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
Moratoriums and bans on fracking: Comparative legislation
Hydraulic fracturing is a technique used to extract nonconventional petroleum products, such as tight gas and shale oil, from deep underground deposits. To release these hydrocarbons, the rock formations in which they are trapped must first be shattered into many small pieces. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, thus involves drilling 1000 to 5000 meters into the earth and injecting a high-pressure fluid mix of water, sand and various chemicals to fracture the rock and release the hard-to-reach hydrocarbons. This controversial technique has sparked resistance in many communities, regions, and countries where it is causing serious dangers to public health and the environment. Countries, regions, cities and communities around the world have chosen to prohibit or place moratoriums on fracking through various legal and administrative mechanisms. These fracking bans are driven by a number of concerns surrounding the dangers fracking poses to the environment and public health. We would like to point out the following arguments: Above ground and subterranean water sources, air, and soil in the vicinity of fracking operations are at serious risk of contamination. There remains scientific uncertainty regarding of the magnitude of fracking’s impacts on public health and the environment. Measures put in place by the hydrocarbon industry to prevent the impacts of fracking have not yet been proven effective. Moreover, a “general consensus” among actors in the hydrocarbon industry does not guarantee that fracking operations are safe for humans and the environment. There is a serious risk of contamination of soil and water sources in rural and agricultural areas. Fracking impacts communities’ ways of life, and limits consumer confidence that food and agricultural products grown or produced in areas affected by fracking are safe to consume. Fracking emits significant volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, exacerbating anthropogenic climate change. Among these gases produced by fracking are large volumes of methane, which traps roughly 30 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. There is a large and growing social opposition to fracking, driven by community organizations and citizen mobilization, demonstrating widespread popular opposition to the technique. Indigenous communities like the Cherokee argue that defending their territories against fracking is essential to their continued survival. Most of the moratoriums and bans on fracking surveyed in this report adopt the precautionary principle, either directly referencing the principle or indirectly alluding to it. For example, most fracking bans are based on the possibility of serious and irreversible harms caused by the extraction technique, or on the scientific uncertainty regarding the magnitude of fracking’s impacts. These measures invoke the precautionary principle, which states that in the event a technique could cause serious or irreversible dangers, or if there is a lack of scientific evidence that a technique is safe, decision makers should adopt proactive measures that protect the health of people and the environment above all. However, various measures to ban or pass moratoriums on fracking did first require exhaustive scientific investigations by government authorities to better understand the risks fracking could cause to public health and the environment. Those studies confirmed the serious risks of hydraulic fracturing, but could not prove with certainty the short and long-term impacts of fracking, nor the efficacy of industry efforts to prevent and mitigate those dangers. In a pair of case studies (in Northern Ireland and Wales) government authorities used the precautionary principle to establish a burden of proof, placing the onus on the hydrocarbon industry to clearly and scientifically demonstrate that the proposed fracking activities would not cause serious or irreversible harm to public health or the health of the environment. If the party pursuing hydraulic fracturing could not show evidence-based proof of the safety of fracking in a particular instance, authorities would maintain precautionary measures (such as prohibitions or moratoriums) in order to protect the health of people and the environment. The measures adopted in these cases were formalized via legislation or through orders issued by the executive branch or other administrative bodies. In two of the cases examined (New York and Maryland in the United States), prohibitions or moratoriums on fracking at the municipal level were key to securing political and legal support at larger, regional jurisdictions. Furthermore, social mobilization by grassroots organizations helped amplify and legitimize anti-fracking movements at the national or regional level. In all cases, anti-fracking measures were passed only after mobilizing social resistance to fracking, which built awareness, generated larger movements, and unified voices against the technique. Civil society organizations have employed a diverse and creative array of methods to build support with political actors. Among them are citizens’ legislative initiatives, petitions, letters and meetings with policymakers, marches, strikes and protests, and other collective action. All have proven effective in generating political support to pass fracking bans. The power of social mobilization against fracking has been a deciding factor in many cases in which authorities have recognized that widespread public opposition to fracking is the principal reason to pass local fracking bans or moratoriums. SEE THE REPORT (IN SPANISH)
Read more
