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
Human Rights Council addresses the water crisis and environmental defenders protection
The 46th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council is the first to be held entirely online, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It runs until March 23. The virtual format of this HRC session enabled AIDA to make our first participation ever in the HRC and join the discussions on two of the topics that are at the core of its human rights work: the right to a healthy environment and the protection of environmental human rights defenders. On 03 March, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, David Boyd, presented his report “Human Rights and the Global Water Crisis” to the Human Rights Council. In it, Boyd highlighted the severe impacts of water pollution, water scarcity and water-related disasters on the rights to life, health, education, food, development and the right to a healthy environment. He also emphasized that climate change is a risk-multiplier, exacerbating water-related human rights issues. The Special Rapporteur called on States to incorporate a rights-based approach in both their climate strategies and water plans. Finally, Boyd reiterated his call for the Human Rights Council to support the initiative for a resolution to recognize that everyone everywhere has the right to live in a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In the Interactive Dialogue that followed Boyd’s presentation, AIDA Attorney Rosa Peña denounced the negative impacts of mega-dams, coal mining and fracking on human rights and water access in Latin America. She noted that these projects not only threaten the human rights of local communities but also exacerbate the climate crisis. She called the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the communities affected by the Belo Monte mega-dam in the Brazilian Amazon. Currently, implementation of the so-called ‘Consensus Hydrogram’ in the Xingu River threatens the lives of local communities, pollutes the water, dries up the river and causes food insecurity and severe biodiversity loss. On March 4, it was the turn of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Mary Lawlor, to engage in an Interactive Dialogue on ”Final warning: death threats and killings of human rights defenders” She concluded that lack of political will is one of the reasons why various States fail in their moral and legal obligation to protect Human Rights Defenders, and therefore called for more effective responses to the threats against them. Representing AIDA in the Interactive Dialogue, Attorney Marcella Torres highlighted that Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental human rights defenders and urged all States to actively protect them. She turned the spotlight on the situation of environmental defenders in Brazil, Guatemala and Colombia, where the invasion of indigenous lands, mega-dams and fracking are closely related to the increase in violence against defenders. She concluded by reminding States that the protection of environmental defenders should promote the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, and provide guarantees so that all people are free to exercise their right to defend human rights. See AIDA’s contributions in the Interactive Dialogues in full:
Read moreHuman Rights Council addresses the water crisis and environmental defenders protection
The 46th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council is the first to be held entirely online, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It runs until March 23. The virtual format of this HRC session enabled AIDA to make our first participation ever in the HRC and join the discussions on two of the topics that are at the core of its human rights work: the right to a healthy environment and the protection of environmental human rights defenders. On 03 March, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, David Boyd, presented his report “Human Rights and the Global Water Crisis” to the Human Rights Council. In it, Boyd highlighted the severe impacts of water pollution, water scarcity and water-related disasters on the rights to life, health, education, food, development and the right to a healthy environment. He also emphasized that climate change is a risk-multiplier, exacerbating water-related human rights issues. The Special Rapporteur called on States to incorporate a rights-based approach in both their climate strategies and water plans. Finally, Boyd reiterated his call for the Human Rights Council to support the initiative for a resolution to recognize that everyone everywhere has the right to live in a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In the Interactive Dialogue that followed Boyd’s presentation, AIDA Attorney Rosa Peña denounced the negative impacts of mega-dams, coal mining and fracking on human rights and water access in Latin America. She noted that these projects not only threaten the human rights of local communities but also exacerbate the climate crisis. She called the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the communities affected by the Belo Monte mega-dam in the Brazilian Amazon. Currently, implementation of the so-called ‘Consensus Hydrogram’ in the Xingu River threatens the lives of local communities, pollutes the water, dries up the river and causes food insecurity and severe biodiversity loss. On March 4, it was the turn of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Mary Lawlor, to engage in an Interactive Dialogue on ”Final warning: death threats and killings of human rights defenders” She concluded that lack of political will is one of the reasons why various States fail in their moral and legal obligation to protect Human Rights Defenders, and therefore called for more effective responses to the threats against them. Representing AIDA in the Interactive Dialogue, Attorney Marcella Torres highlighted that Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental human rights defenders and urged all States to actively protect them. She turned the spotlight on the situation of environmental defenders in Brazil, Guatemala and Colombia, where the invasion of indigenous lands, mega-dams and fracking are closely related to the increase in violence against defenders. She concluded by reminding States that the protection of environmental defenders should promote the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, and provide guarantees so that all people are free to exercise their right to defend human rights. See AIDA’s contributions in the Interactive Dialogues in full:
