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
Climate change: are you part of the problem or part of the solution?
Last week, the IPCC published the first part of its sixth assessment on the global state of climate change (AR6), reflecting the latest scientific information. The existence and assessment of damage to the planet is not entirely new information for those of us who have been working in this field for decades. What’s new is the level of scientific certainty, the magnitude and scale of climate impacts, and the projections for our future. In short, the global situation today is worse than previously believed. As an attorney working for climate justice, the report is very disturbing, even frustrating. As a mom, it is devastating. I want the best for my children. Yet, despite having no responsibility for the climate disaster, their future will be determined by it and by the impacts that my generation, and previous ones, left them. This reality is shared by all children, as well as by millions of people and communities in the most vulnerable situations, who suffer the worst consequences of the climate crisis without having caused it. Faced with this bleak scenario, we can succumb to fear and depression, and be indifferent; or we can act. I choose to act. I decided to write this last column as co-executive director of AIDA, where I’ve had the honor of working for 18 years. I will highlight the most important findings of the IPCC, and explain the importance of differentiating responsibility for the climate crisis in order to move towards effective solutions. I consider these elements essential to crafting a complete picture of climate solutions. I invite you to renounce indifference and the (understandable) feeling of helplessness, defeat or frustration; and replace it instead with collective and effective action. Words matter, even in science. The IPCC report is blunt in concluding for the first time that it is "unequivocal" that the atmosphere, ocean and land have been affected by human influence. This was established by hundreds of scientists from around the world. Unequivocal means that there is no doubt, that something is incontrovertible, that it is unambiguous. Although it sounds obvious, it’s relevant to emphasize because, very recently, I heard presidents of countries responsible for the greatest emissions deny the existence or seriousness of the climate crisis. Such denial has cost us decades of progress. The IPCC also concluded that the temperature of the planet has increased, that "each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that has preceded it since 1850," and that the negative impacts on our planet are real, current and will become increasingly intense as temperatures and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to rise. The impacts suffered in Latin America and the Caribbean have cost us thousands of human lives, millions in losses, and displaced several thousand people, whose vulnerability is increasing. Yet the region continues to increasingly rely on fossil fuels, deforestation remains uncontrolled, and cities, where 80 percent of the population lives, are growing without planning and with severe air pollution. The IPCC identified the problem in cities as one of fundamental concern because the reduction of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) could both help the climate and improve air quality (and, with it, public health). RESPONSIBILITY AND ACTION TOWARDS CLIMATE SOLUTIONS Solutions exist, but to implement them it is essential to understand the cause and magnitude of the climate crisis. This is the role and importance of the IPCC. On the other hand, it’s necessary to understand the source of emissions as well as those responsible for them, since not all people, entities and countries are equally responsible for this crisis. It is precisely the lack of climate responsibility that is one of the greatest challenges to finding solutions today. On the one hand, there are the governments, which despite international commitments like the Paris Agreement, have not yet translated them into ambitious and effective action. For example, governmental targets for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) remain far from the needed commitments. In fact, no country in Latin America has an NDC of the required level of ambition and effectiveness. On the other hand, there are companies that fail to acknowledge their responsibility, supported governments and an international community thus fair incapable of demanding they do so. This is essential not only because of ethical issues, but also de facto ones. According to scientific research, just 90 corporate entities are responsible for 63 percent of the global carbon dioxide and methane emissions from 1751 to 2010. And then, there is individual responsibility. According to the United Nations, the richest 1 percent of the population generates more than twice as many emissions as the poorest 50 percent. The inequality is evident: those who are least responsible for the climate crisis are those who are experiencing its impacts the most, as the UN has concluded in multiple reports. This lack of action has led affected communities, people and organizations to seek solutions through strategic litigation. With the intervention of the courts, there have been landmark climate decisions out of the Netherlands, Colombia and Pakistan, among others. This is what it means to see climate justice as a starting point to solving the climate crisis. Climate justice implies looking beyond the reduction of tons of CO2 other GHGs, and the beyond conservation of millions of hectares of forest. Climate justice is the search for comprehensive solutions—incorporating the perspective of human rights and the environment; putting people and communities at the center, with participatory and inclusive processes, and a gender perspective; seeking for those who have caused this crisis, emitting for decades, to assume their historical responsibility; and so that those who are suffering the most from the impacts, be compensated. This is the backbone of our work at AIDA, which we promote together with dozens of communities and organizations in Latin America, in coordination with colleagues from the Global South and the Global North. Today, the scientific evidence and the level of urgency demand that we finally change course to avoid a major debacle. It’s our decision, as a society, to either continue business as usual, ignoring the IPCC, or to finally pay attention and act comprehensively towards the climate justice that the planet requires of us. We have the information, the tools and the call of urgency. I am confident that we can make it happen and we will continue to work towards solutions. Each person, company and State can join in and decide to be part of the solution. Otherwise, they will continue to be part of the problem.
