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
Mexico has an opportunity to protect its environment
By Sandra Moguel, AIDA attorney, @sandra_moguel The pirinola is a traditional Mexican die with six flat sides, each of which carries an instruction, used in various countries in Latin America to play games and make bets. After being spun, the pirinola stops on one of its sides and shows the player what he must do with the chips he has: GIVE 1, GIVE 2, TAKE 1, TAKE 2, GIVE ALL, TAKE ALL. As a country, Mexico goes through moments of collective despondency, when all seems lost. But it isn't. As in a game with the pirinola, there is always hope with another spin. In terms of the protection of its environment, Mexico still has an opportunity to correctly decide the fate of their natural heritage and to pursue sustainable development. GIVE ALL: The Uncomfortable Story of Paraíso del Mar Paraíso del Mar is a tourism project on the barrier sand bar known as El Mogote, in the Bay of La Paz, Baja California Sur. Project developers have proposed construction of a major resort with 2,050 hotel rooms, 4,000 homes, golf courses, and a marina. In early 2013, a Mexican court ruled definitively that the environmental permit the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) had authorized for the project was illegal. The ruling held that SEMARNAT did not enforce environmental laws requiring evaluation of the environmental impact of Paraíso del Mar. However, before the ruling, some parts of the project had already been constructed. As a result, mangroves in the area have disappeared almost entirely, and the scenery and coastline have been modified. With an authorization of environmental impact that is both irresponsible and illegal, everyone loses: Just think of the destruction that happened when Hurricane Odile hit Los Cabos last year. Aspects of climate change and extreme weather events should also be considered when evaluating tourism projects in this region. In this case, they were not. Who will compensate the businesses that have invested in the project? Who will repair the damages? Who will restore the landscape? Society as a whole has been affected. An Environmental Impact Assessment reviews the effects of human activities on the environment. Its objective is to identify whether the effects on ecosystems can be mitigated or compensated for. Unfortunately, the laws that regulate the manner in which the environmental authority performs these assessments seem like a pretense, and assessment becomes a mere formality, which ends up harming both society and the biodiversity zones. TAKE 1: Contributing to a Solution The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and our partner organization Earthjustice, representing organizations from civil society, have presented a citizen submission to the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The Commission is an international organization created under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, formed between Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Our petition asks the Commission to open an investigation into the authorizations of Paraíso del Mar and other similar projects in the Gulf of California. The petition states that the Mexican government failed to enforce its environmental laws when it didn’t assess the environmental impact of projects in coastal wetlands of the Gulf. The CEC Secretariat recommended the development of a factual record (a detailed investigation) last September. GIVE 2: The Decision Depends on at Least Two Governments In the coming days, at least two of the three environment ministers of the United States, Canada, and Mexico must vote in favor of carrying out such an investigation. This vote is an opportunity to promote transparency and public participation in environmental issues. It’s the perfect occasion for the Mexican government to establish credibility, trust, and the opportunity for dialogue that citizens are clamoring for. A factual record does not contain a rating on the arguments of the petitioners, nor does it contain recommendations from the Commission to resolve the problem. It is, rather, a detailed examination that becomes a source of feedback for SEMARNAT about the concerns of civil society. It is noteworthy that of the 41 citizen petitions that have been filed against Mexico with the Commission, 19 have to do with the Environmental Impact Assessment. This means that citizens are questioning the discretion with which this tool is used, and how the environmental impacts of these projects are being determined. TAKE ALL: What Can We Conclude? Echoing the observation of Paola Zavala, social movements must be accompanied by an agenda of specific needs that are shared by members of civil society. More than a chance to scream and let off steam in the streets, such movements are forums for constructive citizen participation. In the case of the Gulf of California, the petitioners, supported by civil society organizations and academics, demand that SEMARNAT implement environmental laws. It should approve projects based on the best available descriptions of work to be completed, which outline the total cumulative and residual impacts of the project. Such projects should in no way violate international treaties or norms on threatened species or on the protection of the mangroves. The factual record is not a panacea for Mexico’s environmental woes. But if it generates awareness and an agenda for dialogue between public officials, business people, and civil society about the importance of the Environmental Impact Assessment, it will be a major step on the road to decision-making that guarantees sustainable development in Mexico.
