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
"Portraits of a feminist energy transition"
The energy transition is essential and underway, but what are the risks and opportunities that the green energy revolution represents for the realisation of women's rights? How can we prevent the replication of extractive practices commonly associated with fossil industries? How can we promote renewable energy models that promote women's participation and the eradication of energy poverty? The series "Portraits of a Feminist Energy Transition" seeks to showcase the stories of women activists and human rights defenders advcating for a just energy transition. A new energy system that protects the environment, advances gender equality and provides safe, affordable and sustainable access to energy. Although women play a critical role in the management and use of energy resources in households and their communities, they face common challenges linked to systemic discrimination, energy poverty and lack of representation in the development of the new renewable energy sector. We cannot accelerate the move towards sustainable energy systems without bringing to the centre the voices of women and communities who have historically been left behind in energy decision-making spaces. In the context of COP26 and when discussing an energy transition that involves an unprecedented technical and technological shift from one source of energy to another and counteracting the effects of climate change, the civil society organisations, Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), with the support of FES-Geneva, launch the first video in the series that tells the story of Maria, an indigenous woman from the Maya Chuj ethnic group living in the Yich K'isis micro-region of Guatemala. It is only through women's stories and experiences that we can reduce the potential risks of the energy transition and catalyse the transformative power of renewable energy to advance gender equality and a low carbon future for all. Listen to María’s story!
Read more
Science's call to action for climate and air
By Fabio López Alfaro y Luisa Gaona Quiroga, AIDA interns The first installment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report—which will be completed in 2022—devotes an unprecedented entire chapter to short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), the reduction of which can mitigate the climate crisis and improve air quality. The IPCC's emphasis on these pollutants reaffirms the intrinsic relationship between climate and air, as well as the urgent need to implement effective and joint measures for their protection. SLCPs are compounds that absorb or reflect solar energy. They have the capacity to heat or cool the Earth on short time scales (days to years), in contrast to greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, whose climate impact can last decades, centuries or even longer. The best-known SLCPs include black carbon (small particles produced by burning diesel, biofuels and biomass), methane (which has a high global warming effect and is a precursor of other pollutants), tropospheric ozone and hydrofluorocarbons. Because they remain in the atmosphere for only short periods of time, their impacts on climate are regional and their changes are linked to changes in their emission sources. Although some SLCPs warm the planet and others cool it, the fact is that these pollutants cause between 30 and 45 percent of global warming, in addition to damaging air quality and affecting crop yields. Therefore, their integral management is decisive for mitigating the climate crisis and improving our quality of life. The situation in Latin America In this IPCC assessment cycle, the availability of information made it possible to emphasize the regional analysis of climate change, illustrating the relevance of SLCPs, whose impacts on climate and air are primarily local. However, the findings for Latin America are minor compared to those of Europe, Asia or North America, evidencing a lag in the region's knowledge. Closing this knowledge gap on SLCPs is fundamental because the region ranks third in terms of short-term (10 year) warming generation, surpassed by East Asia and North America. Despite having less information, the IPCC was able to identify the key sectors and pollutants to manage in Latin America. The report highlights that mitigation policies should focus on particulate matter and ozone generated in industry, energy production and open burning of biomass, sectors that are regionally responsible for the highest emissions. As the diameter of the particulate matter decreases, the negative health impacts are greater. Thus, fine particles— of particulate matter 2.5—cause the most harmful impacts on people's respiratory and cardiovascular systems. According to the World Health Organization, black carbon and organic carbon form a substantial part of particulate matter in air pollution, and are an important cause of morbidity and premature mortality worldwide. Moreover, methane and black carbon are the primary pollutants of concern in agriculture, fossil fuels, waste management and diesel engines, sectors that are projected to contribute 90 percent of non-OECD countries' black carbon emissions by 2100. Call to action The scientific evidence presented by the IPCC is also a call to action, a joint fight for climate and air. The report proves that it is vital to have crosscutting public policies that simultaneously seek to mitigate the climate crisis and SLCP emissions. The absence of such policies, coupled with weak air pollution control, implies short-term warming for Latin America, mainly because it is estimated that emissions of methane, ozone and hydrofluorocarbons—compounds characterized by high warming rates—will increase, as well as lower contributions from aerosols, which would decrease the cooling effect. However, with proper monitoring and in scenarios that combine efforts to reduce GHGs and SLCPs, high climate benefits and stabilization are expected after 2040. Although the climate results of these measures will be visible in 20 to 30 years, they will contribute to improving air quality and protecting human health in the short term. Public policies that work to lessen air pollution can reduce mortality rates due to poor air quality and contribute to meeting several of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially those targets related to particulate matter exposure (targets 3.9 and 11.6), human health and cities (targets 3.8 and 11.7), and the health of people and the environment (targets 3.9 and 11.7). They can also contribute to access to clean and affordable energy, responsible consumption and production, climate action and biodiversity protection (SDGs 7, 12, 13, 14 and 15). Finally, reducing CCVC emissions will help reduce crop losses, contributing to achieving zero hunger (SDG 2). Now that we know the sectors and pollutants whose management will be key in the coming years, it is time to demand that authorities and companies implement concrete actions to reduce emissions of SLCPs and obtain co-benefits in the fight for climate and clean air.
