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
Inter-American Development Bank washes its hands of responsibility for dangerous Hidroituango dam and related human rights violations in Colombia
Fearing imminent collapse of the dam, communities in Antioquia, Colombia, have learned that the public lending arm of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) will not be investigated. Washington, DC — Last month, the Board and management of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) announced it would not approve an investigation of the Bank’s role in financing the construction of the controversial Ituango Hydroelectric Project (Hidroituango) in Colombia. The decision disregards allegations of acute and far-reaching harms caused by the project, including a humanitarian crisis that has displaced hundreds of families and caused human rights abuses, including assassination and intimidation of community members who oppose the project. The announcement comes more than a year after communities affected by the construction of the Hidroituango dam on the Cauca River in Antioquia, Colombia, filed a claim with the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI). The claim, signed by more than 400 individuals affected by the dam, sought recourse from the MICI for the IDB’s alleged failure to comply with its own environmental and social safeguards. "We publicly denounce the IDB’s decision to evade its responsibility for the environmental damage and human rights violations resulting from the Hidroituango project, and we condemn the role of the MICI in facilitating and manifestly supporting this decision,2 remarked Isabel Zuleta, representative of Movimiento Ríos Vivos Antioquia. "It is unconscionable that the IDB is attempting to rewrite history by absolving itself from its responsibility for enabling and financing high-risk development projects that have extreme environmental impacts and blatantly violate human rights," added Zuleta. The IDB has two lending arms, one that invests in the public sector (the IDB) and another that invests in the private sector (IDB Invest). The MICI is the accountability mechanism of the bank, in charge of evaluating environmental and social compliance of the institution’s investments. The IDB initially invested in the Hidroituango project in 2012, which paved the way for and facilitated millions of dollars of additional investments from the IDB, as well as an additional billion from other international banks. The MICI, whose mandate is to provide accountability for harms caused by IDB investments, recommended no investigation of the IDB’s role in the project. Despite the decision not to review the IDB’s compliance, the MICI could continue its investigation regarding IDB Invest’s investment in the Hidroituango project. However this will depend completely on approval by the Bank’s Board. Before the dam was approved, communities warned of precisely the environmental and social impacts that have occurred. "For an institution that seeks to improve the lives of people in Latin America, the IDB’s decision is absurd, irresponsible, and disrespectful. It exemplifies a complete disregard for people living within the Cauca River Basin. Unfortunately, this disregard too often characterizes the IDB’s engagement in large-scale infrastructure projects throughout the region," said Alexandre Andrade Sampaio of International Accountability Project. "What is the value of environmental and social policies at the IDB, when they are ignored and dismissed precisely when they are most needed to protect people’s lives? This lack of accountability is unacceptable, and it demonstrates why communities affected by the actions of development banks have found it necessary to resort to the courts to secure their rights," remarked Carla García Zendejas, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), in reference to the recent US Supreme Court decision in Jam v. IFC, which recognized that international organizations such as the IDB are not immune from litigation in US courts. "This decision exemplifies the perils of an accountability mechanism that lacks the independence and legitimacy to initiate and carry out a genuine investigation of a bank’s projects," added García Zendejas. "Since day one, the Hidroituango project carried out a weak impact assessment, inaccurate surveys of affected people and deficient environmental implementation and monitoring, but the IDB has continued to invest in it," sustained Carlos Lozano, Senior Attorney at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "The project was approved and is under construction without having previously carried out an evaluation of alternatives," he pointed out. Members of Movimiento Ríos Vivos Antioquia, who represent affected communities in the complaint, continue to receive ongoing threats and suffer intimidation, homicides, and other forms of violence. The IDB has shown its disregard for the volatile situation surrounding Hidroituango, including the continued presence of paramilitary groups in the area. The IDB has also ignored community requests to delay dam construction to exhume mass graves from the armed conflict in the area affected by the dam. Press Contacts: Isabel Zuleta, Movimiento Ríos Vivos Antioquia, +57 3217347264, [email protected] (Spanish) Carla Garcia Zendejas, Center for International Law, +1 202 374 2550, [email protected] Alexandre Andrade Sampaio, International Accountability Project, [email protected] Carlos Lozano Acosta, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, [email protected] Note for editors: The Ituango hydroelectric plant will be the largest in Colombia, with a 49-mile (79 km) reservoir that will flood a surface of 11,120 acres (4,500 hectares). The IDB Group has financed the project through various types of investment: initially $2 million in technical cooperation for the Colombian State in 2012 and then $550 million in direct investments in 2016 to Empresas Públicas de Medellín (EPM), the company in charge of the project. Additionally, the IDB manages a $1 billion dollar loan package, with funds from multiple institutional investors, including European banks. After a construction failure at the dam construction in May 2018, more than 25,000 people had to be evacuated from the area due to flooding, landslides, and avalanches. The humanitarian crisis has worsened dramatically: people have lost their property, livelihoods, and access to health and education services, which have always been meager in the area. Many people have been displaced and those who have stayed are not properly cared for. In addition, people who are members of Movimiento Ríos Vivos are discriminated against. There is a lack of food, people suffer from diseases, and shelters are deficient. People are pressured to return to risk areas and sign documents waiving their claims. In short, communities are facing a situation of systematic human rights violations as a result of the project.