Read more
CONSISTENCY: The Most Urgent Action Against Climate Change
By Astrid Puentes Riaño, Co-Executive Director, AIDA, @astridpuentes This post is also pubpshed at IntLawGrrls During the first two weeks of December, world leaders will lay the foundation for a new global agreement on cpmate change at the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP20) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Cpmate Change in pma, Peru. Its focus will be creating a draft agreement that, at next year’s COP in Paris, will replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This time, as stated by Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Peru’s Environment Minister and next President of the Conference, "the world will not accept another failure." Not without reason. Each year we are both witnesses to and victims of the worsening impacts of cpmate change. And our role in the problem is conspicuous: "Human influence on the cpmate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history," the Intergovernmental Panel on Cpmate Change concluded in their fifth report. With COP20 nearing and recognition of the problem growing, world leaders are increasingly giving speeches, promising action and making hopeful commitments. One recent example is the unprecedented agreement between China and the United States, which estabpshed pmits and objectives for the reduction of emissions. In Latin America we, too, have taken effective steps to confront the greatest threat to the human race. Despite this progress, however, there remain in practice many popcies that both created the problem and make it worse. In particular, the repance of our economies on fossil fuels, which generate 57 percent of the global emissions of carbon dioxide. In the search for alternatives, we have boosted hydroelectric power from large dams. But dams are not clean energy. They generate significant amounts of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, particularly in tropical regions. These and the other negative impacts of dams are often ignored, resulting in rudimentary solutions to cpmate change. Consistency, then, becomes critical. What follows are examples of the lack of it in our own countries. Let’s take them into account as an effort to make adjustments, apgn objectives, and not erase with one hand what was written by the other: Brazil is a key player in the region, and has demonstrated its will to achieve positive results on cpmate change. Proof of this is the historic decpne of deforestation in the country, 79 percent in the last decade, as announced by Brazil’s President at the Cpmate Summit. However, Brazil continues to focus its development on fossil fuels, mining and large dams, particularly in the Amazon Basin. Under the influence of Brazil, 254 new dams are either under construction or in planning phases in the Amazon Basin, including the massive Belo Monte Dam on the Xingú River. Chile has made positive signs by deciding, for example, that it would not allow the HidroAysén dams in Patagonia. The country recently presented its Mitigation Action Plans & Scenarios (MAPS Chile) to combat cpmate change, with an emphasis on energy efficiency in high-emitter sectors such as mining. However, it also estabpshed as a priority the implementation of large dams, actually the same dams in Aysen, and the import or exploitation of shale gas in the Magallanes basin. The extraction of shale gas is done by fracking, a major source of CO2 and methane. Ecuador recognized the Rights of Nature in its Constitution in 2008 and created the Ministry of Good pving in 2013, promoting the “respect of all beings of Nature” and sustainable development. At the same time, the country continued to base its economy on the exploitation of fossil fuels without considering low-carbon alternatives, in the short or long term. The decision to start extracting oil in Yasuni National Park, where indigenous communities pve in voluntary isolation, is inconsistent with the Constitution, and with cpmate change required actions. Mexico has been a leader in global negotiations on cpmate change. The country has shown a wilpngness to implement adequate popcy measures, legal frameworks and financial instruments. Earper this year Mexico was a pioneer in committing financial contributions to the Green Cpmate Fund, setting an example for the many countries with greater cpmate responsibipties that have not yet announced their commitments. However, Mexico is also pushing energy reform that prioritizes hydrocarbon extraction, undermining progress on cpmate popcy. This "reform" is locking the country into continued dependence on fossil fuels. Peru, host of COP20, also must resolve huge popcy inconsistencies. The country’s leadership in cpmate negotiations has been remarkable, as have its internal efforts to promote adaptation to cpmate change by incorporating traditional knowledge. But still, lack of consistency between talk and action has resulted in widespread promotion of mining and hydroelectric activities. These decisions have been made without considering environmental impacts or clean alternatives. Bopvia, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, Argentina and the rest of the countries of the region are not exempt from the massive inconsistencies that compromise the effectiveness of the cpmate actions they champion. It’s worth noting that the development of mining, hydropower and fracking on the continent contribute gravely to the effects of cpmate change. The need for development in the region, and a single country’s relatively smaller contribution to global emissions, are not excuses. There exist opportunities for economic development and energy production that could be more efficient than continued dependence on fossil fuels. Cpmate change is a global issue that can’t be solved with patches here and there. Cpmate change affects the planet, and Latin America is one of the most vulnerable regions. But as long as the popcies and actions of the States do not consider cpmate change a central issue, we will continue moving forward one step and backwards three. It is our responsibipty and in our interest to act consistently. We must apgn our talk with our actions to accomppsh quick and effective steps to combat cpmate change. The time is NOW!
