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:


Colombian Constitutional Court Admits AIDA's Complaint Against Mining Code (Spanish Text Only)

  CORTE CONSTITUCIONAL ADMITE NUEVA DEMANDA CONTRA CÓDIGO DE MINAS PARA DEFENDER EL PRINCIPIO DE PRECAUCIÓN FRENTE A LAS ACTIVIDADES MINERAS   PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA CONTACTOS: Jerónimo Rodríguez, AIDA, Tel. (571) 2681804 Andrés Idarraga, CENSAT, Tel. (571) 2440581 [email protected] [email protected]   BOGOTÁ, 20 de mayo de 2009.- La Corte Constitucional colombiana admitió esta semana la acción de inconstitucionalidad presentada por la Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA), CENSAT – Agua Viva, el Observatorio de Conflictos Ambientales de la Universidad de Caldas y la Corporación Gestión por los Intereses Ambientales y Públicos (Iniciativa GESAP) contra los artículos 203 y 213 del Código de Minas, que permiten el uso de los recursos naturales para la exploración minera sin licencia ambiental y limitan las causales por las que las autoridades ambientales pueden negar una licencia ambiental para actividades mineras.   Los artículos del Código de Minas demandados violan la Constitución de Colombia y la legislación ambiental internacional. Estos artículos priorizan la actividad minera sobre la protección ambiental, al punto de limitar las capacidades de las propias autoridades para verificar las condiciones de la explotación, y eventualmente autorizar la exploración y explotación con condiciones que sean ambientalmente sostenibles. Por esto, se violan entre otros, los principios de desarrollo sostenible y el principio de precaución que son parte fundamental de nuestra legislación.   “Reconocemos que la minería es una industria importante para nuestro país, pero también lo es la protección de los recursos naturales, que garantizan la existencia misma de la especie humana en la actualidad y en el futuro. Por esto solicitamos a la Corte que aplique el principio de desarrollo sostenible reconocido en nuestra Constitución para que la minería se implemente sin la generación de daños severos e irreversibles a zonas estratégicas, como los páramos, y de las que dependen muchas comunidades”, señaló Jerónimo Rodríguez, asesor legal de AIDA en Colombia.   Esta demanda se une a la presentada por AIDA y otros contra el artículo 34 del Código de Minas, que está pendiente de sentencia por la Corte Constitucional Colombiana. Ambas demandas recogen e insisten sobre las preocupaciones del Ministerio de Ambiente y de la Procuraduría General de la Nación frente a los efectos de las actividades mineras en el ambiente y la necesidad imperiosa de control, sin debilitar aún más las normas.   “Buscamos con esta demanda de inconstitucionalidad la efectiva protección al ambiente y que el uso ocasional o transitorio de los recursos naturales en las actividades de exploración deba evaluarse por las autoridades ambientales. Además que las licencias ambientales no estén limitadas por causales formales, sino que las autoridades ambientales puedan, cuando sea necesario para protección ambiental y del interés público, negar licencias para la minería en aplicación del principio de precaución y de normas ambientales aplicables”, concluyó Rodríguez.   AIDA es una ONG legal ambiental hemisférica que trabaja para fortalecer la capacidad de las personas para garantizar su derecho individual y colectivo a un ambiente sano por medio del desarrollo, aplicación y cumplimiento efectivo de la legislación nacional e internacional. Entre otros temas, AIDA prioriza la protección del derecho al agua y asegurar recursos de agua dulce adecuados para las comunidades y los ecosistemas.

Read more

Costa Rican Court Orders Expropriation Of Land Slated For Tourism Development In The Leatherback Marine National Park