Read more
Legal resistance to the expansion of salmon farming in Chile
By Claudia Arancibia (AIDA), Victoria Belemmi (FIMA) y Estefanía González (Greenpeace Chile) In the Magallanes Region of Southern Patagonia, one of Chile’s most pristine natural areas, the indigenous communities who have lived amongst these awe-inspiring fjords and channels for six thousand years are now fighting to project them. A coalition of Kawésqar communities – organized as Kawésqar Atap, As Wal Lajep, Grupos Familiares Nómades del Mar, Residentes Río Primero e Inés Caro – are defending their land and seas from the expansion of the salmon industry into their ancestral territory. In February, they won an important legal victory. Chile’s Supreme Court ruled in their favor, repealing an environmental permit that had authorized the construction of a salmon farm in Lake Balmaceda, citing the project’s failure to consider the observations of local communities. The ruling overturns a 2018 decision of the Third Environment Court that had rejected the communities’ claims. This case sets an important precedent—the nation’s highest court recognized the value of indigenous participation in the environmental evaluation process of projects that could affect ancestral territories. It also reaffirmed the State's obligation to respect the indigenous consultation process and to comply with the provisions of national environmental law and Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, ratified by Chile. The Supreme Court's ruling represents progress toward understanding that the participation of indigenous, local and traditional communities—in addition to being a right—is a valuable input for decision-making. In November 2020, another important legal development acknowledged the damages caused by these salmon farming operations. The Third Environmental Court recognized that the lack of oxygen in the waters of Chilean Patagonia is directly related to the operation of salmon farms. Despite being informed of the situation, the Environmental Superintendent had previously ignored the causal relationship between salmon farming and environmental damages, arguing that, often, the decrease of oxygen was due to natural causes such as marine currents, the geography of the area, or climate change. The Court’s ruling also constitutes a key precedent, as it associates industrial salmon production with the dangerous percentage of areas with low oxygen levels in the seas of Chilean Patagonia. Known as anaerobism, this condition is caused by the large amount of organic matter (uneaten food and feces) that the salmon industry discharges into the sea, inadequate handling of dead fish, and the amount of farmed fish per square meter, which exceeds the carrying capacity of the waters. What about sanctions? Despite the progress described above, Chilean authorities still face serious problems in adequately controlling salmon farming and preventing the damages the industry’s expansion is causing. It’s clear that the sanctions imposed on offending companies have not been sufficiently exemplary or dissuasive. In spite of multiple sanctioning procedures against several companies, no efforts have been made to improve sanitary and environmental standards, neither of which is considered by the environmental authorities when granting operating permits. For a revelatory case study, we need look no farther than a Magallanes scandal known as “Salmon Leaks.” In 2019, a journalistic investigation uncovered that the company Nova Austral was hiding the amount of fish that died daily in their farms in the Alberto de Agostini National Park. A subsequent report revealed that the company also adulterated the seabed with heavy machinery (until it was basically dead), in order to hide its anaerobic condition and obtain permission to continue farming salmon in biologically deteriorated marine areas. In response, the Court of Appeals of Punta Arenas sanctioned the company with the maximum fine and the suspension of a productive cycle. In 2020, the State Defense Council sued the company for possible fraud because it was collecting tax benefits under the Navarino Law in breach of its obligation to "make rational use of the natural resources of the Magallanes region, preserving nature and the environment." Then, General Treasury of the Republic withheld four payments covering up to four months of subsidies under the law. Despite the multiple scandals and sanctions imposed, the company continues to advertise the "sustainability" of its salmon. The future of the Kawésqar Reserve Now, Nova Austral is seeking to relocate four of its aquaculture concessions to Kawésqar National Reserve, with prior approval from the Environmental Evaluation Service. Six other projects are currently undergoing environmental evaluation for the same purpose. This is alarming for many reasons, but principal among them is the fact that the Reserve lacks an adequate management plan to safeguard its conservation objectives. This leaves the area exposed potentially serious impacts to its natural wealth and the ancestral rights of the Kawésqar indigenous communities. It’s urgent that the Reserve’s management plan prohibits salmon farming within its boundaries, due to the outright incompatibility of salmon farming with the reserve’s objectives. We have much to learn from the Kawésqar communities, who reaffirm the protection of the seas of the Patagonian archipelago as the basis for protecting their worldview, their cultural identity and their way of life. What will it take for the rest of the country to defend the Patagonian seas as a natural treasure vital not just for Chile, but for the world?
Read more