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
Expanding coal mining in Colombia contravenes a just energy transition
Colombia faces numerous challenges related to the just energy transition the world needs. As the main exporter of thermal coal in Latin America, one of its primary challenges is to define the future of this mineral in the country's economic and energy matrices, as well as how to align this sector with its commitments to address the global climate crisis. Certainly, the measures taken to achieve a just energy transition and meet climate commitments must respect and guarantee human rights. The State must do so with a differentiated perspective that respects the most vulnerable groups in society who are most affected by the impacts of the climate crisis and transition processes. As part of a plan to change the energy transition strategy, the current government has proposed to create a roadmap that focuses, among other things, on promoting renewable energy projects from non-conventional sources, among other initiatives. The proposal is based on four principles: equity, social and binding participation, sovereign graduality with reliability, and a principle of knowledge. Although the proposed strategy can be seen as progress towards energy transition and meeting international commitments and standards, it has some gaps: it does not focus sufficiently on fossil fuel substitution and ignores the role and impact of the coal sector in all its phases. The omission of the structural causes of the climate crisis hinders the consolidation of an energy transition, which is now a contested scenario with various claims and interests at stake. A vivid example is the department of La Guajira in the north of the country, where a high potential for renewable energy coincides with the extraction of 35% of exported coal, exacerbating the climate crisis. This has increased the region's already high climate vulnerability and aggravated human rights violations in that territory. The impacts–particularly water stress, desertification, and reduced rainfall—have been so severe that the government has declared a state of economic, social, and environmental emergency in La Guajira, where the El Niño phenomenon is expected to occur with greater intensity and duration than in previous years. The coal sector’s role in the energy transition process Combating and addressing the climate crisis requires progress in replacing fossil fuels, as well as slowing down the expansion of their extraction and exploitation with the obvious consequence of limiting their use as much as possible. In the countries of the Global South, which are highly dependent on the extraction and commercialization of fossil fuels, the debate has begun on whether and how to move forward with the substitution process. If Colombia is to move forward in meeting its climate commitments and in the process of a just energy transition, it must halt the approval of new thermal coal mining projects, avoid the expansion of existing projects, and initiate responsible exit processes for a gradual closure of mining operations in which rights are guaranteed. The energy transition roadmap should focus on avoiding, as much as possible, human rights impacts (territorial, subsistence, and environmental) on the communities most affected by the impacts of the climate crisis. The goal is to avoid further human rights violations and a lack of protection for the territories traversed by the coal sector's production chain. The debate around the energy transition and the socio-environmental conflicts associated with coal is fully exemplified in the case of the Bruno stream, in La Guajira, with an ongoing legal process. It is now in the hands of the Constitutional Court to decide between the protection of a stream vital to an area of high water stress and the exploitation of its channel to expand the mine of the company Carbones del Cerrejón (owned by the multinational Glencore). What is at stake is the guarantee of the Wayúu communities' rights of access to water, health and life. The debate about the energy transition and the socio-environmental conflicts associated with coal is exemplified by Bruno Stream in La Guajira, which is the subject of a court case. It is now in the hands of the Constitutional Court to decide between the protection of a stream vital to an area of high water stress and the exploitation of its channel to expand the mine of the Carbones del Cerrejón company (owned by the multinational Glencore). What is at stake is the guarantee of the Wayúu communities' rights to access to water, health and life. What just transition does need After analyzing the role of coal in the process of just energy transition in Colombia, it is possible to conclude that the country is not meeting its climate commitments because it has not established specific measures and actions for the coal sector in its climate policy. If Colombia wants to move forward in fossil fuel substitution, climate policy and the energy transition process cannot be separated from the monitoring and decision-making of the relevant authorities regarding specific projects in the coal sector. Climate change management and the energy transition process must recognize the claims of justice, reparation, and non-repetition raised by communities affected by years of coal extraction, such as those in the department of La Guajira. In a just energy transition scenario, progressive, participatory and inclusive processes to end mining - together with the affected communities - must be ensured, aiming to create diversification and conversion scenarios in regions with high dependence on the coal sector. Acting within this framework is desirable and possible.
