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
Supreme Court orders protection of Veracruz's reefs and wetlands
Mexico’s high court unanimously ruled that authorities violated the right to a healthy environment by authorizing the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. Environmental authorities failed to use the best scientific information, analyze the port expansion in a comprehensive manner, and consider all of its impacts. The ruling implies that the project’s approvals are unfounded and that its impacts must be re-evaluated, this time in a comprehensive manner, to determine the viability of the project. Mexico City, Mexico — On February 9, residents of Veracruz won a victory before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in a legal injunction filed to defend the Veracruz Reef System (SAV) and its environmental services against the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. The justices of the Court unanimously voted in favor of the draft ruling that protects the reefs of Veracruz and transforms the way the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure operates throughout the country. This decision underpins the protection of the right to a healthy environment, and it sets a new precedent that will change the way officials determine how projects are assessed by their environmental impact. The Court held that "the protection of wetlands is a national and international priority that has led our country to issue a strict regulation of this ecosystem and… any analysis made in relation to wetlands must be guided by a criterion of maximum precaution and prevention." The ruling pointed out that the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) violated the right to a healthy environment by authorizing the expansion project of the Port of Veracruz, since "it did not take into account the best scientific information available; it did not analyze or evaluate in a complete manner each one of the different environmental impacts that the project and its modification could cause, in addition to the fact that the project and the works related to it were analyzed in a fragmented manner." The Supreme Court’s ruling annuls the authorization for the port’s expansion and orders a complete reevaluation of the project’s environmental impacts and determination of the consequent viability of the project. "CEMDA filed this injunction, together with the community, to protect and contribute to the conservation of the Veracruz Reef System, as well as the reefs and the services they provide, since they are key to the well-being of the people living in the Veracruz-Boca del Río-Medellín conurbation," explained Xavier Martínez Esponda, CEMDA's Operational Director. The case sets a precedent that will transform the way in which Semarnat and state authorities conduct Environmental Impact Assessments in the country. Martinez Esponda pointed out that, "with this decision, the principles of prevention and precaution will have to become much more ingrained in the decision-making process. Likewise, authorities and investors should learn the lesson that it is more expensive, in all senses, not to present their projects in a complete manner, than to comply in time and form with the Environmental Impact Assessment." Background The Veracruz Reef System is a National Park and a wetland of international importance according to the Ramsar Convention. It has great environmental value as the largest reef system in the central region of the Gulf of Mexico. This reef system hosts the greatest biodiversity of species in the western Gulf of Mexico and is also home to several protected species, such as the critically endangered hawksbill turtle. The SAV also helps mitigate the impact of storm surges and hurricanes, which have increased in frequency and intensity as a result of climate change. The Port of Veracruz expansion project was proposed in the late 1990s and its implementation included plans for new breakwater works, access and navigation channels, land access, terminals, and port facilities. These works will damage reefs and seagrasses in the area, as they will be impacted by the increased sedimentation caused by the construction works. Due to the importance of the case, international environmental protection organizations supported the process. Earthjustice and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) delivered a joint amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of CEMDA’s filing with the court. Sandra Moguel, AIDA's attorney, emphasized that "it is not the proximity of a project that determines who are the affected people and who should have access to justice to defend their right to a healthy environment." In its brief, AIDA explains that international law obliges the Mexican government to allow anyone whose fundamental rights are threatened by environmental harm to access judicial remedies, even if their connection to the threatened ecosystem is indirect or remote. Guillermo Zuñiga, an attorney with Earthjustice, emphasized that his ties to this reef are important and personal: "I grew up in Veracruz. I am a Xalapeño. That area gave birth to me, and I grew up swimming in the rivers and beaches of Veracruz with my family. I want the children of Veracruz to have the opportunity to enjoy the richness of its biodiversity as I did." Alejandra Serrano Pavón, a lawyer with the international organization Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW), was interested in the case because of the opportunity to encourage the Court to broadly interpret the right to access to justice in defense of the environment. ELAW presented an amicus brief that supported the filing, through which is provided examples from various countries around the world that recognize a broad interpretation of this right, which allows "any civil society organization or, at least residents of a place, to initiate a legal action to protect the environment." We widely celebrate this decision of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court, and we hope that in the process of executing the judgment, the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources complies with what it has been ordered to do under the highest standard of protection enshrined in the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, known as the Escazú Agreement. Underwritten by: AIDA Earthjustice ELAW CEMDA press contacts: Ricardo Ruiz, CEMDA, [email protected], 5559644162 Victor Quintanilla, AIDA, [email protected], 5570522107
Read more
IDB must guaranty a responsible exit from the Hidroituango project
