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
International Environmental Law: History and milestones
International Environmental Law (IEL) is a discipline that involves the whole world in the protection of a common good: our environment. At AIDA, we apply it every day to help individuals and communities defend the environment and the fundamental human rights that depend on it. But where did this global discipline come from and how has it evolved? Its rules have not been dictated by a national institution or an international authority. Rather, it is a compendium of declarations, treaties and rules—some binding, some voluntary—that have developed alongside scientific knowledge and awareness of the current state of our natural world. The history of IEL can be divided into three stages, separated by two of the most relevant international conferences held so far: the Stockholm Conference (1972) and the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit (1992). And in 2016, with the signing of the Paris Agreement, a new stage began to confront humanity's most important natural challenge: the current climate emergency. The beginnings: Before Stockholm Before the 1960s, there was little environmental awareness and only a few isolated international environmental regulatory initiatives. One of these was the failed London Convention of 1900, which sought to protect African wildlife. It never came into force because it was not signed by the minimum number of parties. It was replaced 33 years later by the 1933 London Convention, which was implemented in much of colonized Africa through the creation of nature parks and species protection. During those years, other initiatives were carried out in isolation. But things really started to change in the 1960s, when public opinion became aware of the dangers threatening the planet. Some of the events that marked this era were the publication in 1962 of the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, which documented the negative effects of pesticides on birds and the environment; and the release of the image known as Earthrise, taken by astronaut William Anders in 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission. The Stockholm Declaration A product of the first UN Conference on the Human Environment, the Stockholm Declaration (1972) was the first international document to recognize the right to a healthy environment through 26 principles, many of which have played an important role in the subsequent development of IEL. Principle 21, for example, confirmed one of the cornerstones of IEL: the responsibility of States to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction do not cause damage to the environment of other States. The Declaration also established the Principle of Cooperation, which is crucial in the further development of IEL, by recognizing that countries should unite their efforts to meet the global challenges of our shared environment. Also in Stockholm, the UN General Assembly created the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the central body in charge of environmental affairs today. Between Stockholm and Rio After Stockholm, changes began to be seen in national governments: the first green political parties were formed, some Ministries of Environment were created, and a significant amount of local environmental legislation began to be developed. In 1983, the UN created the World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Commission. Its work, which focused on the difficult relationship between environment and development, resulted in the report Our Common Future (1987). That document coined the concept of sustainable development - defined as "meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" - which is the basis for the evolution of IEL. At this time, some of the global environmental problems that still afflict us today began to manifest themselves--including the depletion of the ozone layer, risks to biological diversity, and the threat of climate change. International cooperation was absolutely necessary and developed countries would have to help poorer countries if humanity was to be able to meet such challenges. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was signed to combat the depletion of the ozone layer. This international agreement has been an example of successful international cooperation.Because of it, it’s believed that the ozone layer could recover by 2050. The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro In 1992, during this Conference, two conventions were presented to be signed by national governments: the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Rio Declaration was also established, which reaffirmed the Stockholm Declaration and the Agenda 21 action program, which continues to guide governments and non-state actors in environmental protection activities. In Rio, in the face of growing evidence that human activities in pursuit of economic growth were responsible for major environmental threats, the central concept continued to be sustainable development. Two principles of the Rio Declaration deserve special consideration: the Precautionary Principle, the most advanced form of prevention and important to the formation of modern IEL; and Principle 10, which recognizes the right to information, participation, and justice in environmental matters. In 1998 Principle 10 gave rise to the Aarhus Convention, binding in Europe and Central Asia. The Aarhus Convention is the predecessor of the Escazú Agreement, which seeks recognition of these rights in Latin America. This recognition is also considered an important milestone in the creation of IEL because it shows the emergence of civil society as an increasingly important and active player in global environmental protection. After Rio and into the Future After Rio, all major economic treaties began to include environmental protection. A case in point is the Marrakech Agreement, which created the World Trade Organization in 1994 and was the first economic treaty to recognize the goals of sustainable development and environmental protection. The Convention on Climate Change of 1995 deserves special mention, since its signatories have met every year at the so-called Conference of the Parties (COP). Within this framework, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was presented. Despite not having been successful in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, it was the first international agreement to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries. In 2000, 189 countries adopted the Millennium Declaration in New York, which strengthened the importance of sustainable development by recognizing the need for sustainable economic growth with a focus on the poor and respect for human rights. Two years later, in 2002, representatives from 190 countries attended the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg to follow up on the commitments of the Rio Summit. On that occasion, they adopted the Declaration on Sustainable Development, which focused on development and poverty eradication with a legal-economic approach on "public-private partnerships”. And in 2012, the UN organized the third Conference on Sustainable Development, known as Rio + 20, which brought together 192 Member States, private sector companies, NGOs, and other organizations. The result was a non-binding document called The Future We Want. In the document, States renewed their commitment to sustainable development and the promotion of a sustainable future. Modern Times The Kyoto Protocol to address climate change gave way to the Paris Agreement (2016). In this agreement, the signatory countries committed themselves to doing everything possible to prevent the average temperature of the planet from rising by 2°C, compared to pre-industrial levels, and hopefully staying below a 1.5°C rise. The relationship between human rights and climate change was recognized in its preamble. Having been ratified by almost all countries in the world, it has immense potential as an instrument of international law. In fact, recently the first ruling that prevented a project (the expansion of an airport) was made in England, on the grounds that by proceeding the country would not be complying with the Paris Agreement. A contemporary landmark of great relevance, especially for Latin America, is Advisory Opinion 23 (2017) on the environment and human rights of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In it, the Court recognized for the first time the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human existence, as well as the impacts of environmental degradation and climate change on human rights. Finally, it is worth mentioning the current construction of an international legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. In recognition of the crucial role that the ocean plays in the health of the planet and especially in the stability of the climate, safeguarding the vast and mysterious areas in the high seas seems to be absolutely necessary. Conclusion: Where do we stand? After reviewing the most important milestones related to global efforts to address the serious environmental crisis we are experiencing, it is inevitable that we will be plunged into deep concern. Global initiatives have not succeeded in motivating the change of direction we need for our planet to begin to regain its health. As it stands, no one can ensure that future generations will be able to meet their needs as past and present generations have done. Despite the disappointments, it is important to continue promoting global initiatives where common policies are discussed and where IEL takes shape. Although these initiatives have not yet been able to stop the environmental crisis, they have strengthened IEL as an instrument to defend our causes, something that we make the most of at AIDA. Likewise, world conferences often become platforms for large-scale protests and awareness-raising campaigns directed by global civil society, which has become increasingly alert and determined to defend our environment. Today, much of the hope for change lies in the strength of civil society, especially in the young people who have awakened and come to the defense of the planet. This force finds in IEL a point of support to demand what we need: a resounding change in the model of development that still guides the affairs of the planet, and which is causing so much damage.
