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
Litigation to promote (and accelerate) climate action
In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its first assessment report. It was the first time that the international scientific community officially and accurately demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions, produced by human activities, would lead to additional warming of the planet's surface, with global consequences. Over more than two decades of international climate negotiations and agreements to drastically reduce emissions, progress has been slow. And so, climate litigation has become a tool increasingly used by organizations and communities to hold governments and companies accountable for the climate crisis. Legal cases have forced nations to adopt more concrete and ambitious measures to curb emissions and mitigate the human rights impacts of the climate crisis. In May, a Dutch court set a landmark precedent when it ordered multinational oil company Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent over less than 10 years, marking a global environmental victory. "This judgment has been of great significance because Shell is one of the companies that most contributes to climate change," says Verónica Méndez, an attorney with AIDA's Climate Change Program. AIDA's legal and scientific team provides legal support and technical information to organizations and communities initiating climate litigation against governments and companies in Latin America. AIDA also developed a climate litigation platform, which systematizes key information on the cases developed in the region. The mapping of data is being done collaboratively with other organizations and will allow for the strengthening of joint litigation strategies. A brief overview of climate litigation Climate litigation includes cases that raise issues related to the legal obligations that states and companies have in relation to the climate crisis. They are brought before judicial bodies to seek, among other things, the enforcement of existing climate laws; an expansion in the scope of other laws to address climate change; recognition of the relationship between fundamental human rights and the impacts of the climate crisis; and compensation for loss and damage. This, according to a report prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with the Sabine Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University (New York), which assesses the global situation of this type of litigation. According to the report, as of July 1, 2020, at least 1,550 climate litigations have been registered in 38 countries, almost doubling the number of cases registered in 24 countries in 2017. The United States leads the list where the most litigation has been filed (1,200), followed by Australia (97), the United Kingdom (58) and the European Union (55). Climate lawsuits are also booming in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Chile. To date, AIDA has analyzed nearly 50 cases that will form part of the region's climate litigation platform. Challenges and opportunities in climate litigation While climate litigation seeks to achieve justice for communities affected by the impacts of the climate crisis, one of its great challenges lies the implementation of decisions. In 2018, a historic judgement ruled in favor of 25 young Colombians, who sued the government for deforestation in the Amazon and its direct link to the violation of the right to a healthy environment for future generations. This lawsuit is considered a climate litigation due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation. In it, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized the Colombian Amazon as an entity subject to rights and ordered the creation of an action plan to reduce deforestation, and the adoption of an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon. However, the conclusions of follow-up reports on the case indicate that, to date, there has not been full compliance with the ruling. "A judgment does not end with the sentence,” explains Méndez. “It must be followed up with to ensure compliance." Demonstrating that corporations and governments have an enormous responsibility in the fight against the climate crisis not only requires scientific information that proves that the emissions generated or allowed contribute to climate change. It requires linking the facts to human rights to provide more reasons for the courts to act and issue a favorable ruling. "A purely scientific climate change litigation has less chance of success," Méndez emphasizes. "It’s strategic to link a case to direct impacts on the human rights of those people who will be disproportionately affected." According to a report by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the outlook for climate demands in Latin America is encouraging because governments are making more commitments to climate action and, in addition, climate science is establishing direct links between extreme weather events and climate change. The coming together of communities and environmental organizations is crucial in the movement to accelerate strong policies and actions that will ensure a sustainable, just transformation for both people and the environment. Visit the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean
Read moreLitigation to promote (and accelerate) climate action
In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its first assessment report. It was the first time that the international scientific community officially and accurately demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions, produced by human activities, would lead to additional warming of the planet's surface, with global consequences. Over more than two decades of international climate negotiations and agreements to drastically reduce emissions, progress has been slow. And so, climate litigation has become a tool increasingly used by organizations and communities to hold governments and companies accountable for the climate crisis. Legal cases have forced nations to adopt more concrete and ambitious measures to curb emissions and mitigate the human rights impacts of the climate crisis. In May, a Dutch court set a landmark precedent when it ordered multinational oil company Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent over less than 10 years, marking a global environmental victory. "This judgment has been of great significance because Shell is one of the companies that most contributes to climate change," says Verónica Méndez, an attorney with AIDA's Climate Change Program. AIDA's legal and scientific team provides legal support and technical information to organizations and communities initiating climate litigation against governments and companies in Latin America. AIDA also developed a climate litigation platform, which systematizes key information on the cases developed in the region. The mapping of data is being done collaboratively with other organizations and will allow for the strengthening of joint litigation strategies. A brief overview of climate litigation Climate litigation includes cases that raise issues related to the legal obligations that states and companies have in relation to the climate crisis. They are brought before judicial bodies to seek, among other things, the enforcement of existing climate laws; an expansion in the scope of other laws to address climate change; recognition of the relationship between fundamental human rights and the impacts of the climate crisis; and compensation for loss and damage. This, according to a report prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with the Sabine Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University (New York), which assesses the global situation of this type of litigation. According to the report, as of July 1, 2020, at least 1,550 climate litigations have been registered in 38 countries, almost doubling the number of cases registered in 24 countries in 2017. The United States leads the list where the most litigation has been filed (1,200), followed by Australia (97), the United Kingdom (58) and the European Union (55). Climate lawsuits are also booming in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Chile. To date, AIDA has analyzed nearly 50 cases that