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
Mexico’s Federal Mining Law threatens human rights of indigenous peoples
International civil society organizations submitted amicus curiae briefs to the Mexican Supreme Court in support of the State of Puebla-based Masewal people’s constitutional action.Groups also delivered to the Court’s Second Chamber more than 4,000 signatures supporting the defense of indigenous people’s rights, collected through www.change.org.mx International civil society organizations are supporting a lawsuit filed by the Masewal indigenous people of Cuetzalan del Progreso, based in the Sierra Norte of the Mexican state of Puebla, against Mexico’s Mining Law. The Masewal request that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) declare the law unconstitutional because it violates indigenous peoples’ fundamental rights. Earthjustice, the Environmental Defender Law Center (EDLC) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) filed separate amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs to provide information in order to help the SCJN rule on litigation initiated by the Altepetajpianij Maseual Council and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA). The constitutional suit, originally filed in March 2015, argues that Mexico adopted the new Mining Law in violation of indigenous rights by not previously consulting or informing indigenous peoples before passing the law. As a result, the law failed to take into account indigenous values or perspectives and contained no mechanism to protect their human rights, even though many mining concessions already affect their territories. Above all, this law violates indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination by excluding them from decision-making on mining within their territories, thus threatening local communities’ quality of life. “As the First Peoples, we are convinced that, in order to have a good life –Yeknemilis, as we say in Nahuatl– it is necessary that we be well and have social peace. And we cannot be well, nor can we build social peace in our territories, when extractive projects such as destructive mining threaten our way of life,” the Masewal people told SCJN justices in their brief. “Our contribution presented in our amicus brief highlights that Mexico’s international obligations require free, prior, and informed consultations with indigenous peoples before approving any legislative measure that affects them, especially when it comes to their territorial rights,” said Guillermo Zúñiga, Earthjustice international attorney. “This also includes laws on the extraction of natural resources found in their territories, which applies directly to the case of the Mining Law.” “Mining concessions cannot be granted solely based on mining legislation. A higher-level legal framework, based on human rights and environmental law, and on the interrelation between the two issues, is must be applied in this case. This broader, legal framework determines and limits the granting of mining titles in the case of lands and territories,” says EDLC in its amicus’ conclusions. "Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has the opportunity to set an exemplary precedent for the region with respect to the protection of indigenous rights," said attorney Carlos Lozano Acosta of AIDA. "In turn, the SCJN can learn from regional experience, adopting the relevant standards that courts in other countries have provided in favor of indigenous peoples, as evidenced in our amicus brief." Letters of support from other indigenous groups in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, and Guatemala, as well as 4,091 signatures collected through the platform change.org.mx as of June 26, were sent to the Ministers of the SCJN’s Second Chamber supporting the Masewal People's suit. press contacts Ricardo Ruiz (Mexico), CEMDA, 5559644162, [email protected] Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, 5570522107, [email protected] Robert Valencia (US), Earthjustice, [email protected]
Read more
Contamination and COVID-19: Why didn't air quality Improve in the Valley of Mexico?