Ongoing investigation of the project continues regardless of early repayment of loan. The IDB Group concluded the loan for Hidroituango prematurely as they face uncertainty regarding project initiating operations. The investigation process regarding non-compliance with IDB policies in Hidroituango continues, regardless of the early termination of the loan. The construction of the Hidroituango dam, a project that has created a humanitarian and environmental crisis without precedent in Colombia, was financed by IDB Invest, the private lending arm of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), which invested millions of dollars in the hydroelectric project and facilitated the investment of a billion additional dollars from other international development banks. The Office of the Transparency Hub of IDB Invest informed Movimiento Ríos Vivos (MRV) -which represents communities affected by HidroItuango - that the bank concluded its involvement in the project after receiving the advance repayment of funds from Empresas Públicas de Medellin (EPM). Further, it informed that the compliance investigation process currently underway at the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) to assess compliance with IDB policies will continue, separate from the exit from the project by IDB. Regarding the communication sent by IDB Invest to MRV, the movement and accompanying international organizations, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), stated the following: First, the undersigned organizations maintain that the continuation of the complaint before the MICI demonstrates a respect for the integrity and independence of the accountability mechanism and a commitment to respond to the concerns of communities affected by IDB financed projects. Furthermore, we would underline that the fact the IDB has concluded its involvement in the project, resulting from a voluntary repayment due to the uncertainty of reaching certain project milestones, does not imply the absence or the removal of the investment. Much to the contrary, the prepayment by EPM to the IDB Group demonstrates that the IDB effectively disbursed funds and financed the project, and that Hidroituango is an IDB branded project. Consequently, we believe that it is correct for the MICI, the accountability mechanism in this case, to continue its investigative functions, and that the Board and management of the Bank remain committed to the process and its findings. Secondly, as has been set forth by the MICI in recent reports recognizing the lack of compliance with environmental and social safeguards by the bank, such as the case of the San Mateo and San Andres hydroelectric projects in the microregion of Yich K’isis in Guatemala, “in case of exit from the Projects, IDB Invest should make the necessary provisions to ensure a responsible exit from the Operations”. We are confident that the payment of the debt by EPM to the IDB opens up a historic possibility for the bank to conclude its involvement in a responsible way, by creating an Exit Plan in participation with communities which allows for the restoration of affected livelihoods, thereby legitimizing the bank as a responsible international finance institution. This possibility brings hope to the MRV communities affected by the Hidroituango project, who have called for the end of the investment by the IDB and its responsible exit for years. Thirdly, the undersigned organizations expect the IDB to fulfill its commitment to transparency in its operations, guaranteeing the principle of maximum access to project information, in a straightforward and comprehensive manner, under the terms established in the bank’s access to information policy. It is under these terms that we will be requesting meetings with the Board of the IDB in the near future. Today the IDB has an opportunity to fulfill its commitment to maintain high standards of integrity, transparency and accountability within its operations not only in Colombia but throughout Latin America. For this reason, we insist on the need for i) decision-making to be more transparent about the remaining IDB Group investments or loans which currently finance this project, both from its public and private lending arm, as was set forth in the petition sent on December 6th, 2021, ii) that a responsible, effective and participatory exit plan be built with communities. Press contacts: Milena Florez, Movimiento Ríos Vivos (MRV), [email protected], +57 319 2131656 Carla García Zendejas, CIEL, [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Yeny Rodríguez Junco, AIDA, [email protected], +57 310 7787 601
Read more
In-danger designation requested for Pantanal wetlands in Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay
On World Wetlands Day, advocates urged the Ramsar Convention Secretariat to conduct an advisory visit to wetlands severely affected by fires, and for the governments of the three countries to inscribe the sites on the global list of wetlands at risk of disappearing. Gland, Switzerland -- Civil society organizations sent an urgent alert to the Ramsar Convention today requesting a full assessment of damage caused by recent fires in the Pantanal, the world’s largest tropical wetland, a natural area shared between Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay. The groups requested that the Secretariat conduct an advisory mission to analyze the state of six wetlands, which the Convention has recognized as being sites of international importance, and for the wetlands to be included on the Montreux Record, a list of the world’s most at-risk wetlands. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for Biological Diversity and Ecologia e Ação (ECOA) sent the alert on World Wetlands Day. They also urged the three governments to urgently implement measures to preserve the Pantanal as a transboundary ecosystem. The Ramsar sites addressed in the request are the Bolivian Pantanal; the Reserva Particular do Patrimonio Natural SESC Pantanal, the Reserva Particular do Patrimonio Natural Fazenda Rio Negro, the Pantanal Matogrosense National Park and the Taiamã Ecological Station in Brazil; as well as the Rio Negro National Park in Paraguay. "A Ramsar in-danger designation is crucial to combating the Pantanal’s huge and unprecedented fires, which now threaten Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay," said Alejandro Olivera, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Public policies that promote agriculture and livestock expansion and allow burning within the Pantanal have combined with limited cross-border collaboration to create a tinderbox. Ecosystem-damaging fires will continue without stronger commitments to protect these critical wetland habitats." In 2020, fires devastated 4.3 million hectares of the Pantanal region, the highest number since monitoring began in 1998; the number of fires burning in the area was 508% more than average. That same year, fires burned 100 percent of the Pantanal National Park Matogrossense. At least 10 million animals died in just three months. Unusually large fires continued in July 2021. "We are asking the States to comply with the obligations acquired before the Convention, generating coherent mechanisms and implementing policies and norms to protect the Pantanal," explained AIDA attorney Claudia Velarde. "An advisory mission to the six Ramsar sites could provide specialized assistance to the Brazilian, Bolivian and Paraguayan governments to overcome the conditions that pose risks to the conservation and wise use of this key wetland.” Likewise, the inscription of the sites on the Montreux Record can result in economic aid, support and technical advice, for the recovery of the Pantanal in the three countries. "We sent an urgent alert for Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay to focus on the Pantanal as the world's largest transboundary freshwater wetland," said Andre Siqueira, President Director of ECOA. "The Ramsar Convention cannot achieve its objectives if the ecosystems it protects are significantly damaged by the continued use of fire, agribusiness and the lack of adequate resources to fight fires." The biodiversity and ecological richness of the Pantanal is incalculable. At least 3,500 species of plants, about 600 birds, 150 mammals, 175 reptiles, 40 amphibians and 300 freshwater fish inhabit the biome. Many are in danger of extinction in other regions, such as the tuyuyú and the jaguar, the marsh deer, the giant otter and the macaw, all emblematic species of the biome. The Pantanal is home to the highest concentration of species such as the jaguar and the caiman. press contacts: Alejandro Olivera (Mexico), Center for Biological Diversity, +52 612 1040604, [email protected] Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, +521 5570522107, [email protected] André Luiz Siqueira (Brazil), ECOA, +55 67 33243230, [email protected]
Read more