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
Organizations alert the United Nations that construction of the Las Cruces hydropower plant will violate human rights in Nayarit, Mexico
UN Special Rapporteurs are asked to urge the Mexican government to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples and coastal communities that would be affected by the project. Mexico City. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) has sent an urgent appeal to several United Nations Special Rapporteurs showing that construction of the Las Cruces hydropower plant will violate the human rights of communities in western Mexico. The project will affect coastal communities as well as the Cora, Tepehuano, Huichol and Mexicanero indigenous peoples along the San Pedro Mezquital river basin in the state of Nayarit. We sent the appeal to Special Rapporteurs on the issues of adequate housing, indigenous rights, extreme poverty as well as the rights to food, safe drinking water and sanitation and to the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. We filed the appeal on the behalf of economic, environmental and community organizations in areas that would be affected by the project. These include the Inter-Community Council of the San Pedro River, the Náyeri Indigenous Council, the Nayarit Riverside Federation, Nuiwari, the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), the Ecological Mangrove Group, SuMar and representatives of the town of Boca Camichín. In the appeal, we asked the Special Rapporteurs to urge the Mexican government “to guarantee the rights of the indigenous peoples and coastal communities of the San Pedro Mezquital river to information and participation, consultation and consent, as well as to food, clean water and sanitation, and to the right to enjoy a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.” We also asked the UN experts to visit the site of the proposed hydropower project to find out first hand the damages it will cause on the environment and human rights. The project will affect indigenous lands – mostly those of the Coras – by forcibly evicting inhabitants and damaging sacred sites. This would violate the human rights to adequate housing, water and livelihoods as well as to culture and education. “Our lands and natural resources are the most important aspects of our culture," said Julián López Cánare, coordinator of the Náyeri Indigenous Council and a member of the Intercommunity Council of the San Pedro River. “Every day we fear that our sacred sites will be flooded or damaged.” Ernesto Bolado, director of SuMar, said the appeal to the UN is a demonstration of how the Cora, Huichol, Tepehuana and Mexicanera communities were never consulted on the project as required by Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO). What is more, consent for the expropriation of land and changing its use was requested at community assemblies under false pretenses, the promise of government benefits and even with bullying. Mexico’s state-owned electric utility Comisión Federal de Electricidad plans to build and operate the Las Cruces hydropower dam on the San Pedro Mezquital river at a location 65 km north of the city of Tepic, Nayarit. The plant will have 240 MW of installed capacity generated by three turbines fed by water from a 188-meter high dam holding a reservoir measuring 5,349 hectares. The project will operate only four months a year at regular output, and it will meeting 0.9% of the energy demand of the West Central Mexico in 2026, equivalent to 0.28% of the total installed capacity in the country[1]. “The urgent appeal is a request for United Nations Rapporteurs to investigate the facts concerning the full enjoyment of human rights of the people and communities that will be affected by the hydroelectric project," said AIDA attorney Sandra Moguel. The environmental assessment report for Las Cruces acknowledges that the project will lead to the substitution of agriculture and small-scale livestock ranching for a dependence on fishing in the reservoir. “It is unthinkable to convert subsistence farmers into fishermen or tour operators,” said Marcos Moreno, an oyster farmer in Boca Camichín and a member of the Intercommunity Council of the San Pedro River. You can read the alert sent to the UN Special Rapporteurs (in Spanish). [1] Las Cruces Environmental Impact Assessment, Chapter II, pages 4-12, 18, 19 and 77.
Read moreLegal ways to protect the environment in Colombia
By Héctor Herrera, AIDA legal advisor and coordinator of the Colombian Environmental Justice Network, @RJAColombia Our activities make an impact on biodiversity and the environment every day. The trouble is that our impact is getting increasingly harsher such as with climate change and the extinction of species like the Colombian Grebe (Podicepsandinus, in Spanish). In Colombia, in response to the above situation, the law has been improved to help protect the environment. The Colombian Constitution, for example, recognizes the importance of protecting the environment and the right to a healthy environment in Article 79, while national environmental laws and in other legal instruments offer more help. The following are some of the most important legal proceedings in Colombia designed to achieve and protect the right to a healthy environment. Action of "tutela" This legal remedy was created with the 1991 Constitution to provide immediate protection for fundamental rights such as the right to life. To protect the right to a healthy environment, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled in Sentence T-1527 in 2000: “While the right to a healthy environment is not considered a fundamental right in our constitution, it is a collective right that can be protected by popular actions. It can be protected through the exceptional mechanism of the action of tutela when actions or omissions by public authorities or private individuals threaten or violate fundamental rights, such as to life, health, physical integrity, or if it affects the public right to a healthy environment. It is thus a fundamental right by connection."[1] Compared to other legal proceedings, the action of tutela is simpler and swifter in its procedures. Popular Action This action is enshrined in Article 88 of the Colombian Constitution. It provides protections for collective interests and rights associated with public health and the environment. Article 88 was further developed in Law 472 of 1998, whose Article 4 contains a non-exhaustive list of collective rights and interests that can be protected by this legal proceeding. These include the enjoyment of a healthy environment, the existence of ecologic balance and access to public services. The goal of this popular action is to eliminate hazards, threats or violations to collective rights, and restore things to their previous state when possible. This action is preventive, restorative and compensational in nature. An emblematic case involving popular action was taken by the Corporación para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Archipiélago de San Andrés, Providencia y Santa Catalina (CORALINA) before the Dispute Tribunal of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina. CORALINA demanded protection for the right to a healthy environment, the existence of ecological balance, and the rational management and use of natural resources as well as the protection and attention to regional species and ecosystems to permit a sustainable development of the community and the environment. The tribunal ruled in favor of CORALINA in a sentence that can be consulted here (in Spansih). Group Action This action is contained in Article 88 of the Colombian Constitution and should be considered in combination with Article 79, which stipulates the right to a healthy environment. Unlike popular action, which seeks to prevent damage to a public right, group action seeks economic compensation for damages caused to a group of people with homogeneous characteristics with respect to the activity that caused the damage. A symbolic case was the group action taken by peasants and fishermen affected by an oil spill on the Trans-Andean pipeline, which is operated by Colombia’s state oil company Ecopetrol, in 2000 on the Rosario river in Nariño, a southeastern department on border with Ecuador. The oil spill caused serious environmental damage. For a detailed explanation and better understanding of this subject, you can consult the legal sources for the aforementioned proceedings. These include the Political Constitution, Law 472 of 1998, and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court (in Spanish). [1] Sentence T-1527 of 2000 MP Alfredo Beltrán Sierra.