Measures adopted to deal with the global health pandemic caused by COVID-19 have led to a reduction in some atmospheric pollutants, which has considerably improved air quality in various cities around the world. Yet in the metropolitan area of the Valley of Mexico (MCMA)—which includes Mexico City and surrounding towns—air quality has not improved despite the suspension of activities associated with sources of pollution like traffic and industry. Months before the health emergency was declared in late March 2020, the air quality reported by the Valley’s Atmospheric Monitoring System was in the range of "regular" to "bad," due primarily to vehicle congestion. With restrictions on mobility established due to the pandemic, vehicle traffic decreased by up to 70% and, with it, so did some of the air pollution. According to official information, distancing measures caused a reduction in carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides—of 58 and 32 percent, respectively. However, tropospheric ozone (O3), one of the most damaging pollutants to air quality and human health, did not decrease significantly (only 3 or 4 percent, according to official data). That’s why, in May, two months after measures were adopted to address the health crisis, air quality in the Valley of Mexico remained at the same parameters as the beginning of the year—that is, ranging from "regular" to "bad," according to the Atmospheric Monitoring System. The question that arises, then, is WHY? What causes air pollution? Various gases and compounds contaminate the air. Primary pollutants—like carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)—are directly discharged into the atmosphere. Secondary pollutants, like tropospheric ozone (O3), form in the atmosphere as a result of the chemical transformation of those primary pollutants. Tropospheric ozone is formed from the interaction of sunlight with "precursor gases," including volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Now, there are three factors that actually affect air quality: weather conditions, topography, and concentrations of one or more pollutants at levels that can harm the environment and human health. These concentrations are measured by official monitoring systems, like the MCMA Atmospheric Monitoring System. The World Health Organization establishes concentration levels of pollutants that should not be exceeded over a specific period. For tropospheric ozone, the recommended value is 50 parts per billion (ppb) over an eight-hour average. But Mexican regulations are more lax and establish a lower limit for this compound: a concentration less than or equal to 95 ppb on an hourly average (that is, in a 60-minute time interval). In addition, to activate an environmental contingency for ozone, concentrations must be greater than 154 ppb (hourly average). This standard implies less protection for the population's health. At the beginning of this year, the hourly ozone concentration in the Valley of Mexico averaged only 23 ppb, but it has risen since then. Despite the restrictions resulting from the health crisis, the average hourly concentration of ozone was 41 ppb in April and 45 ppb in May. Also, from January to May, 99 days were recorded in which ozone concentrations exceeded the 95 ppb limit. Why did concentrations of ozone increase? The restriction on mobility during the health contingency was not adequate to decrease concentrations of ozone in the atmosphere for two reasons: first, the sources of this compound are not limited to the use of vehicles; and second, the period of social isolation coincided with the so-called ozone season, a time of the year when the concentrations rise due to the increase of solar radiation and the decrease of rain and wind. As previously mentioned, tropospheric ozone is formed by the interaction of sunlight with precursor gases. Among these gases are nitrogen oxides—mainly generated by the combustion processes of automobiles, especially diesel engines—and volatile organic compounds, which arise from more diverse sources: the use of solvents, leaks of liquefied petroleum gas in heaters and stoves, cosmetic and cleaning products, and evaporated fuel in gas stations and automobiles without evaporative emissions control. According to official data, during social isolation, volatile organic compounds were only reduced by 15 percent, including all their emission sources. On the other hand are forest fires, a major source of ozone precursor gases. From January 1 to May 3 of this year, in Mexico City alone there were 644 forest fires— lower in number compared to the same period in 2019, but equally as intense. As for the ozone season, which begins the last week of February and ends with the first rains in June, the average temperature in the Valley of Mexico was higher this year. In April, it was 2°C higher than the average recorded in the same month between 1981 and 2010—the hottest April in recorded history. Because the temperature is directly related to solar radiation and lack of wind, its increase explains the higher ozone concentrations. The sum of these factors contributed to the fact that ozone concentrations actually increased despite the restrictions established by the pandemic. This, in turn, led to the residents of the Valley of Mexico continuing to experience poor air quality and suffering its negative health impacts. Why reducing ozone is good for public health and the climate Ozone not only affects air quality and thus public health. It also has the ability to absorb sunlight and heat the atmosphere, meaning it is a short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP). Because its emissions aggravate the climate crisis, more than 11,000 scientists from around the world have highlighted the need to reduce SLCPs in order to rapidly combat global warming. The intensity of the forest fires and the particularly high temperatures of this year's “ozone season” demonstrate the effects of the climate crisis that we are failing to adequately confront. That’s why it’s imperative that the government implement actions to reduce emissions of precursors gases—not only during the health emergency, but also when we get through it, when motorized transportation (a source of nitrogen oxides) is reactivated. Improved controls on the type of cars on the road, based on their polluting potential, and personal choices like biking, also recommended to reduce the risks of contagion, would help to achieve this objective, reduce global warming, and improve the health of those living in the Valley of Mexico. In addition, society must commit to measures of regulation, communication and education that curb consumer habits and improve on the production and distribution of goods and services that continue to emit volatile organic compounds (another ozone precursor) on a daily basis. Restricting the production and use of aerosol products, as well as repairing and preventing leaks of liquefied petroleum gas, would help to reduce these emissions. Finally, it’s necessary to strengthen the country's weak environmental policy and combat non-compliance with environmental health standards, which has resulted in an insufficient reduction in air pollution. Mexican air quality standards must be updated to set stricter limits that are compatible with international standards and the protection of the human right to health. The above are just some examples of actions that authorities and society can take to show that we have learned a lesson and will do what is necessary to improve air quality and face possible new health crises, as well as to combat the climate crisis that threatens to end the world as we know it today.
