Case story

  • Peru

CAO Case - Peru / Compania Minera Antamina S.A.-03 / Huarmey

Federation of Fishery Captains and Employers of Peru Complaint Regarding EDC, Teck Corp, Rio Algom Ltd and Noranda Inc., Peru 2008

This case story originates from, a platform based on wiki style contributions from a virtual network or individuals, companies and organizations with relevant expertise. Though some of the information may be outdated or inaccurate due to the wiki-nature of the BASESwiki platform, they still present a valuable resource. ACCESS is reviewing and updating all BASESwiki case stories. 


Compania Minera Antamina operates an open-pit mine and a milling and ore concentrating facility in the municipality of San Marcos in the Ancash region of Peru. The concentrates extracted from the mine are transported via an underground pipeline through the Department of Ancash to Punta Lobitos in the Municipality of Huarmey. At Punta Lobitos, the water is separated from the concentrate and loaded onto ships to be transported to global markets. CAO received the first complaint related to the project in 2000, the second complaint in May 2005, and the third complaint in 2008.

CAO Action

The CAO Vice-President requested that CAO Compliance initiate an appraisal to ascertain whether an audit of MIGA’s involvement in Minera Antamina was necessary. Minera Antamina cancelled all guarantees with MIGA in early 2007 and after that time had no involvement with the project. In June 2008, CAO received a third complaint related to Minera Antamina relating to changes to the ground water level.


Case Status: Closed

CAO completed an Appraisal in September 2008, which made the following findings:

  • - The monitoring program did successfully detect the rise in ground water levels and changes in ground water quality;

  • - MIGA responded expeditiously to the ground water issues, however officially lost the possibility to conduct a follow-up when the guarantees were cancelled.

CAO concluded that ‘there were no indications of any failures by MIGA to address social or environmental issues as part of its review process that resulted in outcomes that were contrary to the desired effect of the policy provisions’. CAO closed the case.

Contributor(s): This article was modified by Pic1 (2), Nicolaclayre (2), and Kyle (1).