Read more
AIDA Statement on the crisis in the Amazon
AIDA expresses deep concern about the grave situation confronting the Amazon, which is being ravaged by a large number of fires in Brazil and other Amazonian countries. The consequences of these fires are devastating for the biodiversity of the area and for the communities that inhabit it, but also for the planet, which is facing a climate crisis that requires increasingly urgent and effective actions. The Amazon holds 20% of the Earth's unfrozen fresh water and is home to a quarter of the world's species. In addition, the Amazon jungle releases about 20% of the oxygen we breathe and stores 90 to 140 billion tons of carbon dioxide, regulating the global climate. The international scientific community has emphatically pointed out that the destruction of tropical forests causes 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. For this reason, the Amazon ecosystem is vital for mitigating the climate crisis. The current fires demonstrate that the Amazon is now more vulnerable than before due to a combination of factors, including increased droughts, deforestation, unsustainable use of soil and subsoil, and the increase in global temperatures. The record number of fires in the Amazon rainforest aggravates the climate crisis and with it the threat of increasingly harmful natural disasters. The policies, rhetoric and actions of Jair Bolsonaro's government have the same impact, actively dismantling due protection of the Amazon and its indigenous peoples. They irresponsibly promote the expansion of the agricultural, livestock and extractive frontier in the Amazon, resulting in increased deforestation and the consequences we are witnessing today. This worrying trend is repeated in the rest of the countries called upon to protect the Amazon basin—Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela—whose governments also have not done enough to preserve the Amazon. AIDA urges the governments of the Amazon basin to adopt urgent measures to stop the fires. In addition, we call on citizens and the international community to pressure the governments of Brazil and the other countries of the region to reverse course and effectively protect the Amazon, its biodiversity, and the people who depend on it. We demand that governments take concrete actions to: Strengthen institutions and environmental norms, Immediately suspend rhetoric that encourages deforestation and the destruction of the Amazon, Stop the indiscriminate expansion of the agricultural, livestock and extractive frontier in the area, Adopt proper land use and planning, Ensure the existence and restoration of ecosystem life cycles, and Control deforestation and conserve the Amazon with the financial and technical support of multilateral international cooperation. Learn more about our work in the Amazon. PRESS CONTACT: Victor Quintanilla (México), [email protected], +5215570522107
Read more
Defend Yum Balam, a key ecosystem for biodiversity and the climate
AIDA presented an amicus brief demonstrating the importance of the protected area, as well as Mexico’s international environmental and human rights obligations to preserve it in the face of a 21,000-room hotel project that would imply significant damage to the site. Cancun, Mexico. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) presented a legal brief (Amicus Curiae) before the Seventh District Court of the State of Quintana Roo to defend the Yum Balam Flora and Fauna Protection Area, located in the north of the state. In 2018, when the site's Management Program was published, private and communal landowners filed several lawsuits against the program and the decree that created the protected area, arguing that it affected their rights to participation, property, and legality. Prior to the publication of the Management Program, the Advisory Council of the protected area received a report from a consultant who recommended the construction within Yum Balam of a mega tourism project that includes 21,000 hotel rooms, deeming it economically viable. "That viability is in doubt because each hotel room would generate changes in land use, population growth, loss of flora and fauna, and other irreversible damages to the ecological characteristics of the place," said Camilo Thompson, AIDA attorney. "What is at stake is Yum Balam’s contribution to the enjoyment of a healthy environment for present and future generations." The decree creating the protected area, which dates back to 1994, puts the public interest and regulation of natural environments that benefit the entire country above private interests. The Management Program is aimed at regulating the conservation and sustainable use of Yum Balam. The site is considered a Priority Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention. "According to a study, Yum Balam's mangroves and sea grasses prevent 38.5 million tons of carbon dioxide from escaping, equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions of 9.4 million Mexican people," said Pilar Diez, Regional Director of the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA-Southeast). In its 152 thousand hectares, the site also has reefs and coastal dunes. It is home to more than 90 percent of the endemic birds of the Yucatan Peninsula, sea turtles with special protection status, whale sharks, dolphins, and endangered terrestrial species like the jaguar. In fact, in the Maya language, Yum Balam means Señor Jaguar. "Our brief seeks to document the national and international importance of Yum Balam in the context of the climate crisis," Thompson added. "Betting on the development of tourism megaprojects is incompatible with the urgent task of confronting this crisis and achieving climate justice.” Both the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Platform for Science and Policy on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) have been very firm about the current situation of ecosystem loss and the urgent actions that all countries must take in the face of the climate crisis. "We’ve documented the international legal framework under which the Mexican State is obliged to guarantee fundamental human rights, such as the right to a healthy environment," Thompson explained. "Mexico has the obligation to conserve its biodiversity, including coastal wetlands, forests, jungles and other ecosystems that regulate the climate and contribute to fishing and tourism." The Court's decision must reflect these obligations and uphold Yum Balam's protection. press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107
Read more