Read more
Our responsibility in the conservation of fisheries resources
It’s increasingly common to hear people say that they identify themselves as flexitarian, or semi-vegetarian. Being flexitarian means a person eats mostly a vegetarian diet, but occasionally consumes animal products like meat, poultry, seafood and fish. There are also pescetarians, or pesco-vegetarians, who only consume different varieties of fish and seafood As with any consumption habit, it is important to reflect on its environmental impact. While the current pattern of meat consumption is not sustainable, largely due to its impacts on the climate, the situation for fish consumption is no more encouraging. According to the biennial report of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), for more than 60 years global fish consumption has increased at a rate considerably higher than the growth of the world population. In addition, it is estimated that more than 30 percent of the world's fish stocks are overexploited and 60 percent are overfished. The continued increase in overfishing has consequences not only for biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, but also causes a decrease in fish production, with negative economic and social repercussions. Why fish consumption is increasing There are many reasons why people change their eating habits. They are often linked to health, weight and ethical considerations that reflect an ideology of respect for animals and environmental sustainability related to the reduction of red meat consumption. In recent years, fish-rich diets have been strongly promoted, mainly for their nutritional benefits. The nutritional content of fish varies according to factors such as species, age, environment, diet and even the time of capture. However, in general terms, fish are characterized by being sources of vitamins and proteins with high biological value. Oily or fatty fish—among them salmon, sardines and tuna—are usually exceptionally rich in Omega-3 and in minerals such as potassium, magnesium and phosphorus. Nutritionally, it’s advisable to consume them two to three times a week since rational consumption of fish helps regulate blood pressure, and reduce coronary risk and triglyceride levels. Although it’s necessary to eat in a healthy and balanced way to have a full life, it is also crucial to take into account the origin of the food we consume and to question where it comes from, and under what conditions it was caught or processed. An example of the relevance of answering these questions is the case of salmon, whose nutritional value lies in wild species and not in farm-raised ones, which are fed with an excessive amount of antibiotics. Overfishing, incentives and consequences According to the FAO, about 90 percent of marine fish stocks worldwide are fully exploited, overfished or depleted. Negative fisheries subsidies account for much of this problem. By increasing fishing capacity, these subsidies provide short-term benefits, but threaten the long-term sustainability of ecosystems and coastal communities. Worldwide, negative subsidies represent an investment of $22 billion each year. The most widely used are those for the purchase of fuel and the modernization of vessels to increase catches. Ecologically, these incentives reduce fish stocks and hinder their recovery. They destroy marine habitats and exacerbate overfishing. Given that nearly 60 million people work directly in the world's fisheries, it is vital that fish stocks be allowed to regenerate properly, thus ensuring the continued livelihoods of fishing communities. The responsible use of fishery and aquaculture resources must be recognized as a priority for global food security and nutrition, as well as for local development opportunities. The promotion and adoption of responsible fishing practices, from catch to consumption, is a joint effort in which consumers play a fundamental role. How to eat fish responsibly Sustainable fishing allows fish stocks to reproduce adequately and continuously, keeping them healthy and productive. While this task necessitates the active involvement of the fishing sector and government authorities, as consumers we also have a responsibility to promote sustainability through our purchasing decisions. Here are some simple tips fish eaters can implement in their daily lives: Verify the origin and size of the fish or seafood: Learn aspects such as the origin and method of capture, in addition to the size of the piece, which determines whether it reached sufficient maturity. Diversify consumption habits: Consume fish and seafood according to seasonality, a phenomenon related to the times of reproduction and movement of species, which are highly dependent on characteristics such as water temperature. Consuming seasonal fish and seafood allows for proper reproduction and recovery of species, ensuring greater balance and helping to avoid overfishing. Buy from authorized sites: Know if the place of sale actually complies with sustainability and traceability criteria for the products it sells. Traceability is the set of measures and procedures that make it possible to follow the trail of a fishery product from its capture to its final sale. Check labels: Where possible, choose products with certifications in sustainable fishing and marketing practices, such as the MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) seal or the Environmental Responsibility Standard for Fish Marketing, granted by Marviva in Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia. If we as a society allow for the gradual recovery of our ocean, we will be making a positive contribution to food security, the economy, the wellbeing of coastal communities, and future generations.
