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
Lessons on protecting the right to a healthy environment
A healthy environment implies, among other things, breathing clean air, having access to clean water and quality food, and having a decent place to live. Until recently, the human right to a healthy environment was recognized only at the national level in most countries of the continent. Then, on July 28th, in a historic resolution, the United Nations voted unanimously to recognize a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a universal human right. The decision is a significant step in the long and complex process of guaranteeing the right to a healthy environment in practice, which has been part of AIDA's story since our inception. "For nearly 25 years, we have invoked the right to a healthy environment to defend people in Latin America from environmental impacts that threaten their lives and dignity," explained Gladys Martínez de Lemos, our executive director. AIDA has always worked to highlight the link between a healthy environment and fundamental human rights such as those to integrity, life, and health. "In international law, it has taken time to assume this relationship, which for the AIDA has been undeniable from the start," added Liliana Ávila, senior attorney. "Our approach to international law begins with those affected and, based on that proximity, focuses on the communities whose rights have been most impacted by environmental degradation." What we’ve learned As an essential part of our efforts and over the years, we have learned that: The right to a healthy environment is increasingly included in Constitutions, laws and regional justice systems. This has empowered individuals and communities to demand its defense, as well as motivated judges to integrate it into their decisions. Strategic litigation—a combination of legal, communications, social mobilization and advocacy tools—is especially important in promoting the protection of fundamental human rights. The climate crisis has exacerbated the impacts of environmental degradation on the enjoyment of human rights and cases have tripled in number. This has brought with it the need to rely more on comprehensive and less on case-by-case strategies. Despite important advances, there are still large compliance debts for the right to a healthy environment to materialize in practice. The main challenge is the lack of implementation of court rulings. At the same time, the link between a healthy environment and human rights has served a variety of purposes, including the following: Demonstrating that the right to a healthy environment and other rights essential to life are indivisible. Demanding that States comply with their international human rights obligations, especially the application of the principles of prevention and precaution. Promoting the guarantee of access rights in environmental matters such as the right to information and participation. Our most emblematic cases While defending the right to a healthy environment is present in all our work, there are emblematic cases in which AIDA has helped establish key precedents by guaranteeing it. Restoration of rights for residents of La Oroya, Peru Our work as an international environmental organization began in 1998 with this case. Since then, we’ve worked to demonstrate how the violation of the right to a healthy environment—due to air pollution with heavy metals from a smelter—has violated the rights to life and health of residents of the city of La Oroya, Peru. We’ve shown how the impacts have been differentiated for women, children and the elderly. And we’ve demanded that the Peruvian State take urgent measures to guarantee the rights of the affected population. In 2005, we took the case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which in September 2021 brought it before the Inter-American Court after establishing the international responsibility of the State. It will be one of the first cases to centrally address the indivisible relationship between a healthy environment and other human rights. A healthy environment as a fundamental right for human existence In November 2017, in response to a consultation made by Colombia, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights established that a healthy environment is an autonomous right, "fundamental to the existence of humanity." It also recognized the impact of climate change on the effective enjoyment of human rights, especially for the most vulnerable populations such as indigenous peoples, children and people living in extreme poverty. In the framework of the consultation, AIDA presented our observations and participated in the hearing before the Court. We demonstrated that the implementation of large infrastructure projects could affect the environment to such an extent that it would put life and personal integrity, among other human rights, at risk. Our contribution made clear the link between human rights and the environment. Access to justice for people affected by environmental damage When Veracruz residents defended the Veracruz Reef in court against damage from a port expansion, AIDA presented technical and legal evidence supporting recognition of the rights to a healthy environment and access to justice. Together, these obligate the government to allow anyone whose fundamental rights are threatened by environmental degradation the possibility of achieving justice, regardless of whether their connection to the threatened ecosystem is indirect or remote. We directly contributed to the Mexican Supreme Court’s ruling in February 2022, in which the Court determined that authorities violated the right to a healthy environment of the people of Veracruz by authorizing the port project. "The UN's recognition of the right to a healthy environment as a universal human right is undoubtedly an impetus for the construction of new key precedents for its protection," said Daniela García, AIDA attorney. It’s also an impetus for states to strengthen their policies and legislation focused on environmental protection, as well as to enshrine this right in their legal frameworks. And it’s a tool for people and organizations that defend the environment and human rights to strengthen their work. At AIDA, we are clear about this, and we reaffirm our commitment to our mission of strengthening people's capacity to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment.
