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
Responsible fishing: Preserving our fish stocks for future generations
By Gladys Martínez, AIDA legal advisor What could be better than a plate of ceviche or fried fish and patacones (plantain chips)? OK, I must confess that I’m a sucker for seafood! And that’s why one of my favorite projects to come out of AIDA’s Marine Protection Program is the reportTools for Sustainable Fisheries and Coastal Management. Like me, over 4.2 billion people get 15% of their proteins from seafood. So you can see why it’s so important to put in place measures to encourage sustainable fishing and the conservation of marine biodiversity. After more than 10 years of research, AIDA has taken a stab at this. We have developed an 11-chapter report examining the plight of our oceans and the causes behind a crisis in the fishing industry. The report looks at what we can do to limit the impacts of the crisis, and it offers case studies drawing on comparative law and detailing the international obligations that states have to protect and conserve our oceans and their biodiversity. The report also explores the regulatory framework for marine conservation. We look at the various regulatory instruments that countries use to try to control fishing. These include programs for reducing the number of fishing boat licenses, seizing vessels, retraining industry workers and reducing long-haul fishing times, or the amount of time that this technique can be practiced at any given time. Specific mention is paid to the “bycatch” phenomenon, or when fishing methods fail to discriminate between a targeted species and others caught in the process. Recommendations are offered on how to scale back this damaging practice. We also explore the advantages of using marine protected areas (MPAs) as a conservation tool. Different MPAs are discussed, as defined by the type of protected ecosystem and their classification by international bodies like United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. We describe MPAs in Brazil, Costa Rica and Mexico, and we offer suggestions for protecting our ocean resources with transnational MPAs. We also examine the differences between fishing reserves and protected areas where fishing is banned. As responsible fishing has so much potential to make a real impact, the report also gets into the main economic instruments that if designed and implemented effectively could promote the protection, renewal, preservation and sustainable use of our marine resources. These instruments can be divided into three categories: market- based (fish certification and eco-labeling), tax based (green taxes, rights and subsidies) and financial (creating funds and loans). The report also looks at the socio-environmental issues of the fishing industry. These issues are hugely important because a large percentage of the world population relies on fishing for jobs, food security and a potential way out of poverty. We examine how things stand in the industry and look at its problems of endemic poverty and tough working conditions. Tools for Sustainable Fisheries and Coastal Management is a study of aquaculture in the Americas, from its environmental impact to the risk to human health and the alternative methods that could be used. Examples are taken from different countries across the continent and the world to illustrate what works and what doesn’t. The report is concise. It explains the bare minimum we need to develop aquaculture while still reducing its impact. Of these essentials are the adequate zoning of projects and targeted species, the development of suitable techniques for feeding fish and disposing of waste, and ensuring that states monitor the industry properly. New techniques such as polyculture, inland saline cultivation and environmental certification are potential alternatives to mainstream fishing methods that have less impact on humans and the environment. I don’t know about you, but I want to keep eating seafood and I want my descendents to also share in this simple pleasure without feeling guilty. The future can often look bleak, but after reading AIDA’s report, I’m inclined to think that this desire of mine is a real possibility. So if you like what we do and you think you can help, please donate!
Read more
Mexico takes action to protect its wetlands from unsustainable development
AIDA and the members of the National Wetlands Committee have won a big victory after years of legal work to protect Mexico’s estuaries, coral reefs, mangroves and other wetlands. On February 4, 2014, Mexico’s Natural Protected Areas Commission (CONANP) announced a national wetlands policy, a legal framework we had been calling for since 2009. “It’s not a panacea, but it’s a good start,” says Sandra Moguel, an AIDA attorney who participated on the National Wetlands Committee, a CONANP -led group that helped develop the policy. Mexico is rich in wetlands. The country ranks second after the U.K. in the number of protected wetland areas under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of these ecosystems. Centuries-old coral reefs serve as breeding pens for fish that feed the populace and delight divers. Mangrove forests house endangered species and perform increasingly important ecosystem services: they absorb carbon emissions and buffer the coastline against storms made harsher by a warmer climate. But many coral reefs, mangroves, estuaries, and rivers have suffered from poorly planned development. On the Sea of Cortez, for example, plans for mega-resorts have kept us busy defending Cabo Pulmo’s coral reefs, and now a proposed port expansion is threatening reefs in Veracruz. To protect these and other wetlands, we have had to draw on a jumble of laws and policies. Not any more. Now we have a specific instrument that is in line with the laws and policies for the protection of wetlands. The new policy sets actions, goals and priorities for the management and protection of wetlands. It is a vast improvement. And while a national wetlands policy is a Ramsar requirement, Mexico’s policy stands out from many others in the world for creating not just principles and guidelines, but also an action plan to make them happen. For example, the government will soon set and sustain minimum water levels to preserve mangroves. Other actions will guarantee the reasonable use of wetlands. Fishing, tourism, and other activities that rely on wetlands must be carried out sustainably. If damages occur, the state must ensure ecosystem restoration. A key element that AIDA pushed for is the principle of environmental progress. The new policy stops the government from continuing to modify and reduce natural protected areas to make way for large infrastructure projects or to benefit private interests. Now the authorities must preserve and promote environmental progress by respecting protected-area status and by improving safeguards. We are thrilled. This principle could help AIDA in our legal battle to stop construction of the Las Cruces hydropower project on the San Pedro Mezquital river. The dam would reduce water flows and sediments needed to feed and sustain mangroves in Marismas Nacionales, a protected wetlands area on the Sea of Cortez. Construction of the dam would clearly reverse environmental progress. The new policy has its weak spots—for example, it doesn’t set dates for reviewing the progress of the action plan, and the actions could be supplemented for more effect—but comparatively, it is at the forefront of wetlands policies in Latin America. “Mexico is setting an example,” Moguel says. “Let’s hope that this encourages other countries to follow suit.” Your contributions helped us press for and contribute to the development of the new policy, and with your continued help we will be able to aid Mexico in its efforts to protect its vital wetlands.
