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
Letter to Argentine legislators on dams in Patagonia
In a letter sent to the Argentine Congress, civil society organizations expressed their concerns about the construction of large dams in Patagonia. The letter outlines recent scientific studies on the impacts of large dams on the environment, the economy, and local communities, and includes information on existing clean energy alternatives. We write out of deep concern for the crossroads facing the Argentine people: protect the immeasurable ecological heritage of Patagonia, or jeopardize Chinese funding for a significant number of infrastructure and energy projects. We understand that this is not a minor issue, and we hope that the Argentine Congress will make use of the Public Hearing on July 20, not only to evaluate in depth the Kirchner-Cepernic Hydroelectric Complex (KCHC), but also to open up a fundamental conversation for Argentina and all of Latin America: on the development of a truly clean, sovereign, and efficient energy model. We take this opportunity to share information on the negative impacts large dams have on the environment and economies of nations, as well as on affected communities; and on existing alternatives that can provide cheaper and more efficient energy. Argentina must not consider itself obliged to alter one of the last pristine areas on the planet, home of the last glacial river that runs freely from mountain peaks to the ocean. There are currently many energy options that are better than hydroelectric dams. Argentina has the opportunity to be a pioneer in the development and implementation of these renewable energy technologies. Worldwide clean energy trends demonstrate this: in 2015, the world added 63 GW of wind energy and 47 GW of solar energy, compared to just 22 GW of energy from large hydropower plants. In some parts of the world, large dams are being dismantled in recognition that their costs outweigh their benefits; and in others, private companies are discarding large dam projects because they are no longer viable or profitable. Furthermore, the United States of America has decided, as a national policy, to oppose any loan, donation, strategy, or policy to support the construction of any large hydroelectric dam. Wind and solar energy are now economically competitive, faster to build and operate, and less vulnerable to a changing climate. In addition, the falling prices of battery storage, accompanied by innovations in smart grid technology, offers ways to resolve the problem of intermittent renewables without the need to construct new large dams. Large hydropower dams are an obsolete technology. They are highly vulnerable to climate change (they can be paralyzed by droughts and may become dangerous in extreme weather events); worsen climate change by destroying carbon sinks and emitting gases from their reservoirs; harm biodiversity and local communities; cost a fortune; and take too long to become operational. Furthermore, the continued promotion of large dams by construction companies—as in the current case linked to Chinese funding—delays the implementation of available and necessary solutions towards the energy transition that our planet needs.
Read more
Shark conservation is at risk in Costa Rica
In Costa Rica, it’s now up to the government to decide the future of endangered hammerhead sharks. If the government halted the export of all hammerhead shark products in the next year, it could stave off extinction of these amazing creatures. That’s the recommendation of Costa Rica’s Scientific Advisory Council for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The Convention is an international agreement to prevent trade from threatening the survival of wild animals and plants. Of the nearly 100 species of sharks and rays in Costa Rica, 15% are in danger of extinction due to overfishing and environmental destruction or degradation. Hammerhead sharks were listed as an endangered species in 2014 and have lost up to 90% of their population. In response, the Scientific Advisory Council recommended in April 2017 that Costa Rica should prohibit export of hammerhead products for at least one year, or until the country reduces hammerhead fishing and the health of the species improves. The role of the fishing industry Shortly after the Scientific Advisory Council made its recommendation, the Costa Rican government issued an executive decree. The Costa Rican Institute of Fishing and Aquaculture (Incopesca) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock were given authority over the export of products made from threatened or endangered sharks. However, both government agencies favor the fishing industry over marine conservation, according to Mario Espinoza Mendieta, researcher from the University of Costa Rica and member of the Convention’s scientific council. “This dynamic tips the balance in favor of the production sector,” Espinoza said. Incopesca’s Board of Directors represent various fishing interests across the country—a position that does not always align with the protection and sustainable use of marine resources, according to Espinoza. Recently, Incopesca was questioned because it failed to prosecute shrimping boats that were illegally fishing in protected waters. Shark commerce While exporting shark products is permitted within the regulations established by the Convention, shark finning—the practice of cutting fins and throwing the shark back into the ocean—is illegal in Costa Rica. Considered a delicacy in some Asian countries, shark fins are often valued at upwards of $100 per kilo. Last February, a Costa Rican court issued the first felony criminal sentence for shark finning against a Taiwanese businesswoman who was found in a port with illegally harvested shark fins. Using international law, AIDA and Conservation International worked with Costa Rica’s Public Prosecutor to help resolve the case. A responsible decision The governments of Colombia and Ecuador have developed campaigns to protect hammerhead sharks. But in Costa Rica, Incopesca is responsible for the future of the species and will hopefully take the Scientific Advisory Council’s recommendations into account. Because the hammerhead’s numbers are so low, it may only take one bad decision to cause their extinction. Other species, including the gray shark, are also at risk from the fishing industry. If Costa Rica wants to preserve its natural wealth for the future, it should set an example of preservation by putting principles of sustainability over economic gain.