Read more
Unmasking Canada Rights Violations Across Latin America (Executive Summary)
In the 4th cycle of Canada’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), more than 50 civil society organizations and communities impacted by Canadian business conduct in Latin America and the Caribbean presented three reports that reveal troubling findings.Regional Report: Reveals the status of 37 projects in 9 countries in the region, involving 34 Canadian companies and consortiums. Most of these projects are in the extractive sector (27 mining and 8 oil) and two renewable energy projects (1 hydroelectric, 1 wind). In all of them, human rights have been violated and serious environmental impacts have been reported, impacting Indigenous, Afro-descendant, peasant and fishing communities.Amazon Report: Measures the impact of Canadian companies in the Amazon basin of Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and Peru. The report analyzes 12 extractive projects that impact fragile ecosystems and Indigenous communities, demonstrating that Canadian companies systematically violate impacted communities’ human rights and threaten the environment in a region with the greatest biodiversity in the world, which is a strategic space to confront the climate crisis.Oil Report: Assessing Canadian business conduct in eight oil projects in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, the report reveals how the lack of protection mechanisms, access to justice, and comprehensive redress for impacted peoples and communities, requires Canada to recognize the interconnection between human rights and the environment, and take concrete measures to address the negative impacts of Canadian companies. This is not the first time that Canada has been denounced before the United Nations Universal System for the improper behavior of its companies abroad. During its third UPR, Canada received six recommendations that, despite committing to implementation, evidence presented by civil society in this cycle demonstrates the persistence of non-compliance with its extraterritorial obligations and lack of adequate measures to fulfill the responsibility to regulate the conduct of its companies. View and download the Regional Report (in Spanish)View and download the Amazon ReportView and download the Oil Report (in Spanish)
Read more
Report reveals shocking rights violations by Canadian corporations in Latin America
Geneva - A groundbreaking report titled "Unmasking Canada: Rights Violations Across Latin America" was unveiled at the United Nations Universal Periodic Review Process (UPR) pre-session in Geneva, spanning from August 28 to September 1, 2023. This in-depth investigation highlights extensive human rights and environmental breaches by Canadian companies in Latin America and the Caribbean. Compiled through the collaboration of over 50 civil society organizations, the report implicates 37 Canadian projects across nine countries in the region. Of these, 32 projects have been found responsible for environmental rights infringements, including 105 oil spills in Peru's Block 192, directly linked to Frontera Energy. Additionally, the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent was violated in 26 projects, exemplified by dubious practices in Ecuador's Warintza project managed by Solaris Resources Inc. Violent confrontations tied to 16 projects are also highlighted, with a notable incident in Peru in July 2023, where 20 individuals were injured. While Canada positions itself as "climate forward," this report challenges such a portrayal, emphasizing Canada's protection of extractive industries that are responsible for significant human rights and environmental harm. In response to these findings and anticipating Canada's UPR on November 10, 2023, the report advocates for UN member states to impose legally binding resolutions on Canada, compelling the nation to address corporate misconduct overseas. Mauricio Terena, Legal Coordinator from Brazil’s Association of Indigenous People (APIB), said: "We have come here to denounce the involvement of Canadian companies in human rights violations in Brazil, particularly the case of the Belo Sun mining company in Pará, which aims to establish the country's largest open-pit gold mine. While Canada portrays itself as a defender of human rights and the environment, its actions contradict this narrative, especially when infringing upon the rights of indigenous peoples in Brazil. The discrepancy becomes evident when we realize that Canada has not signed the ILO's Convention 169. Therefore, we hope that the states with which we are in dialogue recognize this reality and urge Canada to reassess the operations of its corporations, seeking tangible action in defense of indigenous peoples and traditional communities". Addressing the UPR's function, where every four years UN member states review each other's human rights records, Latin American civil society representatives presented new recommendations for Canada. These recommendations underscore the need for Canada to introduce binding and comprehensive legislation centered on due diligence and corporate accountability. This encompasses the oversight of financial institutions and Canadian corporations throughout their global supply chains, aiming to prevent, mitigate, and penalize corporate misdeeds while ensuring victims of such practices overseas can seek justice and full reparation. "We hope that the UPR (Universal Periodic Review) process will establish itself as another strategy in our defense of indigenous peoples' rights, serving as a tool for the protection of human, indigenous, and environmental rights. It is essential to acknowledge that corporations involved in such violations are committing criminal acts. These actions should not be viewed merely as isolated incidents, but rather on