Project
Protecting the health of La Oroya's residents from toxic pollution
For more than 20 years, residents of La Oroya have been seeking justice and reparations after a metallurgical complex caused heavy metal pollution in their community—in violation of their fundamental rights—and the government failed to take adequate measures to protect them.
On March 22, 2024, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its judgment in the case. It found Peru responsible and ordered it to adopt comprehensive reparation measures. This decision is a historic opportunity to restore the rights of the victims, as well as an important precedent for the protection of the right to a healthy environment in Latin America and for adequate state oversight of corporate activities.
Background
La Oroya is a small city in Peru’s central mountain range, in the department of Junín, about 176 km from Lima. It has a population of around 30,000 inhabitants.
There, in 1922, the U.S. company Cerro de Pasco Cooper Corporation installed the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex to process ore concentrates with high levels of lead, copper, zinc, silver and gold, as well as other contaminants such as sulfur, cadmium and arsenic.
The complex was nationalized in 1974 and operated by the State until 1997, when it was acquired by the US Doe Run Company through its subsidiary Doe Run Peru. In 2009, due to the company's financial crisis, the complex's operations were suspended.
Decades of damage to public health
The Peruvian State - due to the lack of adequate control systems, constant supervision, imposition of sanctions and adoption of immediate actions - has allowed the metallurgical complex to generate very high levels of contamination for decades that have seriously affected the health of residents of La Oroya for generations.
Those living in La Oroya have a higher risk or propensity to develop cancer due to historical exposure to heavy metals. While the health effects of toxic contamination are not immediately noticeable, they may be irreversible or become evident over the long term, affecting the population at various levels. Moreover, the impacts have been differentiated —and even more severe— among children, women and the elderly.
Most of the affected people presented lead levels higher than those recommended by the World Health Organization and, in some cases, higher levels of arsenic and cadmium; in addition to stress, anxiety, skin disorders, gastric problems, chronic headaches and respiratory or cardiac problems, among others.
The search for justice
Over time, several actions were brought at the national and international levels to obtain oversight of the metallurgical complex and its impacts, as well as to obtain redress for the violation of the rights of affected people.
AIDA became involved with La Oroya in 1997 and, since then, we’ve employed various strategies to protect public health, the environment and the rights of its inhabitants.
In 2002, our publication La Oroya Cannot Wait helped to make La Oroya's situation visible internationally and demand remedial measures.
That same year, a group of residents of La Oroya filed an enforcement action against the Ministry of Health and the General Directorate of Environmental Health to protect their rights and those of the rest of the population.
In 2006, they obtained a partially favorable decision from the Constitutional Court that ordered protective measures. However, after more than 14 years, no measures were taken to implement the ruling and the highest court did not take action to enforce it.
Given the lack of effective responses at the national level, AIDA —together with an international coalition of organizations— took the case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and in November 2005 requested measures to protect the right to life, personal integrity and health of the people affected. In 2006, we filed a complaint with the IACHR against the Peruvian State for the violation of the human rights of La Oroya residents.
In 2007, in response to the petition, the IACHR granted protection measures to 65 people from La Oroya and in 2016 extended them to another 15.
Current Situation
To date, the protection measures granted by the IACHR are still in effect. Although the State has issued some decisions to somewhat control the company and the levels of contamination in the area, these have not been effective in protecting the rights of the population or in urgently implementing the necessary actions in La Oroya.
Although the levels of lead and other heavy metals in the blood have decreased since the suspension of operations at the complex, this does not imply that the effects of the contamination have disappeared because the metals remain in other parts of the body and their impacts can appear over the years. The State has not carried out a comprehensive diagnosis and follow-up of the people who were highly exposed to heavy metals at La Oroya. There is also a lack of an epidemiological and blood study on children to show the current state of contamination of the population and its comparison with the studies carried out between 1999 and 2005.
The case before the Inter-American Court
As for the international complaint, in October 2021 —15 years after the process began— the IACHR adopted a decision on the merits of the case and submitted it to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, after establishing the international responsibility of the Peruvian State in the violation of human rights of residents of La Oroya.