Read more
Chilean chum: How eating salmon in the US hurts Patagonia’s coastal wildlife
After two years of vegetarianism, the Texan in me decided that an entirely plant-based diet was not going to work. The experience, however, taught me to consume meat ethically. Wherever possible, I now choose organic and sustainable “farm to table” meat and poultry. But when it comes to my favorite seafood—salmon— “farm to table” can take on a whole new meaning. Salmon is one of the most popular seafoods in the United States, and over a third of all salmon in the U.S. comes from Chilean salmon farms, which raise the carnivorous fish in off-shore enclosures along the Patagonian coast. Although salmon is healthy—it’s loaded with omega-3 fatty acids and B-vitamins—increased U.S. demand for salmon is having an unhealthy impact on Chile’s environment. These farms endanger delicate coastal ecosystems, contribute to oceanic pollution, and threaten marine life along the pristine Magallanes shoreline. Chile is the second largest global exporter of the fish, and salmon farming is one of the country’s largest industries. Today, that industry is growing. There are already over 100 salmon farms operating in the Magallanes and, as of March 2017, plans for 342 more were in the works. Driving this expansion is a booming worldwide salmon market. But even though the U.S. boasts a salmon industry of its own and wild-caught Alaskan salmon is considered some of the best in the world, U.S. consumers ate over 144,000 tons of farmed Chilean salmon in 2016, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A fishy situation While fish farms are one solution to the many problems associated with overfishing, Chile’s unregulated salmon industry has serious environmental side-effects. These salmon farms disrupt their environments because overpopulated waterways create anaerobic conditions that deprive the local wildlife of oxygen. Often treated with excessive amounts antibiotics and pesticides, uneaten salmon feed and salmon feces also pollute coastal seafloors and introduce chemicals into the environment. Because they are not native to the southern hemisphere, salmon that escape their pens can disrupt local food chains. Salmon also frequently die in their enclosures, and the decomposing fish raise levels of ammonia in the water. Although research is still underway, scientists speculate that higher concentrations of ammonia, along with El Niño weather patterns and warming oceans caused by climate change, may be responsible for Chile’s recent “red tides.” These toxic red algae blooms kill coastal wildlife by the millions, inundating Chilean shores with dead fish (including salmon), birds, and whales. To fight back against this destructive industry and the harmful impacts of globalized seafood trade, AIDA filed a claim with the Chilean government expressing concern that salmon farms are harming local ecosystems. “We want to improve the way things are being done by aiming for sustainable development that will not ruin the fragile ecological balance of the Patagonian seas,” AIDA attorney Florencia Ortúzar said. AIDA also recently began a petition asking that Chile investigate the damage caused by salmon farming in the Magallanes and sanction those responsible. You can sign the petition here. New migration routes Today, the U.S. salmon industry practices catch and release: it is known for producing high quality fish, yet 80 percent of Alaskan wild salmon is traded away. So why does the U.S. produce some of the world’s best salmon, but consume some of the world’s most environmentally harmful fish? The answer, in short, is globalization. Filleting and de-boning salmon is a process too delicate to mechanize as in other meat industries. Because labor is cheaper in Asia, U.S. salmon is shipped to processing plants in China, which then re-distribute the processed fish across the region. While some of that salmon makes it back across the Pacific, the U.S. market is flooded with cheaper farmed salmon from around the world. Now, Chile’s industry “is facing competition from Canada and Norway,” according to trade analysis group Datamyne. After expressing concerns over high levels of antibiotics in Chilean fish, U.S. retail giant Costco decided in 2015 to stock Norwegian salmon instead, further muddying the waters in the U.S. salmon trade. To make matters worse, a study by conservation nonprofit Oceana concluded that nearly 43% of “wild” salmon sold in the United States was misidentified. While it is difficult to tell whether farmed salmon is mislabeled as “wild” during trade or once it shows up on the menu, lax labeling laws in the U.S. make it difficult to tell exactly where that salmon steak came from. So for seafood lovers like me, there may be few good options for eating salmon sustainably, besides taking up fly fishing. But for the sake of protecting Chile’s coastal wildlife, maybe it’s time U.S. consumers make their voice heard. If we’re going to import salmon from Chile, we should at least demand the country regulate its farms to be more environmentally friendly. Maybe it’s also time the U.S. salmon industry started keeping its catch in its own boat. Sign the petition to protect Patagonia’s Magallanes coastline here.
Read more