Cuzco Peru
On January 22, 2025, the indigenous community of Tintaya Marquiri, located in the province of Espinar, in the department of Cusco, filed a complaint with the Superior Prosecutor's Office of the National Coordination of Specialized Prosecutor's Offices for Environmental Crimes against the Antapaccay mining company , a subsidiary of the Swiss transnational corporation Glencore, which they accuse of being responsible for serious environmental damage in their territory. According to the community members, the pollution has affected both the environment and the health of the area's inhabitants, who have reported the presence of heavy metals in their bodies.
The complaint is based on Environmental Causality Assessment (EAC) reports prepared by the Environmental Assessment and Enforcement Agency (OEFA) in 2023, which concluded that environmental contamination exists in Espinar and identified the company as responsible. According to OEFA report No. 00144, the company accumulated more than 60 environmental complaints between 2012 and 2022, which strengthened the community members' accusations.
The community also claims that it was not included in the prior consultation carried out in 2015 and approved in 2019.
Likewise, indigenous communities of Huini Coroccohuaycco and Pacopata, in the province of Espinar, filed a lawsuit against the National Service for Environmental Certification for Sustainable Investments (SENACE) and the Antapaccay Mining Company SA, due to omissions in the Modification of the Environmental Impact Study (MEIA) of the Antapaccay mining project – Tintaya Expansion – Coroccohuayco Integration.
In the lawsuit, they demanded that the Peruvian State initiate the process of free, prior and informed consultation, in accordance with international standards, in the procedure for approving the expansion of Glencore Antapaccay Tintaya.
The communities pointed out the negative impacts caused by the modification of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the mine, "Glencore Antapaccay Tintaya Expansion - Coroccohuayco Integration," and also denounced the lack of community participation. This was addressed in a decision by the First Constitutional Chamber of the Judiciary. HE He ordered the Congress of the Republic to comply with the right to prior consultation in favor of the affected indigenous peoples before voting on laws that affect them.
The lawsuit emphasized the severity of the project's impacts on the communal territory, as the modification did not analyze the cumulative impacts and the measures to prevent them, in addition to the fact that the project is in communal territories and with it the consequent loss of land, displacement and threats to the very existence of the community.
The lawsuit demands that the necessary measures to ensure this right be urgently debated in the next legislature, which establishes that indigenous peoples must be consulted by the State whenever legislative or administrative measures are planned that may directly impact their collective rights, highlighting Bill 05/2016-CR.
Furthermore, the community members indicated that the Ministry of Energy and Mines (Minem) confirmed that the oxide plant did not have the necessary permits to operate.
The plaintiffs also alleged the The contamination of water sources and the presence of heavy metals in the blood of the residents have led to calls for the company to be sanctioned for the damage caused. He also emphasized that the fight for justice has involved great sacrifices for the community members.
The community members then met with representatives from OEFA, requesting information on the sanctions and measures taken against Glencore-Antapaccay for the pollution generated in their territory and its impacts on climate change. The agency committed to providing complete information on the Environmental Causality Assessment reports and the Administrative Sanctioning Processes (PAS) related to the mining company.
On June 3, 2025, the court rejected the lawsuit, a decision that was challenged by the community. The case is currently pending before the Superior Court of Justice of Cusco, which is expected to overturn the lower court's ruling, uphold the community's appeal, and annul the administrative acts that approved the Environmental Impact Assessment Modification (MEIA) without prior consultation.
The Coroccohuayco case exemplifies a structural problem: the systematic omission of prior consultation in the early decision-making stages of investment projects, such as the approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and its modifications. This administrative act establishes the environmental, social, and economic obligations and commitments that the project proponent will be required to fulfill. The Court's decision will be crucial for respecting collective rights and upholding environmental standards in the country.
While the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change comes from Amazon deforestation, those produced by the mining industry, especially in the Andean region, require equal attention. These emissions range from mineral extraction (particularly in open-pit mining) to metal smelting and refining processes. Climate change introduces greater climate variability, increasing uncertainty about the hydrological regime of watercourses and negatively impacting water availability. For example, it alters flow patterns and water volume in rivers and intensifies extreme weather events. In developing countries like Peru, one of the most significant consequences of climate change has been the reduction in available water and, consequently, the decline in agricultural activity, a fundamental economic resource for the country. Mining activity also affects the availability and quantity of surface and groundwater, and therefore, the effects of local climate change in watersheds with mining operations are exacerbated if the necessary measures are not taken.
The manifestation of climate change in Peru is attempted to be recorded through its expression in:
• El Niño phenomenon
• Melting glaciers
• Increase in temperature
• Sea level rise
The lawsuit included arguments based on the Glencore Report in Peru, which shows the environmental and social impacts of the company's mining activities, as well as its non-compliance with international environmental, social and indigenous peoples' rights standards, which have negatively impacted local communities and the environment.
According to data from the Muqui Network , a collective of 28 institutions nationwide working in 11 regions of Peru, supporting and assisting communities and populations living in mining areas in the defense and promotion of their rights, Peru contributes less than 0.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions. However, its economic growth is dependent on extractive activities, and this figure is projected to increase. While the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change comes from Amazon deforestation, those produced by the mining industry, especially in the Andean region, require equal attention. These emissions range from mineral extraction (particularly in open-pit mining) to metal smelting and refining. Climate change introduces greater climate variability, increasing uncertainty about the hydrological regime of waterways and negatively impacting water availability. For example, it alters flow patterns and water volume in rivers and intensifies extreme weather events. In developing countries like Peru, one of the most significant consequences of climate change has been the reduction in available water and, consequently, the decline in agricultural activity, a fundamental economic resource for the country. Mining activity also impacts the availability and quantity of surface and groundwater, and therefore, the effects of local climate change in watersheds with mining operations are exacerbated if the necessary measures are not taken.
- Huini Coroccohuaycco and Pacopata Indigenous Communities
- Peruvian State
- Ministry of Energy and Mines
- Antapaccay Mining Company
In the province of Espinar (Cuzco), where Glencore operates the Tintaya (currently being closed), Antapaccay (which began production in 2012), and Coroccohuayco (currently in exploration) mining complexes, local communities have filed complaints and lawsuits regarding pollution that endangers their health, the health of their animals, and the environment. Two central aspects of the actions of the Peruvian state and the mining company are the human rights violations against the communities living near the mining complexes and the environmental pollution generated in the area. This case addresses both aspects, noting that the Peruvian government has sided with the mining company in the conflict, facilitating the presence of police forces to repress protesters and ignoring the existing pollution.
Mining pollution in Peru causes environmental degradation, deforestation, and public health problems, concentrated in regions such as Madre de Dios and the Andean highlands. This legal and illegal activity contaminates soil and water with mercury, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons, affecting biodiversity and the livelihoods of communities. It also generates socio-environmental conflicts, food insecurity, and jeopardizes community development. Metallurgical activity in La Oroya began in 1922 with the installation of the Metallurgical Complex. The first affected community was Huaynacancha, whose residents were forced to relocate due to toxic ashfall.
More than a year after the landmark ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Peruvian state has still not implemented measures to address the environmental and health crisis affecting dozens of families contaminated by heavy metals, leaving the population still breathing poison. Militarization, human rights abuses, police repression of protesting communities, and massive heavy metal contamination in the soil and in the bodies of people and animals continue to plague the region.
International agreements/treaties
- ILO Convention 169.
- Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
National laws
- Peruvian Constitution
Beginning
- Principle of prevention
This record was created using publicly available information. If you have information about this case or would like to suggest updates or corrections, please click here .