Read moreOrganizations asked that the IACHR urge the Colombian State to comply with international obligations, to declare a moratorium on mining and energy projects, and establish a Working Group between authorities and the affected communities
They also asked that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) urge the State to adequately attend to the victims of the forced displacement caused by the “development” projects, and to begin a dialogue between the victims and the authorities seeking effective solutions to the problem. Washington, D.C., USA – In a hearing last Monday before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), in its 153rd Period of Sessions, organizations and social movements requested that the international body urge the Colombian State to recognize that forced displacement caused by the implementation of "development" projects is a human rights violation that must be prevented. They also asked that the Commission verify this grave situation with a visit to the affected areas. The organizations expressed their deep concern for the dangerous situation in which people and communities are placed as they defend their land and their environment. The resistance to megaprojects has resulted in the murder of 13 people, the disappearance of one, and threats against 25 people who defend the country’s rivers. The violence has included the recent assassination of a Nasa indigenous community leader, opposed to the Colosa mine, and a serious threat against the indigenous governor of Córdoba. The participants presented concrete cases in which the megaprojects have destroyed territories, ecosystems and ancient cultures, causing irreparable damage and leading to the forced displacement of populations. The participants presented before the IACHR three main factors that have been driving the forced displacement: 1.The close relationship between the armed conflict and the implementation of megaprojects; 2. The deregulation and violation of laws in the authorization and implementation of projects; and 3. The direct impacts from the implementation of the megaprojects. They pointed out that sociopolitical violence has enabled the implementation of mining and hydroelectric projects, causing the exodus of people from their lands and the appropriation of those lands by corporations. "The paramilitary leader Salvatore Mancuso recognized that three-thousand people from the region of Córdoba were displaced to make way for the megaprojects, because the companies needed the land for the construction of dams," the participants stated. They also indicated that the implementation of megaprojects in Colombia precludes the processes of truth, justice, and reparation, let alone any guarantees to the victims of armed conflict and development that these wrongs will not be repeated. Additionally, the participants pointed out that the State is making arbitrary use of legal instruments, such as the declaration of public utility, to clear the way for these projects, without considering their impact on human rights and the environment. The State is championing the principle of public interest, which, in practice, has been converted into a mechanism for expropriation or legal dispossession, and, as a consequence, has been the cause of the displacement. The megaprojects are having a grave impact on the ancient territories and cultures, causing irreparable damage, such as environmental contamination, that is resulting in the forced displacement of entire populations. These causes, which have created at least 200,000 victims of forced displacement, are the basis of the organizations’ request that a moratorium on mining and hydroelectric projects be instituted in Colombia as the only guarantee for the protection of further human rights violations until the policy is structurally evaluated and fundamental rights are guaranteed to those affected populations. Finally, the organizations asked for the intervention of the IACHR so that the Colombian State immediately establishes an Integrated Working Group, where the victims may participate in a discussion about mining and energy policy and have a voice in the development of a responsive business model that meets the needs of the affected communities. In this discussion, the State would also be urged to take note of the warnings issued by the Constitutional Court and the Comptroller General of the Republic regarding the need to identify alternative sources of energy, as stipulated by the World Commission on Dams.
Read more