will form part of the region's climate litigation platform. Challenges and opportunities in climate litigation While climate litigation seeks to achieve justice for communities affected by the impacts of the climate crisis, one of its great challenges lies the implementation of decisions. In 2018, a historic judgement ruled in favor of 25 young Colombians, who sued the government for deforestation in the Amazon and its direct link to the violation of the right to a healthy environment for future generations. This lawsuit is considered a climate litigation due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation. In it, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized the Colombian Amazon as an entity subject to rights and ordered the creation of an action plan to reduce deforestation, and the adoption of an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon. However, the conclusions of follow-up reports on the case indicate that, to date, there has not been full compliance with the ruling. "A judgment does not end with the sentence,” explains Méndez. “It must be followed up with to ensure compliance." Demonstrating that corporations and governments have an enormous responsibility in the fight against the climate crisis not only requires scientific information that proves that the emissions generated or allowed contribute to climate change. It requires linking the facts to human rights to provide more reasons for the courts to act and issue a favorable ruling. "A purely scientific climate change litigation has less chance of success," Méndez emphasizes. "It’s strategic to link a case to direct impacts on the human rights of those people who will be disproportionately affected." According to a report by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the outlook for climate demands in Latin America is encouraging because governments are making more commitments to climate action and, in addition, climate science is establishing direct links between extreme weather events and climate change. The coming together of communities and environmental organizations is crucial in the movement to accelerate strong policies and actions that will ensure a sustainable, just transformation for both people and the environment. Visit the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean
Read more
Reflections for a Bolivia free of fracking
Text written as part of the series #TRANSFORMAR LA CRISIS, Tomo II. Crisis Ecológica, extractivismo y poblaciones vulnerables by the foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in Bolivia, to be published soon. It all began with a study, published in 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, reporting the existence of large quantities of unconventional hydrocarbons in Bolivia. The study created considerable expectations in the Andean Nation. Given the gradual depletion of conventional oil and gas deposits, fracking has since become a latent threat. Fracking is a risky, costly and highly polluting technique. As a region, Latin America is home to roughly seven thousand fracking wells. The technique’s advance—as well as related public policies, regulations and social opposition—has commonalities across the region, including its affects on protected areas and on urban, rural and indigenous populations. So far, Bolivia remains free from fracking. But without an intentional political decision to avoid it, and without a population better informed about its effects, fracking could soon become a reality here as well. The risks of fracking in Bolivia The implementation of fracking is a latent threat in Bolivia because of the nation’s significant dependence on fossil fuels. In 2013, the state-owned company YPFB signed a cooperative agreement with YPF Argentina to study the potential of unconventional hydrocarbons. It also asked the operating companies to extract samples from the Los Monos geological formation in the Chaco region. That same year, YPFB Chaco (a subsidiary of YPFB), with the support of Halliburton, carried out a "mini-fracture" in the Ingre X-2 well, part of the Tupambi formation, in Chuquisaca. This operation would have allowed for the discovery of tight sand oil. Based on this discovery, YPFB Chaco had proposed to perform a complete fracture of the reservoir in 2014. It is unknown if this occurred because, in the years following, YPFB stopped generating public information on the project. In 2018, Canadian company CanCambria Energy Corp. signed a study agreement with YPFB, the prelude to an exploration/exploitation contract, to determine the unconventional gas potential at Miraflores, also in Chuquisaca. CanCambria's preliminary data points to the possible existence of a mega-field in the area, whose potential gas resources would be comparable to those of Argentina’s Vaca Muerta. The Canadian firm has prepared a proposal to extract gas by drilling 800 wells over 202 square kilometers in the Miraflores area, in the municipality of Macharetí. Miraflores is located in the Heroes del Chaco Municipal Protected Area and is part of the Yrenda Toba Tarijeño Aquifer System, which Bolivia shares with Paraguay and Argentina. The people living in Macharetí, including Guaraní indigenous communities, were shocked to receive news of the project. The alarm raised by the possibility of fracking in this territory led those who live there to learn about the consequences of the technique, particularly in relation to the use and contamination of immense quantities of water. As a direct result, Macharetí included in its autonomous statute the prohibition of fracking in its territory, intensifying the controversy over the technique’s development in the area. Between extreme energy and an energy transition In the face of this controversy over fracking, two paths lay before us: on the first, is the deepening of the extractivist model and the generation of highly polluting energy, with serious and irreversible negative impacts on Mother Earth and local populations; on the second, is a just and democratic energy transition, which implies the decommodification of energy, a change in the energy matrix, and a shift in the development paradigm. Bolivia, and Latin America as a region, need to profoundly transform the way energy is produced; the new system should be formed with a long-term vision and based on the respect for human rights and the protection of nature. The development of fracking, far from initiating any transition, goes against this trend because it continues to promote a polluting, risky and costly energy system. It is based on dependence on non-renewable energy sources with negative impacts on the territories, inequity and lack of citizen participation in the construction of energy policies. Instead, Bolivia must bet on a socially just, economically viable and ecologically sustainable energy transition. "Bolivia should not move towards the implementation of fracking in its territory because it represents one of the greatest risks to its ecosystems, resources and populations," says Jorge Campanini, researcher at the Center for Documentation and Information Bolivia (CEDIB). "It is urgent to generate solid policies that declare a moratorium or indefinite ban on this technique throughout the country". The experience of Latin American countries that have bet on fracking clearly demonstrates the economic, environmental and social impacts of this technique. In this context, many organizations, communities and peoples have organized to confront the threat. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic forces us to reflect on the future of fossil fuels, and the need for a just energy transition. Instead of considering fracking as an easy way to create jobs in difficult times, we must confront the health, economic and climate crises together. It’s time to think of resilient recovery, and thus an energy system that is not based on fracking. One idea usually associated with transition is the change of the energy matrix, yet, while necessary, the rapid and effective de-fossilization of that matrix is not enough. The energy transition must be comprehensive and incorporate environmental, economic and social dimensions so that it is also just and democratic. That’s why it’s so important that governments address the issue with a systemic approach.
Read more