World Bank Arbitration Tribunal Refuses to Listen to Those Affected by Mining in Santurbán, Colombia
The World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has declined to accept an Amicus Curiae that was to be presented by the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán and allied international organizations. Bucaramanga, Bogotá, Washington, Ottawa, Amsterdam. National and international civil society organizations rebuffed the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’ (ICSID) refusal to accept an Amicus Curiae within the process of the ongoing international arbitration brought forth by Canadian mining company Eco Oro Minerals Corp. against Colombia. The arbitration centre is hearing the ongoing international arbitration put forth by the Canadian company in question against the Andean nation. The company is attempting to pursue its Angostura gold mining project in the Santurbán páramo, located in the northeast of the country. The arbitration questions the decisions taken by the Colombian State to protect its páramos, high mountain wetlands that are a natural source of water for 70% of its inhabitants. The arbitration is being heard at the ICSID, an organization dependent on the World Bank that is in charge of the resolution of disputes between investors and States. Colombia could be condemned to pay $746 million US dollars, an unprecedented sanction for the country. “At a time when Latin American countries are embracing the principles of environmental democracy with the adoption of the Escazú Agreement, ICSID is going in the opposite direction. It is regrettable that in the midst of the regional movement for transparency and participation, ICSID has opted to constrict itself even more. In doing so, it is only generating more anger and distrust, not only in the face of this mechanism, but also in the face of the whole system of Investor-State Arbitration worldwide,” stated Carla García Zendejas, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “The communities affected by mining in Santurbán have to be heard and can provide crucial elements for the case,” said Carlos Lozano, Senior AIDA Attorney. The organizations consider that the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán has a significant interest in the outcome of the process and that they could have provided expertise to the arbitration tribunal, which would have been helpful for a better decision in the case. In the same way, they urge ICSID to expand citizen participation and make its decision-making processes more transparent. This is transcendental for the public interest of the countries whose governments are subject to its jurisdiction. Find more information on the case here. PRESS CONTACTS: Alix Mancilla, Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, [email protected], +57 311 2439273 Carla García Zendejas, CIEL, [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Carlos Lozano Acosta, AIDA, [email protected], +57 300 56 40 282 Kirsten Francescone, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected], +14373459881 Kristen Genovese, SOMO, [email protected], +31 65 277 3272, Manuel Perez Rocha, Institute for Policy Studies, [email protected] +1 240 838 6623
Read more
Herbivorous fish and coral reefs: a relationship we must protect
Vibrantly colored herbivorous fish feed on the macroalgae that covers coral reefs. These fish play a fundamental role in the health of marine environments by cleaning the algae that deprive corals of light and oxygen. They are vital for maintaining the ecological equilibrium necessary for the reef’s survival. Recommendations for saving herbivorous fish Targeted measures are urgently needed to maintain and improve the health of coral reefs. Protecting the colonies of herbivorous fish that sustain them would go a long way toward helping reefs recover. In order to do so, AIDA recommends: Establishing and adopting strong fishing management and conservation strategies that will help herbivorous fish (particularly parrotfish) populations recover. This includes fishing management initiatives, establishing temporary or location-based bans, and strict quotas on fishing. Other measures include encouraging fisheries to diversify the species they capture. In the Caribbean, for example, fishing for lionfish—an invasive species—could be promoted as a viable economic alternative in hundreds of fishing communities. Establishing marine protected areas and recovery zones where fishing is prohibited. These areas or zones, which should include at-risk habitats, need urgent protection because they are considered refuges for juvenile and adult fish. Allowing herbivorous fish species to complete their life cycles would contribute to the resilience of key marine environments like coral reefs. Standardize monitoring techniques of fish populations and implement alternative management practices. Encouraging optimal standard practices would allow scientists working in diverse habitats to improve monitoring, as well as fishery and ecosystem management. Among other options, reef restoration is also extremely beneficial, and has already been adopted in several areas of Mexico. Promote comprehensive regional management systems that allow local authorities to share experiences and establish shared management and conservation tools. Create and implement norms and laws that protect reefs and herbivorous fish. These could include laws that promote adequate fishing management practices and effectively combat threats like overfishing and tourism that damage reef habitats. Such laws could also encourage low impact coastal development that incorporates thorough scientific and technical evaluation into the planning process. See THE Fact Sheet (in Spanish)
Read more