Read more
The IDB's opportunity to support the protection of the environment and human rights
The Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group) is uniquely positioned not only to support recovery efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region hard hit by the pandemic, but also to do so with respect for people and the environment. The IDB Group—composed of the IDB, which works with governments; IDB Invest, which collaborates with the private sector; and IDB Lab, the bank’s innovation laboratory— is the continent's most important development financing entity. In 2020, it approved a record US$21.6 billion for its 26 member countries in the region. In addition to the challenge of leading the recovery of public finances, the current economic and social crisis represents an opportunity for the IDB Group to successfully face another major challenge: the adoption of operational policies that comply with international environmental and human rights standards, as well as improved accountability processes. This is fundamental to the role the Bank plays in the region, and has become even more relevant in the current context: Regarding accountability and the evaluation of its current policies, it is important to consider that four hydroelectric projects financed by the IDB Group are or have been under scrutiny by the IDB's Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) due to the impacts caused by their implementation in indigenous and rural communities in Guatemala, Chile and Colombia. These projects, financed by IDB Invest, have affected the livelihoods of those who live in their shadow. AIDA—together with the International Platform Against Impunity and the Plurinational Government of the Q'anjob'al, Chuj, Akateko, Popti and Mestiza Nation—has supported members of the Mayan communities of the Ixquisis micro-region in Guatemala in the face of the destruction caused by two of these projects: the San Mateo and San Andres dams. Personally, I’ve seen first hand the damages caused to the indigenous population. I’ve heard the fear and uncertainty in the voices of local women as they explained how their rivers were polluted, their children fell ill, and their lives forever changed. “One day we will run out of water and we won’t be able to live,” a female indigenous leader from Ixquisis told me. “Our children will suffer.” The women of Ixquisis have played a central role in the complaint presented before MICI, as a primary question at play centers on the supposed violation of the Bank’s operational policy on gender, which recognizes that development projects often have differential impacts on local women. For the women, the rivers are a vital element, since they enable access to fresh water and food, also playing a key role in their interactions with each other. In the complaint, affected communities also denounced the projects’ lack of compliance with the Bank’s operational policies indigenous rights and the environment, and for the resulting damages. They argue that the company implementing the San Mateo and San Andrés dams acted without due diligence and violated the right to consultation and the free, prior and informed consent of affected indigenous peoples. In fact, the implementation of the projects actually ignored the results of a good faith consultation, carried out in 2009, in which the majority of the local population decided they did not consent to the implementation of such mega-projects in their territory. What’s evident is that the Bank’s capacity to supervise the projects it finances is limited and, despite meeting minimum standards, its operational policies are often ineffective. What’s more, spaces in which the Bank verifies compliance are reduced and the consequences for that non-compliance, uncertain. Earlier this year, MICI published a report on Chile’s Alto Maipo hydroelectric project, finding that the dam violated several operational policies, including that on gender. Yet that report has come under scrutiny for failing to offer restitution measures for the ongoing damages incurred by affected communities. In the coming months, the preliminary report on the Ixquisis case will be released. Affected communities hope that the recommendations it holds are reflective of the realities on the ground, and oriented toward the adoption of corrective measures, including the immediate divestment of financing. With this case, the Bank has a key opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to accountability, as well as its openness to assess compliance with its own operational policies and to remedy the damages that failure to comply has caused to vulnerable groups. It’s also an opportunity for the entity to take preventive measures and lay the groundwork for changing its practices. When he was elected president of the institution, Mauricio Claver-Carone promised to "act on priority issues in the region.” This includes an evaluation of any global context that affects the very development the IDB Group seeks to promote. These days, that includes not just the current public health crisis, but also the global climate crisis, the serious situation facing environmental defenders, and resolving a number of pending complaints on gender equity and respect for indigenous rights. The actions taken by the IDB Group as a result of the Ixquisis case may be the first step in establishing a fundamental precedent for the protection of human rights and the environment among international financial institutions, a contribution that is undoubtedly as, if not more, valuable than the economic one.
Read more