Read more
Indigenous leader condemns Brazil’s rights abuses at United Nations
Speakers highlight violations stemming from Amazon dams at Human Rights Council. Geneva, Switzerland. In a groundbreaking event at the 25th United Nations Human Rights Council, the national coordinator of Brazil’s Association of Indigenous Peoples (APIB) Sônia Guajajara exposed an alarming disregard for indigenous peoples’ rights by the Brazilian government as it rushes to promote an unprecedented wave of large dam construction across the Amazon basin with devastating impacts on their territories and livelihoods. In her testimony, Ms. Guajajara argued that the violation of indigenous rights to prior consultations concerning the federal government’s dam-building plans has set a troubling precedent for the rule of law and the future of Brazil’s indigenous peoples. The side event, entitled ‘Indigenous peoples’ right to consultation on large dam projects in Brazil’, also featured Alexandre Andrade Sampaio, a Brazilian lawyer with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), who critiqued the use of a legal mechanism known as “Security Suspension” (Suspensão de Segurança) that allows chief justices, upon request from the government, to indefinitely suspend legal rulings in favor of indigenous peoples’ rights. Among the most egregious use of this legal artifice that was originally created during Brazil’s military dictatorship, is the suspension of court decisions on the illegality of large hydroelectric dam projects, such as Belo Monte, where the federal government has failed to ensure indigenous peoples’ right to prior consultations, as enshrined in the Brazilian constitution. According to Sampaio, the Security Suspension also constitutes an obstacle to Brazil’s compliance with international agreements concerning free, prior, and informed consultation and consent (FPIC), including Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization ILO), ratified by the Brazilian Congress in 2002, and the 2007 UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). “The alliance of economic interests and political power represent a major crisis for the implementation of indigenous rights in today’s Brazil,” said Ms. Guajajara. “However, even if the government denies our rights, it cannot deny its responsibility to this convention.” “The Suspension of Security Violates Human rights. The very people that could dismiss it are the same ones who personally benefit from its existence,” said Mr. Sampaio. “That is why it is important for the international community to turn its eyes to this matter and request the Brazilian government adopt effective measures that lead to the respect of human rights.” Joint declarations were submitted to the UN General Assembly by a coalition of Brazilian and international groups, including NGO France Libertés. In discussing growing threats to indigenous rights, both documents highlight the Brazilian government’s plans to build a massive complex of up to 29 large dams along the Amazon’s Tapajós River and its tributaries in the next ten years. Lesser-known than the controversial Belo Monte project on the neighboring Xingu River, the Tapajós complex would provoke flooding and other devastating consequences for indigenous peoples and other traditional populations both upstream and downstream of planned dams, including elimination of migratory fish that are a dietary stable and a basis of local economies. The federal government’s rush to construct a series of large dams in the Tapajós region, in the absence of prior consultations with indigenous peoples, has led to growing protests from local tribes, such as the Munduruku, Kayabi and Apiaká people. “We are watching a dark history repeat itself on the rivers of the Amazon where Belo Monte’s tragedy threatens to be reproduced on the Tapajós,” said Christian Poirier of Amazon Watch. “While the Brazilian government claims to respect its indigenous peoples, it is in fact working to dismantle their rights to open their lands and rivers to unconstrained exploitation.” Prior to the side event the delegates met with Ambassador Regina Dunlop of Brazil’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in order to present their grievances. While the Ambassador stated that the information would be more relevant if presented to government representatives in Brasilia, Ms. Guajajara and Mr. Sampaio countered that these criticisms are frequently ignored by government decision makers until problems are exposed in international forums, such as the United Nations. “Brazil’s reputation is at stake on this international stage,” said Sônia Guajajara. “We are here to bring visibility to the unacceptable prejudice and discrimination suffered by indigenous peoples and to demand that it stops.” The side event in Geneva was organized by France Liberté (Fondation Danielle Mitterand) with support from Amazon Watch and International Rivers.
Read more