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
Geneva Conference must give clarity to climate finance
Negotiations for a new climate agreement, initiated last December during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 20) in Lima, Peru, will continue this week in Geneva, Switzerland. Delegates there will work on detailing the various elements to be included in the negotiating text of the new climate agreement, including climate finance. Climate finance is a key factor in enabling developing countries to confront climate change effectively. "We hope the Geneva session concludes with a negotiating text that provides clarity for predictable and sustainable financing," said Andrea Rodriguez, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "The agreement needs to establish with certainty the sources of finance, which institutions will mobilize and manage them, and how they will be disbursed, in order to ensure that these efforts contribute to low-emission, climate-resilient development in developing countries." The Conference in Peru ended with the Lima Call for Climate Action, a document whose annexes contain the essential elements for a draft negotiating text of the new climate agreement, which will be signed later this year at COP 21 in Paris. Delegates in Geneva are expected to intensify work on those key elements, and produce a negotiating text that will have legal force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Given the importance of the Geneva conference, AIDA is providing climate finance recommendations for negotiators to incorporate into the draft text of the new climate agreement: Clear provisions regarding who is required to mobilize resources. Clear goals beyond 2020 for a road map towards annual public financing targets. Scaling up of resources to ensure compliance with the existing commitment to mobilize $100 million by 2020, and to allow countries to plan their climate actions. Predictable, adequate and sufficient climate finance to promote the transition to low-carbon, climate-resilient development in developing countries. 50:50 balanced allocation of resources for adaptation and mitigation actions. Definitions of climate finance and climate investment. Clarity on which climate finance institutions will operate under the convention. Recognition of the Green Climate Fund as the primary channel to mobilize resources, without the exclusion of other funds. Strengthen the mandate of the Standing Committee of Finance to enhance coordination and coherence of work between different financial institutions.
Read more
5 Reasons to Donate to AIDA
We all must leave a legacy, my grandfather said. For him – beyond being loving husbands and wives, committed parents, responsible children, faithful friends and fulfilled workers – that means contributing something to the benefit of humankind. The wise words of my grandfather guide my professional life. In nine years of working with AIDA, I have had the great pleasure of seeing progress made on cases we’ve worked on throughout Latin America. These successes give me the energy to go the extra mile whenever necessary. Many times, however, I’ve felt the frustration of seeing so many people and places that need our help, and not having the financial or human resources to do so. If you agree that there is nothing more valuable than contributing to building a better world, and a more habitable place for future generations, then I have a suggestion for you: Please support AIDA’s work by making a donation! 5 Reasons to Support Our Work To enable you to make an informed decision, here are five reasons why supporting our work is an excellent idea: We are an international nonprofit organization with more than 15 years of experience in service to one fundamental mission: to use the law to protect the environment of the Americas, with a focus on Latin America. "Protecting our right to a healthy environment" is the motto that guides our actions. We are a group of Latin American attorneys who work with commitment. Our experience enables us to develop strategies before international bodies and organizations to ensure that the States comply with their environmental and human rights obligations. We work in partnership with national organizations, strengthening and complimenting their efforts. We firmly believe in public participation and capacity building to achieve greater impact and results over the long term. We share our knowledge with the partners and communities with whom we closely work. We take the great care when investing our funds. We work efficiently and effectively. We carefully select cases that will set a legal precedent and serve as an example for environmental defense in the countries of the region. Our work has a global impact, today and in the future. We work for the common good of all people: protecting vital resources like clean air and clean water. We consider our donors an integral part of our team. Without your contribution, it would not be possible for us to provide free legal assistance to communities fighting to defend their natural environment and protect their basic rights. With your support We will continue ensuring the protection of marine and coastal resources, the preservation of fresh water, effective responses to climate change, and the human right to a healthy environment. Helping us is simple and safe: You can do it right here! THANK YOU for believing in our work!
Read more
UN registered Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Dam temporarily suspended over non-compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment
Panama City, Panama and Geneva, Switzerland. In a landmark decision, Panama’s National Environmental Authority (ANAM) temporarily suspended the construction of the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam yesterday over non-compliance with its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The dam was approved by the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) despite risks of flooding to the territory of the indigenous Ngäbe Bugle communities. With delegates currently meeting in Geneva to draft negotiating text for a new global climate agreement, ANAM’s decision illustrates why the agreement must include human rights protections, including the rights of indigenous peoples. In Geneva, several nations have already insisted on the need for climate measures to respect, protect, promote, and fulfil human rights for all. "Panama has taken a critical first step toward protecting the rights of the Ngäbe communities, which have not been adequately consulted on the Barro Blanco CDM project. But much more work is needed," said Alyssa Johl, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). "As an urgent matter, Panama should recognize its obligations to protect human rights in climate actions, such as Barro Blanco, by supporting the call for human rights protections in the UN climate regime." Current climate mechanisms, such as the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, neither provide incentives for the sustainable implementation of climate actions nor offer recourse in the case of adverse impacts. "The CDM Board approved Barro Blanco when it was clear that the dam would flood the homes of numerous indigenous families. This decision is a warning signal that safeguards must be introduced to protect human rights, including robust stakeholder consultations and a grievance mechanism," said Eva Filzmoser, Director of Carbon Market Watch. ANAM’s decision was triggered by an administrative investigation that found non-compliance with the project’s environmental impact assessment, including shortcomings in the agreements with affected indigenous communities, deficiencies in negotiation processes, the absence of an archaeological management plan for the protection of petroglyphs and other archaeological findings, repeated failures to manage sedimentation and erosion, poor management of solid and hazardous waste, and logging without permission. The Environmental Advocacy Center of Panamá (CIAM) considers it appropriate for ANAM to have taken effective and immediate measures to suspend the project. "This suspension reflects inadequate environmental management on the part of the company that requires an investigation and an exemplary sanction". "During 15 years of opposition to the Barro Blanco project, we have exposed violations of our human rights and irregularities in the environmental proceedings. Those claims were never heard," said Weni Bagama from the Movimiento 10 de Abril (M-10). "Today we are satisfied to see that the national authorities have recognized them and have suspended the project, as a first step towards dialogue. Nevertheless, we continue to uphold the communities’ position that the cancelation of this project is the only way to protect our human rights and our territory. We hope that this sets an example for the international community and for other hydroelectric projects, not only in Panama but worldwide." "Any dialogue between the affected communities, the Government and the company has to be transparent, in good faith, respectful of the communities’ rights, and include guarantees so that the communities can participate equally and the agreements are fully respected," explained María José Veramendi Villa, Senior Attorney at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "In this dialogue, the State must take into account all human rights violations that have been denounced by the communities since the project was approved." Environmental groups around the world are celebrating the suspension of the Barro Blanco Dam, following years of efforts in support of the indigenous populations in the Ngäbe Bugle comarca, which have been faced with oppression and numerous rights violations. Eyes are now watching for the reactions of the banks involved in financing the Barro Blanco project, including the German development bank, DEG, and the Dutch development bank, FMO, against whom the M10 movement, which represents the indigenous communities, had filed a complaint. "We urge the banks to halt disbursement of any remaining funds until all problems are solved and the affected indigenous communities agree to the project," said Kathrin Petz of Urgewald.
Read more