Read more
Ambition and urgency needed as high seas treaty negotiations near end
New York: With only one week to go in the negotiations for a new Treaty to protect two thirds of the ocean - the High Seas - civil society is raising alarm about the level of urgency and ambition towards a robust outcome for the ocean. A number of States have made public commitments to secure an ambitious Treaty at this final scheduled session, but there is concern that this is not being fully reflected in the formal negotiating room. The High Seas Alliance (HSA) expects more ambition to be shown by the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada and the United States which have been public champions for the ocean, including at the recent UN Ocean Conference. These delegations support some progressive positions within the Treaty negotiations, but too many appear to be maintaining positions that will not result in the transformation we need for a healthy and productive ocean for current and future generations. Some states and groups are pushing for a strong outcome. CARICOM, (the Caribbean Community), the Pacific Small Islands Developing States, New Zealand, Costa Rica and Monaco are setting the pace for a speedy and effective outcome. This round of negotiations, known as IGC5, is the fifth and final scheduled meeting convened by the UN General Assembly. It is tasked with concluding a Treaty to protect Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, which includes the High Seas, and which makes up half the planet, two thirds of the ocean. For decades, the international community has struggled to reach this agreement during which time climate change and biodiversity loss have escalated. The HSA recognises that the “package” of elements under negotiation are intrinsically linked and critical to successful completion of the negotiations. “The greatest opportunity of our generation to show we are serious about protecting the global ocean is now. A strong High Seas Treaty is in reach but more ambition is needed. Governments must stick to their commitment to deliver a truly ambitious Treaty this week and finally move to taking action that will allow the ocean to recover and thrive; for marine biodiversity, Earth’s climate and the well-being of generations to come. There is no more time to waste. - Sofia Tsenikli, Senior Strategic Advisor to the HSA. QUOTES FROM MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS CANADA Susanna Fuller, VP Operations and Projects, Oceans North: "With the longest coastline in the world and as a self-declared ocean champion, Canada plays a vital role in achieving a strong Treaty. We are hoping to see Canada’s ambitions meet the urgent need for biodiversity protection and responsible management for 50% of the planet. With climate change impacts accelerating and biodiversity loss increasing, finalizing and implementing this Treaty cannot come fast enough." LATIN AMERICA Gladys Martínez de Lemos, Executive Director, AIDA (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense): "Most Latin American countries have publicly stated their commitment to increase marine protected areas by 30% by 2030. This cannot be achieved without an ambitious High Seas Treaty. In addition, 70% of the areas that would not be protected need a high-level environmental impact assessment process with capacity and implementation. During all the negotiations Costa Rica has shown its commitment to a robust and ambitious Treaty. We thanked Costa Rica for its exemplary championship along these years." SOUTH KOREA Jihyun Lee, High Seas Alliance Youth Ambassador and undergraduate student at Yonsei University, South Korea: "Youth and future generations demand a strong and meaningful High Seas Treaty that will effectively protect the ocean. We are calling in unified support for world governments to finally take bold action for our ocean." US Lisa Speer, NRDC: “We applaud the more progressive approach of the United States, which has been a strong advocate for concluding the negotiations in a timely fashion, and for strengthening environmental assessment. However, we need the US to show more leadership to ensure that the new Treaty will result in the creation of a science-based network of fully protected areas in all areas of the High Seas, which scientists tell us is essential to reversing the decline of the ocean." EU + UK Laura Meller, Protect the Oceans campaign, Greenpeace: "It’s deeply concerning that the European Union and UK continue to insist on maintaining a broken status quo when it comes to creating ocean sanctuaries on the High Seas at this round of negotiations. The bloc and the UK must raise their ambition in the last days of negotiations if they truly want to be global ocean champions, and ensure that a strong Treaty which has the power to create properly protected ocean sanctuaries on the High Seas is finalised this week. If they don’t, their fine words in the run up to these negotiations will be little more than empty rhetoric. The oceans are in crisis. We need ambitious, urgent, action before it’s too late." PSID + CARICOM Travis Aten, Programme Officer, HSA: "We continue to applaud the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) and the Caribbean Community’s (CARICOM) continued leadership during this negotiation process, notably through their support of robust and ambitious conservation positions. As islands that are surrounded by the ocean, it is clear to them that this Treaty must move beyond the current status quo and implement real change on how we manage biodiversity of the High Seas." Fabienne McLellan, Managing Director, OceanCare: “It is encouraging to see that there is an increased spirit of urgency in the room. Many negotiators are rolling up their sleeves, aware that the world is watching to judge if the rhetoric on ocean commitments made in the lead up to this conference is translating into the Treaty text. While unfortunately some of the Treaty text elements are being watered down, it is not yet too late to make