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
Protecting the Colombian páramos: It’s more than just rules
By Carlos Lozano, legal advisor, AIDA,@CLozanoAcosta The consensus in Colombia is that páramo ecosystems are important and must be protected. These high-altitude wetlands are a source of clean water for over two million people. They play a key role in combating climate change, and they host a wealth of strategic biopersity. Half of the world’s páramos are found in Colombia, where they provide the country with 70% of its potable water [1]. Colombia’s print media, for the most part, has shown support for protecting the páramos, backed by a critical mass of congruent public opinion. Progress has been made to conserve the páramos with new regulations and public policies, but challenges remain. Hampering the conservation efforts are the poor implementation of regulations, local community protests, persuasive mining interests and, most recently, a national agrarian strike [2]. National laws incorporate provisions to protect the páramos, including a prohibition of mining activities, among other things. Unfortunately, Colombia’s Constitutional Court recently ruled against reforms to the Mining Code (Law 1382 of 2010) that included a provision expressly forbidding mining in the páramos. Despite this setback, there is a series of domestic rules that, when interpreted as a whole, retain the prohibition on mining. Other legal safeguards exist in the country’s judicial system. The Colombian Constitution, for example, makes general references to environmental protection in articles 8, 58, 79, 80, 333 and 334. The law for the National Environment System (Law 99 of 1993) states that páramo areas are subject to special protection and that human consumption of páramo water is prevalent. The Constitutional Court also has said that the zones banned from mining in the country are not limited to national parks (case C-339 of 2002), and the National Development Plan (Law 1450 of 2011) stipulates that páramo ecosystems cannot be used for further agricultural activities, the exploration or exploitation of oil and minerals or for the construction of oil refineries. What is more, Colombia is obliged to protect the páramo through binding international laws including conventions on biological persity, wetlands of international importance (Ramsar) and climate change. All of these make strong arguments for the protection of the páramos. In spite of the clear legal framework in place to protect the páramos, a nationwide debate is underway as to what defines the páramos and where its official boundaries lie. The discussion was settled with a scientific territorial demarcation drawn up by the Humboldt Institute, initially mapped at a scale of 1:100,000 and then with some areas at a scale of 1:25,000 in accordance with the National Development Plan. The cartography is a serious and rigorous work, so much so that it won an award of excellence from Colombia’s Alejandro Ángel Escobar Foundation for its significant and meaningful contribution to science. The National Development Plan law states that the delimitation should be adopted as part of a legal administrative act so that it becomes a mandatory standard. There are no legal arguments preventing the proper demarcation from being adopted as soon as possible. It’s likely that a strict demarcation of the páramos would have social and economic impacts on the local community. But these do not outweigh the potential harm that could result as a consequence of allowing high-impact activities like mining in the páramos. A particular harm would be the disruption of clean water supplies. Moreover, a weaker demarcation that allows the continuation of local economic activities (including mining and agriculture) not only harms the environment but also fails to recognize the importance of these pristine ecosystems. The course of action we recommend for Colombia is: i) To adopt the demarcation of the Humboldt Institute mapped at as detailed a scale as possible, according to the National Development Plan law; ii) To work with local communities, making a gradual and concerted effort to properly implement and enforce the requirements of the demarcation, including the cessationof industrial activities and iii) Employ mechanisms to compensate for the demarcation’s impacts, including effective economic and industrial restructuring where necessary. [1] ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Andean Páramo Project: The Great Book of the Páramo, page 61. [2] Since August, some sectors of the Colombian farming community have mobilized in protest against the impact of free trade agreements on local food production: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23829482. The strike has caused a sharp drop in the popularity of President Juan Manuel Santos and with it, his chances for re-election. Some analysts argue that with the current situation governance is weak. That means sectors like mining have a strong incentive to lobby the government to gain concessions. It could also lead to the implementation of an unsatisfactory páramo demarcation.
Read moreIndigenous rights controversies around Belo Monte consume Brazilian judicial system
Dam license could be suspended due to violations of social and environmental conditions. Altamira, Brazil. Recent lawsuits by Brazil’s Federal Public Prosecutors (MPF) concerning the Belo Monte dam are demanding accountability from the dam-building Norte Energia consortium, Brazil’s National Development Bank (BNDES), and the state environmental agency IBAMA for noncompliance with mandated mitigation measures concerning the Juruna and Xikrin Kayapó, two indigenous groups affected by the mega-project. The lawsuits demonstrate that conditions placed upon the dam’s environmental licensing have not been met and call for compensation for socio-environmental impacts of the dam, currently under construction on the Xingu River in the Brazilian Amazon. The MPF filed a lawsuit in late August showing that Norte Energia was deliberately reneging its obligation to purchase land and provide health services for the Juruna indigenous community Km 17, one of the most vulnerable to the impacts of Belo Monte’s construction due to its proximity to the constant movement of heavy machinery and workers. This lawsuit led the national indigenous foundation FUNAI to issue a complaint to IBAMA, demanding that Norte Energia be held accountable for noncompliance with this formal condition of the environmental licenses for Belo Monte. The Federal Court of Pará State responded this week by giving Norte Energia 60 days to purchase the Juruna land and deliver health care or face daily fines of R$200,000 (US$87,000). “The situation here has only gotten worse,” said Sheyla Juruna, a member of the Km 17 community known for her local and international activism in defense of her community’s rights. “Belo Monte created the illusion that people would get everything they didn’t have. That’s when the problems began. Support from FUNAI never came and our health conditions are precarious. Civil society thinks that the indigenous have rights, yet our