Read more
Victims of environmental contamination in La Oroya, Peru applaud the presentation of their case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
The decision, emitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, represents an important opportunity to restore the rights of affected residents. It’s the first time that a case of air pollution caused by business activities in an urban context has been brought before the Court. La Oroya, Peru. More than fifteen years after the case of environmental contamination in the city of La Oroya began, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights established the Peruvian State’s responsibility for the violation of the affected population’s rights to life, integrity, health and a healthy environment. This month, the Commission referred the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. "My sisters and I suffered exposure to heavy metals since we were children, having to migrate with our parents to an area far away from the contamination," said one of the victims, whose identity has been withheld due to the risk of reprisals for their role as environmental defenders. “We are thrilled to take one more step in this long process, in which so many of us have been involved. We are hopeful this will shine a ray of light on our path, and that our case will come to an end for the wellbeing of our health, so we can say 'Yes we could' in spite of so many falls.” The case originated with a petition, filed in 2005, by a group of La Oroya residents who, in the absence of responses at the national level, turned to the Commission to request precautionary measures. They subsequently denounced the violation of their rights resulting from chronic exposure to heavy metals (lead, cadmium and arsenic) from the metallurgical complex run by the company Doe Run Peru. The affected people appealed to the Inter-American Human Rights System because, although the Peruvian Constitutional Court ordered urgent measures for the protection of their rights in 2006, the State failed to comply with them. In an official communiqué on its decision, adopted on September 30, the Commission emphasized that "the State failed to comply with due diligence in its duties to regulate, supervise and oversee the behavior of the companies with respect to the rights they could affect, nor with its duty to prevent violations of these rights.” "We are happy for the news, so many years of waiting, frustration and fear. We are finally at the end,” said a mother whose parents and siblings were also affected by the contamination. “It’s a joy for all those who are present and for those who have left. We also thank the group of petitioners who have continued despite everything." The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH), representatives of those affected in the case, welcome the Commission's decision, as it puts an end to several years of waiting and constitutes a great opportunity to restore the rights of the affected people. "It is a milestone for the Inter-American System because it is the first case to document a situation of environmental contamination, particularly air pollution, caused by business operations in an urban context," said Liliana Avila, Senior Attorney in AIDA's Human Rights Program. For Christian Huaylinos, Coordinator of APRODEH's Legal Department, "this case would allow the Court to advance State obligations regarding the special protection of populations that may be in a particularly vulnerable situation, such as children, adolescents and senior citizens. It would also address State responsibility, the obligations derived from the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right, and its interdependence with other fundamental rights for human existence, such as health, life and personal integrity, as well as rights such as access to information, association and justice.” The contamination suffered by the inhabitants of La Oroya, many of them minors, particularly those who have come before the Commission, has had serious negative effects on their health with consequences that continue to this day. Although the metallurgical complex has implemented environmental management instruments, given the legal requirements at the national level aimed at mitigating and remediating the contamination caused, the State has granted extensions for their implementation without Doe Run Peru fully complying with its obligations. "I was very affected by the loss of my loved ones due to a lack of adequate healthcare, which lead to death. We’ve lost many people,” said one of the inhabitants of La Oroya, who has been affected since she was a minor and had to migrate to Lima with her mother. “We want to be treated well when we go to the doctor. I’ve lost my sisters and my father; we are all affected. I remember as I child I used to get spots from the arsenic.” She requests that the Court focus on the Peruvian health system when hearing the case and learning about its impacts. In all these years, the Peruvian State has failed to oversee, regulate and remedy the damage caused by the metallurgical complex. Its actions and omissions continue to violate human rights, to the detriment of the families of La Oroya. Members of the La Oroya community who have defended their right to a healthy environment have also been subjected to harassment and accusations. In this regard, the IACHR concluded that the State did not carry out "serious and effective criminal or administrative investigations to guarantee access to justice for the victims who were subjected to threats, harassment or reprisals by Doe Run Peru workers, as a result of the complaints made about the contamination." AIDA and APRODEH express their satisfaction with the presentation of the case before the Court and reiterate their commitment to the victims of La Oroya, to the defense of human rights, and the right to a healthy environment. press contacts: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +525570522107 Christian Huaylinos Camacuari (Peru), APRODEH, [email protected], +51959789232
Read more