a broader scale, as violating indigenous rights impacts all of humanity. Thus, beyond national and international laws, these transgressions should be seen from a more comprehensive perspective. It is crucial for states to commit, within the UN framework, to join a global mechanism where they recognize the need to monitor and mutually hold each other accountable for actions that uphold human, indigenous, and environmental rights", said Maria Judite "Kari" Guajajara, Legal Advisor at the National Indigenous Organization of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB). This isn't the first instance of Canada facing allegations within the United Nations Universal System due to the activities of its corporations abroad. Six recommendations were directed at Canada during the 3rd cycle of the Periodic Review. These addressed, among other concerns, Canadian businesses' vital assurance and protection of human rights. Nevertheless, even after pledging to meet these recommendations, Canada consistently failed to fulfill its extraterritorial obligations, neglecting to take effective action to supervise corporate activities domestically and internationally. Gisela Hurtado, Advocacy Manager at Amazon Watch, commented: "Our report unveils the disturbing reality behind Canada's corporate endeavors in Latin America. While Canada boasts of ethical business conduct, the documented evidence reveals a starkly contrasting picture – one where profit is prioritized over people and the environment. Urgent change is paramount." The report's presentation in Geneva was spearheaded by a delegation that included Mauricio Terena from APIB; Maria Judite "Kari" Guajajara from COIAB; Josefa de Oliveira, a Popular Educator with Movimento Xingu Vivo Para Sempre; Lorena Aranha Curuaia, Vice President of the Iawá Community; ; and Brayan Mojanajinsoy Pasos, General Secretary of the Association of Indigenous Councils of the Municipality of Villagarzón Putumayo (ACIMVIP). The delegation was further supported by representatives from organizations including Amazon Watch, AIDA (Regional), Earthworks (US) Gaia (Colombia), and Ambiente y Sociedad (Colombia). Short summary involving Canadian companies involved in rights violations highlighted in the report 1. Frontera Energy in Lote 192 in Peru: - Over 2,000 sites contaminated, affecting 26 Amazonian indigenous communities. - Proposed activity closure plan doesn’t include reparations for affected communities. 2. Mineradora Argentina Gold SRL (joint venture between Barrick Gold and Shandong Gold): - Responsible for at least five toxic substance leakages, including cyanide and arsenic, into the Jáchal River in Argentina from the Veladero mine. - The project is in violation of the Glacier Law due to its location in a glacial zone and affects the UNESCO recognized biodiversity heritage site, the San Guilhermo Reserve. 3. Belo Sun's Volta Grande project in Brazil: - Cumulative impacts with the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam, located less than 10 km away from the prospected mining site; - Armed security forces hired by the Canadian mining company to monitor local leaders and hindering their freedom of movement; - Utter disrespect to Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous and riverine communities; - Imminent and irreversible risks of an environmental tragedy if toxic waste spills into the Xingu River due to a potential dam break, given the lack of sysmic and tailings dam safety studies. - Direct impact on communities, their traditional livelihoods, and local ecosystems. 4. The Mina Varadero in Chile: - Contaminated water sources with mercury, impacting rural populations and children. 5. ISAGEN - Brookfield Asset Management's Hidrosogamoso dam in Colombia: - Significant harm to local ecosystems and communities. 6. American Lithium's mining projects (Falchani, Macusani, and Quelccaya) in Peru: - Regularly release toxic residues, affecting over 700,000 people and contaminating the Lake Titicaca and Amazon River basins. 7. Solaris Resources Inc.'s Warintza mining project in Ecuador: - Ignored the territorial rights of the Shuar Arutam indigenous people and adopted divisive tactics. 8. Mining project of Ixtaca in Mexico: - Suspended due to violations of indigenous rights. 9. El Pato II mining project in Guatemala: - Affected the Poqomam Maya and mestizo communities without proper prior consultation. 10. Libero Copper's Mocoa mining project in Colombia: - Directly harmed the ancestral territory of the Inga people, violating their rights. 11. Cosigo Resources LTD's Machado gold extraction project in Colombia: - Severely impacted sacred indigenous sites in the Yaigojé Apaporis territory. 12. Barrick Gold's Pueblo Viejo mine in the Dominican Republic: - Forced the displacement of 65 local families due to the El Llagal waste dam. 13. Mining projects of La Plata by Atico Mining Corporation and Las Naves by Curimining S.A. (a subsidiary of Adventus Mining Corporation) and **Salazar Resources Limited in Ecuador: - Tried legalizing their operations despite violating national and international human rights laws, leading to confrontations and injuries. 14. Petrotal's Lote 95 in Peru: - Protests demanding community rights resulted in several deaths by police forces guarding the oil field. 15. Equinox Gold in Brazil: - Concealed data regarding their operations and impacts, including a dam break. - 4,000 of people directly impacted by toxic waste resulted from the dam break that contaminated local Amazonian rivers, violating the right to a clean environment and adequate access to drinking water. - Criminalization of local community leaders that protested for the right to water. 16. Gran Tierra Energy in Ecuador: - Conducted explorations without proper information dissemination in the Charapa, Chanangué, and Iguana blocks.
Read more