a turn around. Cementing the status-quo and the lowest common denominator is not good enough. We need an ambitious and implementable Treaty. The state of emergency of the ocean demands nothing less. NOTES Covering nearly half of the world’s surface, the High Seas—a true global commons—is only protected by a loose patchwork of poorly enforced rules that are ill-suited to address a growing onslaught of pressures to the water column and seabed below, including climate change, pollution, fishing, and emerging activities like deep-sea mining and bioprospecting. The negotiations began in 2018 and have since benefited from increased scientific and political awareness of High Seas marine life and habitats, as well as the dangers they face from human activities. For instance, until relatively recently, “High Seas” were considered to be largely devoid of life or too remote to face serious threats from overexploitation. Today, scientists have shown that they support marine systems that are vital to the global food supply, terrestrial ecology, and stability of the climate system. SPOKESPEOPLE Latin America Mariamalia Chavez (Spanish, English), [email protected] Gladys Martínez de Lemos (Spanish, English), AIDA, [email protected]
Read more
Brazilian court reaffirms the power of litigation to strengthen climate action
In July, Brazil's high court ruled that the government has a constitutional duty to allocate the necessary economic resources to support the operation of its Climate Fund, a tool created to combat the climate crisis, which has been paralyzed in recent years. With this ruling, the Supreme Federal Court resolved the first climate litigation in its history and set an important precedent for Brazil and the world. The decision equates the Paris Agreement—which seeks to strengthen the global response to the climate emergency—with a human rights treaty, granting it a higher status than ordinary laws and other inferior norms such as Executive Branch decrees. This may give way for courts and judges in other Latin American countries to make the same recognition. "The Supreme Federal Court created a privileged framework of protection for climate change mitigation and adaptation, one that ensures one of the fundamental pillars of climate action: financing," explains Marcella Ribeiro, an AIDA attorney. "Furthermore, it made clear that the Executive Branch, by restricting resources that by law are destined for climate action, is failing to comply with international agreements and conventions on human rights to which Brazil is a party." The Brazilian Socialist Party, the Socialism and Liberty Party, the Workers’ Party and the Sustainability Network Party filed the lawsuit over the Brazilian government’s failure to provide resources to the Climate Fund in 2020, with support from the Climate Observatory and the Alana Institute. Litigation as a strategic tool The case of the Climate Fund in Brazil demonstrates that strategic climate litigation is an effective and necessary way to help the continent's governments and companies meet their climate commitments. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted that climate-related litigation is on the rise and, in some cases, has influenced the results and ambition of climate governance, understood as the way in which different actors—state, civil society, academia and the private sector—define, implement and monitor actions aimed at addressing the causes and consequences of climate change. "In the global south, Brazil is one of the countries where climate litigation is developing most strongly," highlights Javier Dávalos, AIDA senior attorney. "The country is characterized by a growing ecosystem of litigants and organizations that are taking the climate fight to court." Brazil's push for climate litigation in the region is critical because the country is home to 65 percent of the Amazon, a key ecosystem for global climate regulation and one that is at serious risk. Brazil emits the most carbon dioxide of any Latin American nation, with deforestation representing the largest source of these emissions. In this sense, it is fundamental that one of the judges who heard the Climate Fund case explicitly pointed out the large increase in deforestation in the Amazon in 2021— the highest in 15 years: more than 22 percent, and a total area of 13,235km². It is therefore essential to demand in court that the Brazilian state fulfill its obligations to protect the Amazon and the global climate. The importance of financing solutions Transitioning to a zero carbon economy and avoiding the worst physical impacts of climate change requires investing nearly $125 billion USD by 2050, according to the Net Zero Financing Roadmaps study commissioned by the United Nations High Level Champions. These resources must come from two complementary sources, private and public financing. Government financing of climate action represents a relevant public policy and thus must conform to a country's laws. In its ruling, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court recognized the Climate Fund as the main federal instrument for financing climate action and meeting national greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. It also noted that the government kept the fund paralyzed for two years. Considering that the resources intended to fight the climate crisis seek to materialize fundamental human rights, the court concluded that the government couldn’t restrict them. "Guaranteeing the allocation of resources for climate action means setting a clear limit from which we cannot retreat," Ribeiro said. "Despite the clear violation of the Brazilian state's duties regarding the right to a healthy environment, reflected in the dismantling of environmental norms and institutions, the Brazilian Supreme Court's ruling put a brake on the erosion of the legal protection of the environment and climate in the country." Learn about this and other cases on AIDA’s Plataforma de Litigio Climático para América Latina y el Caribe.
Read more