Read more
Scientists call for investigation of Gulf of California coastal development
By Carolina Herrera, Latin America specialist for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) This post was originally published in Switchboard. Twenty-seven scientists have expressed concern that the construction of large-scale tourism resorts along the coast of Mexico’s Gulf of California threatens the region’s remarkable marine ecosystems. In a letter to the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC)**, the group of marine and natural science experts from Mexico, the United States and Costa Rica called for an investigation into the approval process of tourism projects that endangered vulnerable mangroves and coral reefs, as well as the Gulf’s rich and diverse marine life. The CEC is currently evaluating a petition presented by eleven organizations from Mexico and the United States, including NRDC, which highlights a failure to uphold Mexican environmental protections during the authorization process of four large scale coastal tourism resorts. The recent letter is the latest instance of scientific and environmental experts raising concerns that mega-resorts similar to the Cabo Cortés development that was proposed near Cabo Pulmo National Park can harm critical marine habitat. The group of scientists includes leading experts on the Gulf of California from over fifteen institutions who have spent years studying the region, including oceanographer and National Geographic Society Explorer in Residence Dr. Sylvia Earle, whose initiatives have highpghted that the Gulf of California is a “hope spot” – a place that is critical to the health of the ocean. In their letter to the CCA, the scientists write that they are "concerned that the rapid expansion of massive tourism infrastructure threatens the integrity of important sites for biodiversity in Mexico."They also note that they are alarmed by projects receiving approval despite disturbing trends such as environmental impact assessments that overlook scientific information or even use erroneous data.The letter is available here. Using the best available information during the impact assessments of proposed projects is required by Mexican law. The failure to do so is just one of the problems documented in the citizen petition that NRDC and our partners joined in April 2013. The petition highpghts four cases where projects received approvals despite environmental reviews that failed to comply with existing laws and regulations.The groups who submitted the petition – now joined by the 27 scientists – want the CEC to initiate a thorough investigation into the situation and develop a factual record on the lack of enforcement of environmental protections during the approval process of four projects: Entre Mares and Paraíso del Mar, both planned on the Bay of La Paz which is considered some of the most productive waters of the Gulf of California and is a key site for nesting birds. Playa Espíritu that would impact the Marismas Nacionales reserve, the most extensive and well-preserved mangrove forest on the western coast of Mexico. Cabo Cortés, which was proposed just north of and adjacent to Cabo Pulmo National Park which shelters one of the most important coral reefs in the American Pacific and is recognized as a both a UNESCO World Heritage Site and Ramsar Wetland of International Importance. In the case of Cabo Cortés, for example, key authorizations were granted even though the environmental impact statement was woefully insufficient and reasoned that the project would not affect the park because the local water currents only flowed from south to north. This conclusion was based on pmited data and ignored years of scientific articles proving that the currents in the area in fact flowed in multiple directions, varying with the seasons. The recent scientists’ letter is not the first time that international experts weigh in on the risk that mega-resort style projects represent for Cabo Pulmo National Park and other similarly fragile regions of the Gulf of California. In November 2011, a joint mission from Ramsar, UNESCO and IUCN visited the parkto assess the potential impact of the Cabo Cortés proposal. Their final report noted that the evaluation of the project did not take into consideration all the indirect and cumulative impacts of the project and that given its scale and scope the project represented a threat under Ramsar Convention guidelines. Similarly, in September 2012, theIUCN’s World Conservation Congress issued a resolution urging Mexico to guarantee the protection of Cabo Pulmo, including from risky large-scale tourism and real-estate developments. The same resolution also called on Mexico to ensure that environmental laws are strictly appped when it comes to projects that could have a direct or indirect impact on the health of surrounding ecosystems. A chance to do the thing right in the future The Cabo Cortés proposal that threatened the ecosystem and local community of Cabo Pulmo was fortunately eventually halted by former President Feppe Calderón in June 2012. But two short months after the cancellation was announceda very similar project was temporarily proposed on the same site, indicating that interest in developing the lands near the park had not disappeared. In the event that yet another project is proposed near Cabo Pulmo, or near other ecologically fragile areas of the Gulf, it will be critical for the Mexican regulators to do their job right and ensure that the environmental impact review upholds all laws and meets the highest technical and scientific standards. The CEC has an important job to do now. By developing and making pubpc a comprehensive factual record on the past failures to effectively implement Mexico’s environmental protections in the Gulf of Capfornia, it will help shed pght on how Mexico can strengthen its review process to prevent future high impact projects from harming some of the Gulf’s most iconic areas. Join the 27 scientists who have spoken up to protect Cabo Pulmo and other natural treasures in the Gulf of California bytaking action and asking the CEC to investigate the lack of enforcement of environmental laws. **The Commission on Environmental Cooperation is an international body established under the North American Free Trade Agreement to promote cooperation among Canada, Mexico and the U.S. on environmental issues of continental concern.
Read more