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
New Hope for Environmental Justice in IFI Projects
In its budget bill for 2014, the US Congress has taken bold steps to promote environmental justice within international financial institutions. Among other measures, the bill instructs the US representatives in these institutions to oppose large dams and logging projects that affect primary tropical forests, and to seek justice for the victims of human rights violations in IFI projects such as the Chixoy Dam in Guatemala. With input from other groups, International Rivers and AIDA published a factsheet which summarizes the provisions of the budget bill and the opportunities it creates for NGOs. The factsheet is addressed at partner groups monitoring and campaigning against IFI projects.
Read more
Las Cruces: Misleading the public on a hydropower project
By Diego Alvarez, AIDA intern Mexico’s state-owned power company, the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), is seeking authorization to build the Las Cruces hydroelectric plant on the San Pedro Mezquital river in Nayarit, Mexico. It is a project that will harm the environment and the pves of the Cora, Tepehuanos, Mexicaneros and Huichol indigenous peoples in the region of Western Mexico. On February 20, Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) held a meeting in the town of San Pedro Ixcatán to inform the pubpc about the Las Cruces hydropower project. The CFE would explain the project’s technical and environmental aspects to people pving in the affected regions, and more than 60 speakers pned up by the SEMARNAT would make presentations followed by a question and answer session between the audience and the CFE. The meeting would disclose the project’s environmental impacts and allow stakeholders to raise complaints and questions, providing a basis for the SEMARNAT to decide to approve the project or seek more information. Misinforming the indigenous The meeting didn’t pan out we’d hoped. The CFE’s presenters said they had duly informed all stakeholders of the project through pubpc campaigns and meetings in the affected areas. On the contrary, AIDA legal adviser Sandra Moguel discovered that the indigenous communities were not properly informed or consulted. Another big failure of the meeting was the CFE’s inabipty to present the project in the native languages of those affected. While some members of the indigenous communities speak Spanish, most have a restricted vocabulary for speaking and comprehension. If it takes a Spanish-speaker days or weeks to understand the economic, ecological and social aspects of a project of this magnitude, it’s virtually impossible to expect people who understand only a pttle Spanish to capture the details of a project not explained in their native language. It’s not just about translating. It is also about helping people to understand the information. The day after the meeting, we took part in a separate meeting in the Cora community of Rosarito where we found that the people need more time to understand the information. These people do not have access to the internet. Some pve more than a two-hour walk from the village. Not all speak Spanish frequently, and none of them is an environmental engineer. How we can say that these communities are informed if there is no adequate process for monitoring this? It’s not the obpgation of the affected to seek information. It is the CFE’s duty to provide information and make sure it is understood! Participants’ complaints Most of the 66 speakers at the pubpc meeting – members of indigenous communities, non-government organizations, academics, citizens and workers in the region – raised complaints about the Las Cruces project. Indigenous people demanded respect for their rights and called for the environmental permit not to be awarded for the hydropower project, while academics and representatives of NGOs highpghted shortcomings in the project’s environmental impact assessment (EIA). These include: Failure to comply with international and national obpgations to protect the Marismas Nacionales mangrove forest, which is fed by the San Pedro Mezquital river; Failure to comply with international and national obpgations for indigenous communities’ right to prior consultation; Methodological flaws in the gathering of information and analysis of environmental impacts. The EIA, for example, reported that eight species of amphibians would be affected by the project when in fact 17 would, four of which are endangered species; The inefficiency of the project and, consequently, its unnecessary construction. The lack of effective and comprehensive communication of the mitigation measures. For example, the CFE says the project won’t alter the river’s flow or water levels, but it doesn’t provide the necessary information to determine if this is true. Questions and answers? At the pubpc meeting, two hours were set aside for questions and answers. But most people didn’t get satisfactory answers. The CFE often gave vague answers to extremely important questions, most of which were the source of the complaints raised throughout the meeting. Many questions were on elements of the EIA. The responses? They were verbatim copies of what is in the EIA, a demonstration of the CFE’s inabipty (or lack of desire) to clarify participants’ doubts. What is more, the state power company was unable to resolve the concerns of indigenous peoples regarding the hydroelectric plant’s impact on their sacred and ceremonial sites such as La Muxatena. This point was not lost on the human rights observers who attended the meeting. SEMARNAT’s task The meeting was a step in the process for the SEMARNAT to make a decision on whether or not to grant the environmental permit for the project or, faipng that, to request additional information. Given the irregularities and flaws exposed at the pubpc meeting, the SEMARNAT should ask the CFE to provide additional information before making a decision. Until such a decision is taken, people can present factual and legal arguments seeking to clarify or refute the environmental information, facts and processes presented by the CFE. While this procedure seeks to inform all those who are interested or affected by the project, any supplementary information and complaints after the meeting are not pubpc. Any new information suppped by the CFE will be confidential. This means that those who attended the meeting and have doubts about the project won’t be able to find out more about the CFE’s aspirations and proposals before the SEMARNAT makes a decision. Discontent and disingenuousness reigned at the pubpc meeting, and the inhabitants of the San Pedro Mezquital river basin came away not properly informed. Faced with this and an EIA pockmarked with irregularities, the violation of indigenous rights and the irreparable environmental consequences of the project, we must demand that construction of Las Cruces is not authorized! Say no to Las Cruces!
Read moreBelo Monte: Never say never!
By María José Veramendi Villa, senior attorney, AIDA, @MaJoVeramendi We won’t give up. This is AIDA’s motto for defending the rights of local Brazilians who face forced relocation as construction of the Belo Monte mega-dam moves forward in the Amazon. The Brazilian government is building the world’s third-largest dam on the Xingu River under the guise of meeting a growing demand for energy. One of the costs, according to official estimates, is the displacement of at least 20,000 people from indigenous and river communities. Their traditional lands will be flooded and their ways of life destroyed. But the people of the Xingu won’t be drowned quietly. They have organized to stand up for their rights. The government is so determined that it has hired spies to infiltrate the opposition movement. It has deployed public security forces to patrol the construction site and break up protests. And it plans to beef up controls in June and July, when global attention will focus on Brazil for the World Cup. Now Brazil’s government wants to criminalize protests against infrastructure projects, even if the affected communities are only voicing their dismay that they’ve been denied a basic constitutional and internationally recognized right to have a say in what happens. Throw in the towel? Not us. With your donations, AIDA is working to ensure that the people of the Xingu will be assured the right to be heard, to be consulted, and to live in a healthy environment. One focus of AIDA’s strategy is to tackle a legal instrument called Suspension of Security, which Brazil established during a military dictatorship. Higher courts have used it several times to “protect the public interest” by overruling lower courts, which, in the case of Belo Monte, have halted dam construction until the government consults and provides adequate protection and compensation for affected communities. At the sessions of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 10, AIDA’s attorney Alexandre Sampaio will explain how Brazil is using Suspension of Security to violate the human rights of Brazil’s indigenous peoples. Additionally, we are advocating, through the preparation and presentation of legal briefs, for the Supreme Court to reject Suspension of Security and determine that the project was illegal from the beginning. We have also asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to analyze the human rights implications of Suspension of Security. AIDA provides all of its work free of charge to the people we help. Your donations through Global Giving provide the critical support that allows AIDA’s attorneys to pursue this challenging and important legal work, which empowers Amazon communities to defend their rights. Please consider making another gift in support of this work, helping in our “never-say-never” fight against Belo Monte. With great appreciation, The AIDA Team
Read more