 For immediate release: May 14, 2008 Press contacts: Rolando Castro, Attorney, CEDARENA Gladys Martínez, Attorney, AIDA (506) 2837080, [email protected] (506) 2837080, [email protected]     COSTA RICAN COURT ORDERS EXPROPRIATION OF LAND SLATED FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN THE LEATHERBACK MARINE NATIONAL PARK   SAN JOSÉ— On May 5th, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica ordered the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) to begin expropriating private lands slated for tourism development within the Leatherback Marine National Park (LMNP) in Guanacaste. This decision follows a lawsuit filed in March 2005 by AIDA and its participating organizations in Costa Rica, the Center for Environmental Law and Natural Resources (CEDARENA), and Justice for Nature (JPN). The complaint alleged that the National Environmental Technical Secretary (SETENA), the Municipality of Santa Cruz, the Ministry of Finance, and MINAE violated the constitutional right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment by not protecting the LMNP and the nesting sites of the leatherback turtle located therein.   This is a very important precedent in Costa Rica and the hemisphere, given that tourism development is proceeding at an unprecedented pace throughout the Americas. The Municipality of Santa Cruz and SETENA had issued construction permits within the park, ignoring the impacts that tourism development would have upon the leatherback turtles. With this decision, these permits are now invalid.   “We hope that the Municipality and SETENA have received a clear message that they must take extreme caution with regard to national parks, and not approve projects that endanger what the parks were created to protect,” stated Rolando Castro, an attorney for CEDARENA. “Construction and operation of tourist sites within the LMNP would aggravate existing threats to the beach,” he added.   Leatherback turtles are animals from the Jurassic age that have been declared an endangered species on the international level. They require particular nesting conditions that can be easily disturbed by the presence of human beings and construction lights. Hence, the development of tourist sites can severely affect the turtles’ reproduction, and consequently, their survival. The Leatherback Marine National Park has become the most important nesting site for this species in the Western Pacific Ocean.   “MINAE should immediately heed this order to prevent the destruction that has occurred at other Costa Rican nesting beaches, such as Flamingo and Tamarindo,” affirmed Gladys Martinez, AIDA attorney. “All authorities within the Costa Rican government have an obligation to protect this species, which is part of our common patrimony, in addition to being a tourist attraction and hence a valuable economic resource for the country,” she added.    

Read more

Constitutional Court Orders Change in Environmental License for Baba Dam, Ecuador

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ORDERS CHANGE IN ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSE FOR BABA DAM,  ECUADOR FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION: CONTACTS: Silvana Rivadeneira (593 3) 2 459822 Astrid Puentes, AIDA (5255) 5212-0141 [email protected] [email protected]   Quito, January 8, 2009 - The Constitutional Court of Ecuador ordered the country's Ministry of Environment to review and reformulate the environmental authorization granted to Baba's Multi-purpose Project (PMB), and the Attorney-General to audit the procedures and the approval of the environmental impact evaluations.   According to the court's decision, there are risks of severe, irreparable damage to the Ecuatorian biodiversity that weren't properly assessed, in accordance with the conclusions of the Inter-American Development Bank experts. This resolution from Ecuador's highest court is a consequence of the lawsuit promoted by ECOLEX in May, 2007, which was rejected by the initial judge. ECOLEX then appealed to the Constitutional Court, insisting that it consisted in a violation of the human rights to a safe environment, to water, to property, to work, and to food, among others. Last June AIDA and the international organizations International Rivers and FIAN International supported the appeal through an amicus curiae document, denouncing the violations to international environmental standards and human rights, all of those binding the State of Ecuador. In addition to that, experts from the US organization ELAW also had mentioned serious mistakes in the study. The Constitutional Court's decision effectively recognized that the lack of a adequate evaluation violated the previously mentioned rights, as well as the principle of environmental caution. Silvana Rivadeneira, from ECOLEX, stated that "the decision is a great triumph to the affected communities and to the country, since it reinforces that the environmental protection is also a matter of national interest." The PMB would have implied in the flooding of more than 2.500 acres of important ecosystems at the province of Los Rios, affecting the river populations of the Baba Quevedo Vinces river and the habitat of endangered species such as the rascón bird, the small deer and chaleco's ant-eating bear. The project was authorized by the Ministry of Environment in November 2006 and it is being executed by the company Hidronación S.A., which took it over after the Brazilian Odebrecht was expeled from the country by the Ecuatorian government. In September 2008, AIDA, Earthjustice and ECOLEX, FIAN International and International Rivers requested for the international credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (a tool from the Kyoto Protocol to help fight climate change) not to be granted to the PMB. "The Baba project is an example of unclean energy and it could worsen the climate change, the court's decision confirms its lack of sustainability", said Monti Aguirre from International Rivers. "It is very significant that the court issued such decision a few days after the World Conference on Climate Change in Poland" mentioned Astrid Puentes, co-director of AIDA. "Given the negative effects for the environment, the people and the climate change caused by the hydroelectric dams - the very reason for which we supported such demand - the order to completely evaluate Baba's project is outstanding news. We will be following the review closely, and we expect this decision to serve as a precedent for the hundreds of hydroelectric powerplants that are currently ongoing in the Americas with flaws very similar to those present in Baba.  

Read more