The Court heard the case at a public hearing in October 2022. More than a year later, on March 22, 2024, the international court issued its judgment. In its ruling, the first of its kind, it held Peru responsible for violating the rights of the residents of La Oroya and ordered the government to adopt comprehensive reparation measures, including environmental remediation, reduction and mitigation of polluting emissions, air quality monitoring, free and specialized medical care, compensation, and a resettlement plan for the affected people.
Partners:
Related projects
Women, water and life: the vital connection
As a woman and an environmental defender, I find it necessary to commemorate the role of women in the protection of our natural heritage. I feel a special pull toward making visible the links between environmental defense, courage, and gender. Women are the first victims of environmental deterioration, but they’re also the greatest protagonists in the defense and conservation of nature. Although it may seem like women and the environment are two different topics, there are subtle—but strong—links between the two, particularly when it comes to water. Women have an important relationship with water—they are both sources of life and fundamental to existence. It’s not surprising, then, that women can often be seen leading struggles in defense of water, especially within indigenous and rural populations. Joan Martínez Alier, professor of economics at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and an expert in political ecology, explained to Agencia EFE that often, socio-environmental conflicts involving mining or the privatization of water directly affect the survival of communities and, for that reason, women act in defense of water as they would in defense of their land or their family: bravely and completely. Little is known, however, about the knowledge and experience of women in water management. In many cases, especially in the Global South, the administration of water resources, as well as the elaboration and implementation of related policies, doesn’t take into account gender roles and lacks a differentiated approach. In rural Colombia, for example, women bring water to their homes from rivers or springs, boil it for use in the kitchen, and care for it. Despite their central role, they are not consulted when decisions are made locally or nationally about the water supply. It’s necessary to bring visibility to the role women play in water management, give equal recognition to the interests of men and women, and promote equal access to decision-making spaces. Only in that way can we advance towards greater equality. It’s important to remember that Latin America is one of the most dangerous regions in the world to be an environmental defender, and more dangerous still for women. Many women, who fight silently from their communities or from their leadership roles, have suffered the violence and injustice that comes with defending what is theirs. I must take a moment now to remember and honor Berta Cáceres, the indigenous activist and leader of the Civil Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), who dedicated her life to the defense of the Gualcarque River. Berta was murdered in March 2016, after years of threats stemming from her opposition of the Agua Zarca Dam. She may be gone, but her spirit, and her commitment to justice, is still very much alive. I’d also like to mention my colleagues, courageous friends, and allies who through their struggles are shaping a more just and equitable world. They believe, with all their hearts, that gender justice comes hand-in-hand with environmental justice. In our current reality, equality, more than a starting point, is a goal we must work towards. Concrete actions are needed to counterbalance the discrimination that affects us all. That’s why it is fundamental to incorporate the gender approach in any plan, program, project or mechanism of public administration. As the World Bank mentions in a 2002 report, the way to ensure both men and women benefit more equitably from policies is to make their needs and experiences an integral part of them. Life depends on women, as it does on water. That’s why we proudly act as stubborn defenders of not just water, but of all natural resources and of those who depend on them. Although not always visible, our struggle is as present as the water that travels in so many ways across our planet. It’s important that we come together in support of one another—in our victories and our defeats. May we continue sharing our fears and our fights and, above all else, may we never abandon the defense of our territory—because it defines us and to it we owe everything. I’ve always thought that water has the face of a woman. Every day now, I see it more clearly.