Read more
Belo Sun project puts Amazon at serious risk of contamination
The Canadian company developing Belo Sun is failing to take sufficient measures to prevent a planned gold mine from contaminating groundwater and surface water sources. The company also plans to use large quantities of cyanide, a substance highly dangerous to the health of people and ecosystems. Altamira, Brazil. A technical evaluation concluded that a gold mine planned for the Volta Grande of the Xingu River, deep in the Brazilian Amazon, risks contaminating water sources and harming the area’s indigenous and riverine communities. A project of the Canadian company Belo Sun Mining Corp., the mine could leech contaminating fluids, and would employ high quantities of cyanide, as well as other chemical processes that could, unless properly implemented, cause acidic waste to reach aquifers and rivers. The analysis prepared by Andrés Ángel, geologist and scientific advisor to the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), found inconsistencies in the information the company has published in the environmental licensing process. In the 2015 feasibility report presented to the project's investors, Ángel found that the company stated that the area’s soil and shallow rocks are impermeable, that is, contaminants cannot seep through them. However, in 2012 and 2016 environmental impact studies, Belo Sun shows the regulatory authorities data, descriptions and analyses that contradict what was said in 2015, going so far as to say that the aforementioned soils and rocks behave like porous or fractured aquifers. In recent studies, the general design of the project and the management measures proposed by the company, which do not even include installing liners to prevent leaching under certain structures, are insufficient to reduce the risk of surface and groundwater contamination, the expert explained. The evaluation also warns of the use of large quantities of cyanide as the method of choice for the separation of gold. It’s expected that between 330 and 390 grams per ton of processed material will be used, out of an estimated total of 116 million tons of ore. "Less polluting and dangerous alternatives exist, including the export of polymetallic concentrates where the separation of material of economic interest occurs later. In the Amazon rainforest, it would be essential to consider this option" says Ángel. The report also highlights that cyanide can be lethal even in very low doses for both aquatic fauna and people, and points out the risks of transporting this substance through low quality road and fluvial infrastructure. Another serious risk highlighted by the study is the generation of acid drainage as a result of the chemical process planned by the company to eliminate the cyanide used, and as a cumulative impact after the project's lifetime, taking into account that some units were classified as having moderate acid generation potential. Although an active treatment (the addition of lime to effluents) is proposed for this purpose, such a measure implies greater demand for reagents and, therefore, greater total environmental impacts. Finally, Ángel highlighted the lack of information on the synergistic impacts between the Belo Monte Dam—which already affects the area—and the downstream mining project in the reduced flow section of the Xingu River, which in turn will determine the type and extent of the mine's risks in the event of serious failures. The Brazilian justice system suspended Belo Sun’s installation license in 2017 because the company did not conduct studies on the mine's impact on indigenous communities or comply with the requirement for a free, prior and informed consultation process. Belo Sun submitted the studies of the indigenous component to the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) in early 2020 and is awaiting an assessment and response from the entity. Ángel's assessment was presented to FUNAI and the Secretary of State for the Environment (SEMAS) of Pará, the entities responsible for granting licenses for the project. The expert opinion joins two others presented as part of a joint effort by independent researchers whose work explicitly demonstrates the unfeasibility of the Belo Sun project as it is currently conceived. The previous opinions focused on the negative impacts of the project on the ichthyofauna, and on the fragility of the environmental impact studies submitted by Belo Sun from a geological point of view. In addition to the independent researchers, several organizations have denounced the social and environmental unfeasibility of the project, including the Xingu+ Network, the Xingu Alive Forever Movement, Amazon Watch, the Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA), International Rivers, Above Ground and AIDA. Contacts Marina Terra (Brazil), ISA, [email protected] Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107
Read more