabitants. In addition, we are supporting diverse communities in the region to bring their voices to the process and be heard by the Court by submitting other legal briefs that highlight the socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency on indigenous peoples, women, children, populations with diverse gender orientations and identities, and fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs. We are also supporting the participation of community representatives in the hearings of the case, which the Court has scheduled for April and May in Barbados and Brazil, respectively. The climate justice movement in Latin America and around the world is growing stronger and more effective, fueled by successful climate litigation and important precedents such as the advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Read more
Argentina: the scramble for lithium threatens the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Jujuy
International civil society organisations with extensive experience in the defence of the environment and human rights present the conclusions of an observation mission to the Argentinian province of Jujuy in August 2023 following the constitutional reform approved in June of the same year, which facilitates lithium extraction. Paris and San Salvador de Jujuy. In a report published today, ten international civil society organisations with extensive experience in human rights and environmental issues warn that the lack of prior consultation of the 11 Indigenous Peoples of Jujuy in the approval process for the reform of the provincial constitution is incompatible with international human rights and environmental standards.The report also denounces that the new Jujuy Constitution authorises productive activities on public lands, which opens the door to the implementation of extractive projects in Indigenous ancestral territories, without guaranteeing prior, free and informed consultation with the communities. It also approves the large-scale use of water, which facilitates the use of an essential resource for the survival of Indigenous Peoples for the exploitation of lithium, an activity with a high water footprint.The constitutional reform process is framed in a context of mining deployment in the high Andean wetlands of Jujuy, whose watersheds are located in the area known by the mining industry as the "lithium triangle", located on the borders of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. This area is so named because it is the largest, most easily extractable and economically profitable lithium reserve in the world."We denounce the permanent and disproportionate restriction of the right to social protest introduced by the Jujuy constitution - in particular the general prohibition of road and street blockades, which are not only a legitimate form of peaceful demonstration, but are also protected by international law," the organisations point out.The report also highlights the testimonies of victims of police repression, who suffered arbitrary detentions and serious physical injuries caused by the excessive and unjustified use of force. It also documents the cases of protesters who are currently facing arbitrary and disproportionate criminal proceedings for participating in and promoting public demonstrations against the constitutional reform.In light of the findings presented in the report, the organisations:Request compliance with the international obligations of the Argentinian State to guarantee the protection of the collective property of Indigenous communities over their ancestral territories, as well as to guarantee the right to water intended for human consumption and the reproduction of life.Urge the authorities to refrain from promoting regulations that restrict the ways, places or times in which citizens can exercise their right to demonstrate publicly.Make an urgent call to the judiciary to assess, based on a rigorous examination of international human rights standards, the probable unconstitutionality of the approval process for the reform and its contents. Relationship between the events in Jujuy and the reforms promoted by Javier Milei’s governmentThe analysis offered in the report on what happened in Jujuy is especially relevant in the current national context because President Javier Milei’s national government has followed a similar line to the trend observed in Jujuy of promoting reforms that deepen an extractivist model in protected ecosystems of the country. This occurs while eliminating frameworks for the protection of human and environmental rights and facilitating the repression and criminalisation of legitimate protests, as detailed in the report.Through Decree of Necessity and Urgency No. 70/2023, President Milei repealed the Land Law (26.737) on 20th December 2023, eliminating restrictions aimed at preventing land grabbing by foreign investment projects. In addition, the "omnibus" bill proposes to repeal environmental protection laws to facilitate economic activities in ecosystems such as native forests and glaciers.These measures, similar to those implemented in Jujuy, were accompanied by disproportionate restrictions on the exercise of the right to protest. For example, on 14th December 2023, the executive approved the "protocol of anti-picketing action", which considers any demonstration that interrupts or decreases the movement of people a flagrant offence, requiring police intervention. Read the report
Read more