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
Authorization of port expansion violates Mexico's international commitments
Mexico’s approval of the Port of Veracruz expansion project violates the nation’s international environmental and human rights commitments. To highlight this conflict, AIDA filed an amicus brief supporting residents of Veracruz in their attempt to protect the Veracruz Reef System, currently threatened by the port’s expansion. Veracruz, Mexico. In support of an amparo filed by local residents against the expansion of the Port of Veracruz, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) filed an amicus brief before Mexico’s Fifth Circuit Court with detailed information on international standards and treaties to which Mexico is party, and which the government violated upon authorizing the project. “By putting at risk the Veracruz Reef System—the largest in the Gulf of Mexico, whose protection is a matter of public interest—the government also threatens the right to a healthy environment of the people who depend on it,” explained Camilo Thompson, AIDA attorney. “The expansion project was authorized without an adequate evaluation of the impacts it would have.” Mexico granted the project’s environmental permit on November 21, 2013. Just a year earlier, it had reduced the area of the reef system, changing its boundaries to make the project viable. At the time of authorization, adequate scientific information was not available to understand how to avoid damaging the reefs and protect the services they provide to the people of Veracruz. Among their many benefits, the reefs provide income to coastal residents through fishing and tourism, and they act as a natural barrier against storms and hurricanes. Upholding these ecosystem services, local residents, advised by the Mexican Center for Environmental Law, filed an amparo against the project’s authorization, which was admitted by the court in March 2017. In their supporting brief, AIDA argues that, in authorizing the project, the government breached international obligations to protect its natural environment and the people that depend on it. Many of those obligations are outlined in treaties to which Mexico is party, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the American Convention on Human Rights. The Veracruz Reef System is a Natural Protected Area nationally, and is listed as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention. It serves as a refuge for many marine animals, among them endangered species of sea turtles. “The reefs of Veracruz contain a rich natural wealth that must be protected,” Thompson said. “The expansion project would destroy part of that habitat and lead to the loss of a great amount of biological diversity. It also could lead to stranded vessels, contaminating spills, and the loss of fishing resources that sustain the local economy.” Press contact: Camilo Thompson, AIDA attorney, +521 9671302346, [email protected]
Read more
Brazil and the example that should be followed
In an apparent turnaround, the Brazilian government has signaled an end to the construction of large dams in the Amazon. If materialized, it will be a step worthy of imitation. Then the region, and the world, can move towards truly sustainable energy generation that respects the environment and human rights. 2018 began with encouraging news for the energy sector, and for rivers and human rights in Latin America. A senior official with the Brazilian government signaled, in an interview with the newspaper O Globo, the beginning of the end of large dams in the Amazon nation. That statement is backed up by the notable absence of several of these projects in Brazil’s new Ten-Year Plan for Energy Expansion. The about-face is particularly significant since Brazil is a world leader in the construction of large hydroelectric projects, which until a few months ago were relied on to meet the nation’s rising energy demands. Between corruption and lack of financing The decision is a response to various factors, including the social conflicts and environmental impacts that large dams have caused in the Amazon, and major opposition from indigenous communities and civil society organizations. In addition, these projects have involved high costs from the start and, as Edvaldo Santana, former director of the National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL) told O Globo, they “end up costing much more, despite the licenses.” Large dams have also been at the center of the largest corruption scandal in the history of Brazil, uncovered by the Lava Jato investigation, which went beyond borders to involve politicians and businessmen from 11 Latin American nations. The evidence gathered then prompted the initiation of Leviathan, a special investigation into the Belo Monte Dam due to the signs of high payments of bribes related to its construction. All of the above is in addition to the requirements for environment licenses with which several projects have failed to comply. This is the case of Belo Monte, whose license has been suspended for months, and of the Tapajós Dam, who license was denied last year. On the other hand, the Brazilian government announced the privatization of Electrobras, a public company with a fundamental role in the construction of these large infrastructure projects. With this and the economic crisis that has affected the ability of the Brazilian