Read more
Inter-American Court establishes historic precedent for the protection of human rights in the Americas
In response to a consultation made by Colombia, the Court recognized the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human existence. They also recognized the impact of climate change on human rights. At AIDA we celebrate this decision, which strengthens the obligations of States to protect the natural environment and those who depend on it. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights established a historic precedent for the protection of the people of the Americas in its response (Advisory Opinion) to Colombia’s consultation on the scope of States’ obligations to protect human rights from damages to the marine environment in the Greater Caribbean region. “We celebrate this decision, which will undoubtedly serve as a global example and a fundamental legal tool for those of us who work for environmental and climate justice,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-executive director of AIDA. “It will also serve as an impetus for the States of the region to protect key ecosystems, such as the Guarani Aquifer, the Andes, the Amazon, the Pacific and the Greater Caribbean region.” The Court concluded that a healthy environment is an autonomous right, “fundamental to the existence of humanity,” in the first time they have developed the subject. It also recognized the impact of climate change on the effective enjoyment of human rights, particularly for the most vulnerable populations, such as indigenous peoples, children, and those living in extreme poverty. With this decision, taken in November and made public yesterday, the Court welcomed and enhanced similar recognition by organisms of the United Nations and regional courts. The Court established that the obligation of States to respect the rights to life and personal integrity, in relation to environmental protection, implies that they must: Avoid causing “significant” environmental damage in and outside their territory, for which they must regulate, supervise and monitor activities that could cause harm. Assure, among other things, the realization of effective and independent environmental impact studies, as well as mitigation and contingency plans for potential damages. Cooperate with other States and provide them with information regarding risks to their natural environment. Apply the precautionary principle to protect the rights to life and personal integrity due to serious and irrevocable environmental degradation, even when scientific uncertainty exists. Guarantee the rights to public participation, access to information related to potential environmental harms, and access to justice in decision-making that could affect the environment. In January of 2017, AIDA presented observations on Colombia’s consultation and, in March of that year, participated in a hearing before the Inter-American Court. We argued that the implementation of large infrastructure projects in the Greater Caribbean and other areas could affect the environment to such a point that they could put at risk the life and personal integrity, among other human rights, of the people living there. “The Court has taken an important step towards the protection of the oceans and other key ecosystems by incorporating international commitments to environmental protection as part of the obligation of States to protect human rights,” said Gladys Martínez, senior attorney of AIDA’s Marine Program. Consult and download a summary of the Court decision here. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla,+521 5570522107, [email protected]
Read more
Organizations alert authorities of threats to Puerto Morelos Reef
Mexico’s Puerto Morelos Reef National Park, a national protected area and Wetland of International Importance, is at risk due to massive and unsustainable tourism activities. Civil society organizations solicited a visit of international experts from the Ramsar Convention to evaluate the risks facing the site. A coalition of local, national and international organizations presented an urgent alert before the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty on wetlands, warning of the threats facing Mexico’s Puerto Morelos Reef National Park due to massive and unsustainable tourism. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)—with the support of the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), Voces Unidas for Puerto Morelos, the Puerto Morelos House of Culture, Flora and Fauna of Mexico, and the Center for Innovation and Investigation for Sustainable Development— solicited a visit of international experts to evaluate the risks. "Because some of the area’s tourism projects were not subjected to a rigorous environmental impact assessment, they have transformed the coastal territory, degrading and contaminating ecosystems, particularly coral reefs and mangroves," explained Sandra Moguel, regional director of CEMDA’s Southeast office. The National Park was created as a natural protected area in 1998 and was registered in 2004 as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention. It is a unique site due to its high biodiversity—its coral reefs provide habitat for fish, sharks, pink snails and sea turtles, while its mangroves harbor crocodiles and herons. In addition, like other wetlands, it helps prevent coastal erosion and provides breeding and feeding grounds for the area’s fish. "The site’s ecological and scenic beauty attracts tourism projects which, because they’re not properly evaluated, promote the irrational use of natural resources," said Camilo Thompson, AIDA marine attorney. "A Ramsar mission is urgently needed to evaluate the damages, propose compensation, issue recommendations on the growth of tourism and real estate, and identify alternatives to ensure the rational use of the park’s ecosystems." The Puerto Morelos Reef forms part of the Mesoamerican Reef System, considered the second largest barrier reef in the world. "Any activity carried out in the reef requires a strategic environmental assessment that considers the cumulative and synergistic impacts on the coastal wetlands, sea grasses and reefs of Puerto Morelos," Thompson added. "The Mexican State must apply the precautionary principal and ecosystem approach to confront the threats to the biodiversity of this unique site." Download the alert presented before the Ramsar Convention (in Spanish). Press Contacts: Camilo Thompson, AIDA Attorney, +521 9671302346, [email protected] Ricardo Ruiz, CEMDA, + 55 5211 2457, [email protected]
Read more