rights are being violated every day.” Following the ruling in favor of the Juruna community the MPF filed another lawsuit targeting the neglect of BNDES, IBAMA, and Norte Energia stemming from the absence of prior analysis of impacts and associated compensation measures for Xikrin Kayapó communities that are also threatened by Belo Monte. The lawsuit charges that these three institutions violated the rights of the Xikrin Kayapó when they allowed construction to commence on the project without measuring the impacts it would cause to the indigenous group, whose villages are based on the Bacajá River, a tributary to the Xingu directly adjacent to the dam’s most serious impacts. The MPF has asked the Judiciary to suspend Belo Monte’s installation license, paralyzing the project until Norte Energia can present findings on the project’s impacts and its corresponding compensations for indigenous communities. The lawsuit is unprecedented in its scope as it could force the consortium and BNDES, financier of 80% of the dam’s costs, to indemnify affected indigenous groups of the Xingu for the delay in measuring and mitigating its socio-environmental repercussions. “We truly have reason to celebrate seeing BNDES is finally being charged as a responsible party in Belo Monte’s disastrous impacts,” said Maíra Irigaray Castro of Amazon Watch. “It is time for financiers to pay for the criminal negligence exemplified by noncompliance with conditionalities, which they should also be monitoring for all projects that they finance.” Norte Energia’s failure to comply with Belo Monte’s legally mandated conditions is not new. IBAMA released a report in July confirming that the compliance has worsened as the dam’s construction has sped up. The report shows that only four out of 23 conditions concerning local urban populations have been met. “Last week we had a meeting with representatives of the government and local people and their discontent is clear,” said Antonia Melo, coordinator of the Xingu Alive Forever Movement. “There is no fresh water, no electricity, no health care, no schools and no sanitation. We cannot accept that the conditions, that are fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution, be undermined in this way. IBAMA must suspend construction, as defined by law, until these conditions are met.” “These legal actions add to the existing evidence of the severe impacts that the Belo Monte dam is having on human rights and the environment in the Xingu, and of the responsibility of all Brazilian agencies involved in the project,” said María José Veramendi of AIDA. “We look forward to a positive result of these legal actions and that Brazil will effectively comply with applicable national and international laws, as all agencies involved can be legally responsible and the State can be internationally responsible for these human rights violations” pointed out Veramendi. Per FUNAI’s request, as well as the lawsuits brought by the Public Prosecutors, both IBAMA and the Federal Judges could suspend the dam’s installation license until all the requirements and conditions are met. “The characterization of Amazonian dams as clean and cheap energy is based on the ability of project proponents, including BNDES, to “externalize” their true social and environmental risks and impacts. These lawsuits are significant in that they’re sending a signal that they are indeed being held accountable for their decisions and the damage that they cause to the environment and indigenous peoples,” said Brent Millikan, Amazon Program Director at International Rivers.
Read moreAndisols: Vitally important and vulnerable soils
Have you ever heard of Andisols? They are a vitally important building block for ecosystems in the Americas including Andean forests and high-altitude wetlands known as páramos, not to mention the cultivation of food. In this post, I’ll explain more about these soils and why it’s crucial to protect them. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines Andisols as a type of volcanic black soil typically found in mountainous regions. Andisols occupy roughly 1% of the world’s land surface area, primarily in the Ring of Fire, a string of volcanoes and active tectonic hotspots along the edges of the Pacific Ocean. The ring runs through Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, New Zealand and other countries, with among the world’s greatest amount of Andisols found in Colombia. Andisols are an essential tool for agriculture and can be used to cultivate sugarcane, tobacco, potatoes, tea, vegetables, wheat, rice and other crops. These soils also sustain fragile ecosystems in the Andes mountains from forests to páramos, helping to provide essential nutrients and regulate the water cycle. In short, Andisols play a vital role in Colombia’s natural landscape. On the world stage, the protection of Andisols is equally important to sustain the food requirements of an increasing global population. By 2050 there will be some nine billion people, and, according to the FAO, to feed them we will need to produce “another one billion tons of cereals and 200 million tons of livestock products per year.” Right now, soil conservation, the protection of ecosystems and sustainable food production are merely transcendental topics for humanity. A rational and respectful use of soils is strategically important. In 2050, a hungry person will not be able to eat banknotes, electronic devices, cars, gold bullion or gasoline. We will face a serious problem if no fertile soil is left for food cultivation. Already today millions of people that go hungry due to unequal food distribution. FAO data from 2011 shows that “almost one billion people are undernourished, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (239 million) and Asia (578 million).” While Andisols play a critical role in food production and ecological health, the development of extractive industries – primarily energy and mining – are causing serious negative impacts on these rich soils in Colombia. Public policies must be put in place to regulate and guarantee environmentally sustainable management of these essential soils because the country’s food security and sovereignty depend on them, as does the conservation of mountain ecosystems. To properly protect Andisols, we need to implement a legal framework to ensure they are used in a responsible and environmentally sustainable way for food production and that they are protected from harmful extractive industries. The FAO World Soil Charter of 1982 provides the following guidance to the world’s governments, including Colombia’s: “Develop a policy for wise land use according to land suitability for different types of utilization and the needs of the country.” Regardless of any directives from the United Nations or whatever other international organization, Colombia’s future rests in our own hands. We need to think about how we can guarantee our viability, survival and, of course, our food. We must also consider how to fulfill our responsibility of caring for a country with an incredible wealth of biopersity, from flora and fauna to water supplies and Andisols.
Read more