Read more
Sharks in Colombia: The risks of weak regulation
Sharks have inhabited the planet for more than 400 million years, one of the oldest and most diverse classes of animals. They’re considered apex predators because they’re at the top of the oceanic food chain. Due to their position, sharks play a fundamental role in marine ecosystems: controlling populations of fish, marine mammals, and some invertebrates. Their contribution, however, has been eclipsed by bad publicity. Sharks have been stigmatized as frightening beasts that are perpetually prepared to attack humans with their razor-sharp teeth. This reputation went viral due to Steven Spielberg’s 1975 classic film, Jaws. Scientific experts say that these types of films inspired dozens of tournaments in which sharks were fished mercilessly, and indiscriminate fishing has diminished the numbers of most species of sharks. According to an article by the magazine Marine Policy, more than 100 million sharks are killed each year. And 17 of the 39 pelagic shark species are threatened with extinction, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Of the 400 that exist worldwide, Colombia is home 76 species of sharks, which are distributed through 18 families in the Caribbean (57) and the Pacific Ocean (36). These statistics rank Colombia as the third most diverse country in terms of sharks in Latin America, after Mexico and Brazil. Many of these species, however, are considered vulnerable or at risk of extinction on the Red List of Marine Fishes. Colombian regulations allow small-scale artisanal shark fishing by communities on both coasts, but prohibit industrial scale shark fishing. The reality on the water, however, is that weak enforcement fails to adequately protect these magnificent creatures within Colombia’s boundaries. An ineffective tool Since 1990, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has produced annual resolutions regulating artisanal shark fishing. The resolution passed this year—known as Resolution 350 and published on October 25, 2019—was widely rejected by environmental and citizens groups across the country. One of the main reasons for this rejection is that the resolution maintains high fishing quotas (quantity of tons allowed) that date from 2011 and include vulnerable or at-risk species. Establishing quotas without scientific evidence on the current state of shark populations encourages overfishing and does not contribute to the conservation of these animals. Sharks have long gestation periods and give birth to few young, making it difficult for their populations to rebound in the face of overexploitation. Furthermore, Resolution 350 establishes a specific quota for shark fins, despite the fact that a prior resolution (Resolution 1743 from 2017) specifically prohibited the practice of fishing for shark fins in Colombia. Thus the new resolution could be misinterpreted and lead to an increase in the illegal market for shark fins in the country. Not only is harvesting fins illegal but it is also a cruel practice that involves cutting the fins off of a captured shark and throwing the still-living animal back into the sea. To meet the quota for shark fins without resorting to the illegal practice, it would be necessary to catch approximately 110,000 sharks. Although not eaten in Colombia, shark fins are highly prized on the international market, particularly in Asian countries. Between 2012 and 2016, more than 800 tons of shark fins were illegally exported from Colombia to Taiwan, China and Hong Kong, according to Fundación MarViva. Fishermen are able to sell sharks to the Asian market without breaking any law by claiming them as bycatch, experts at Colombia’s Fundación Malpelo have pointed out. Towards Effective Protection Colombia has many international obligations to conserve its biodiversity, of which sharks are a part. Some of these are the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region. The National Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks highlights the responsibility to sustainably manage Colombia’s marine resources, prioritizing the management and conservation of various species. The government must act accordingly. Thanks to recent popular action, Resolution 350 will be modified to eliminate the term “shark fin” and therefore avoid its exploitation. Nevertheless, the Resolution contains other loopholes and weaknesses that must be corrected. It fundamentally important that scientific studies be taken into consideration during the creation of future resolutions. This will allow for fishing, as it is currently practiced, to become a truly sustainable practice. Also, where scientific data is lacking, it is essential that decisions be based on the Precautionary Principle, so as to avoid causing irreversible harm to species and ecosystems. The effective protection of sharks in Colombia requires more than legal measures. It’s also necessary to educate the people about the importance of protecting shark populations and maintaining the health of marine ecosystems, and to share with local communities fishing methods and management strategies that support sustainable fisheries. Sharks are key to the health of our oceans, and the debate brought about by th fishing regulations creates an opportunity to rethink and improve our decisions.
Read more