National Bank for Economic Development (BNDES) to support these mega-projects, the large dams have lost their primary sources of funding. Therefore—and in the face of technological advances and clean energy alternatives—Brazil is beginning to leave behind large dams and take and important step towards truly sustainable energy, and development that respects human rights. This advance could have an important impact on the entire American continent. It could begin a wave of change toward a more modern energy matrix, further removed from the increasingly obsolete large dams. A necessary change In the Amazon basin alone, more than 275 new large dams are planned, the majority in the Andean region. And hundreds more are lined up in Central America and Mexico. To echo Brazil’s announcement, these initiatives could incorporate adequate and comprehensive energy planning with serious cost and risk assessments. In these terms, Pablo Pedrosa, Executive Secretary of Brazil’s Ministry of Mines and Energy, told O Globo, “We are not willing to make moves to disguise the costs and the risks.” Even global entities such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC), part of the World Bank Group, have experienced first-hand the financial, reputational and socio-environmental costs of inadequately evaluating large dam projects. In 2012, the IFC, through the Latin American Fund for Renewable Infrastructure, provided $15 million USD to fund the Santa Rita Dam, which was to be built on the Ictobay River in Alta Verapaz, Guatemala. At the end of last year, the entity’s accountability mechanism concluded that the investment had breached the IFC’s operational policies. The project had failed to comply with the affected community’s right to free, prior and informed consent. Although IFC management denied the findings of its accountability mechanism, the project has been suspended since 2013 and the indigenous communities of the area maintain their opposition to it. Brazil’s recent decision reinforces the global trend of moving away from large dams. Over the last several years in the United States, large dams have been removed to rescue rivers and the benefits they provide, like wild salmon runs on the Snake River in Washington State. Given this good start to the year, it will be essential to ensure the effective implementation of Brazil’s decision. And, following that example, perhaps other Andean-Amazonian countries will also move towards modernity, consider the real costs of large dams, and begin to promote better, cheaper energy alternatives that don’t sacrifice natural ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.
Read more
Salmon farms in Chilean Patagonia approved without adequate environmental evaluation
A study commissioned by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense found that more than half of the salmon farms currently operating in the Magallanes region of Southern Patagonia have generated a partial or total lack of oxygen in the water. Nine of those are located in naturally protected areas. Santiago, Chile. A recent study, commissioned by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), concluded that salmon farms located in the Magallanes region of southern Patagonia were authorized without the scientific assessments needed to ensure they would do no harm to marine life. “After twenty years of development in other regions, the salmon industry now seeks to expand to the country’s last virgin coasts, without the necessary precautions,” explained Gladys Martínez, senior attorney of AIDA’s Marine Program. “This study demonstrates that neither the companies nor that State have done enough to avoid in Magallanes the severe environmental damage already perpetuated in other regions of the country.” Chilean biologist Héctor Kol produced the report for AIDA, with the support of the Waitt Foundation, analyzing 261 salmon farm projects. Of them, a little less than half have already been authorized and the rest could receive their permits in the short- and medium-term. Of the 126 authorized projects, only 35 are currently in operation. The information produced on each project includes location maps and estimations of the amount of waste being discharged into the waters. The research shows that there are large differences in the quantity of waste that the government authorized for different subsectors of the same geographic areas, without any available explanation as to why. “This demonstrates a clear lack of scientific evaluation, necessary to guarantee the aquatic environment will be able to receive and process the authorized quantity of waste,” said Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney. “More than half of the projects that are currently in operation have already generated a total or partial lack of oxygen in the waters, which seriously impacts marine life. In addition, at least nine of these oxygen-depriving projects are located in natural protected areas.” On May 22, 2017, AIDA filed a complaint before the Superintendency of the Environment requesting the investigation of damages caused by salmon farms in Magallanes, and the sanctioning of the companies responsible. Consult the report here. Interactive Map of Salmon Farms here. More information on salmon farms in Patagonia is available here. Press contact: Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney, +56973353135, [email protected]
Read more