Toxic Pollution

Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: A great opportunity to put the brakes on climate change

By Florencia Ortuzar, legal advisor, AIDA While many of us are alarmed by climate change and its already tangible effects, concern becomes even greater when learning the fact that all the CO2  accumulated in the atmosphere cannot be removed, even if we were to shut down all the sources of emissions today. This reality was confirmed in the Fifth Assessment Report on the state of the climate, issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The explanation for this is simple: CO2, in contrast to other gases and pollutants, remains in the atmosphere for millennia after being released. It is stuck in the atmosphere for what is eternal for human standards, implying that its greenhouse effect does not end even with an immediate halt in emissions. The good news is that CO2 is not the only cause of global warming. There are other pollutants that, unlike CO2, only stay in the atmosphere for a relatively short time. These “other” agents are responsible for 40-45% of global warming, and they remain in the atmosphere for a minimum of a few hours to a maximum of a few decades. They are called short-lived climate pollutants, or SLCPs. Like CO2, SLCP emissions have a negative impact on humans and ecosystems. So a reduction in these pollutants would bring immediate relief to the worst affected by climate change and would bring important benefits to the environment and people. The main SLCPs  Although all SLCPs contribute significantly to climate change and share the trait of being short-lived, each has its unique characteristics and emission sources.  Black carbon or soot, is a particulate substance produced by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, mainly from motor vehicles, domestic stoves, fires and factories. The dark particles heat the atmosphere as they absorb light, and when the particles land on snow and ice they accelerate melting. Black carbon also affects human health by causing respiratory problems such as lung cancer and asthma.  Tropospheric ozone is a gas formed by the reaction of the sun with other gases called "precursors," which can be man made or naturally occurring. One of these precursors is methane, another SLCP. Tropospheric ozone is associated with diseases including bronchitis, emphysema, asthma and permanent scarring of the lung tissue. Studies also show that this gas has a direct impact on vegetation, reducing crop yields and the ability of plants to absorb CO2. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and 60% of its emissions come from human activities like rice farming, coal mining, landfill and oil combustion. Two important sources of methane include cattle farming, whose effect has dangerously increased with industrial meat production (Spanish), and large dams, especially those in tropical areas.  Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are man-made gases used in the production of air conditioners, refrigerators and aerosols. They have replaced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were banned under the Montreal Protocol. Although HFCs represent a small proportion of the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, their use is growing at an alarming speed of an average of 10-15% each year, according to a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report.   Everyone wins According to the IPCC, the reduction of these pollutants could avert a rise in average global temperatures by approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, cutting the current rate of global warming in half and helping to protect some of the areas most susceptible to climate change like the Arctic, the high Himalayan regions and Tibet. The mitigation of SLCPs is also crucial for decelerating glacial melting and rising sea levels, a serious situation for the world’s population that lives in coastal areas. The reduction of SLCPs would also bring important socio-environmental benefits. Black carbon and tropospheric ozone harm human health and reduce crop yields. This in turn affects ecosystems, food security, human welfare and the entire natural cycle that keeps the planet healthy. Some talking points Given that SLCPs stem from different sources, effective mitigation requires a series of comprehensive actions that deal with each pollutant separately. Fortunately, the road is already laid out. Many of the technologies, laws and institutions needed to cut SLCP emissions already exist. In the case of black carbon, new technologies are inexpensive and available. Developed countries have already reduced emissions significantly through the use of green technologies. Ideas include the modernization of domestic cooking systems in the region, introducing the use of solar cookers and new transport systems with improved exhaust filters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.   The amount of methane in the atmosphere, which affects the level of tropospheric ozone, is largely dependent on industrial activities. To reduce emissions, effective regulations should be implemented to control the industries that emit the most methane, including intensive cattle farming, mining, hydrocarbons and large dams. For HFCs, an alternative already exists. There need to be regulations that encourage people to substitute HFCs for greener alternatives, no matter the commercial barriers. Some countries have proposed incorporating HFCs in the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement recognized as one of the most successful initiatives to significantly and rapidly reduce CFC emissions, addressing a similar challenge, to the one we face today. To find out more about SLCPs, you can read a briefing paper (Spanish) put together by AIDA, CEDHA, CEMDA and RedRacc.

Almost 16,000 people urge Colombian President Santos to demarcate the Santurbán páramo

In a petition to the Presidency and the Ministry of Environment, thousands of people are calling on the government to define the boundaries of this fragile ecosystem at a scale of 1:25,000 as required by Colombian legislation. Bogota, Colombia—The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) sent to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and his minister of environment and sustainable development, Luz Helena Sarmiento, the signatures of 15,901 individuals calling for the demarcation of the Santurbán páramo to be based on proper scientific criteria at a scale of 1:25,000. The Santurbán páramo, located in the Colombian departments of Santander and Norte de Santander, provides water to nearly two million people, mainly in the cities of Bucaramanga and Cúcuta. The signatures collected over Change.org, the world’s largest petition platform, follow a previous request (in Spanish) by AIDA and prestigious Colombian environmentalists for the government to properly define the borders of the páramo in compliance with national legislation and international standards. This would prevent harmful activities such as large-scale mining from irreversibly damaging this fragile high-altitude wetland ecosystem. Páramos are "water factories" that contain a unique biodiversity and help mitigate climate change. In Colombia, home to the greatest number of páramos in the world, delimitation of this ecosystem is required under national law. That makes this petition even more important because the delimitation of the rest of the country’s páramos could depend on the outcome of the Santurbán decision. The petition promoted by AIDA includes a letter to President Santos and Minister Sarmiento. In the letter, the signatories call on the minister to recognize the entire páramo (more than 82,000 hectares) in the definition of its borders, not just the fraction (11,000 hectares) declared as a Regional Natural Park. For this to happen, the petition calls on the government to apply the parameters already established by Colombian scientists and provides legal arguments to support this requirement. Together with the signatures, AIDA has included a document that analyzes the legal reasons why the government should fully delimit this area (Available in Spanish, here). “Heeding the call of the thousands of signatories in the hemisphere is urgently needed because the risk to the páramos from mining is imminent," said Astrid Puentes Riaño, AIDA co-executive director. "Delineating Santurbán to a scale other than the ratio of 1:25,000 prescribed by the National Development Plan goes against the law. If the minister delimits the moor at a less detailed scale, the decision could be challenged in court.” AIDA's action comes as the Committee for the Defense of Santurbán Páramo holds a protest to protect this valuable ecosystem on November 15 in Bucaramanga. The petition and letter can be read at Change.org.

Report on the situation in La Oroya (Peru): When investor protection threatens human rights

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) presented a balance of the controversial case of industrial pollution. Huancayo, Peru – The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) released a report on the situation in La Oroya, a city in the central Andean region of Peru that is at the center of a controversial case of industrial pollution caused by a poly-metallic smelter in operation since 1922.   For decades, the people of La Oroya have been exposed to high levels of air pollution stemming from the complex’s emissions of toxic substances including lead, cadmium, arsenic and sulfur dioxide. In the middle of the 2000s La Oroya was identified as one of the 10 most polluted cities in the world.   According to independent studies, 97% of children between the ages of 6 months and 6 years, and 98% of those between 7 and 12 years old still have high levels of lead in their blood. The percentage reaches 100% in La Oroya Antigua, the area closest to the smelter. The effects of lead poisoning are irreversible.   Doe Run Peru, a subsidiary of the U.S.-based Doe Run Company, began operating the complex after its privatization in 1997. Both the company and the Peruvian State have failed to comply with their obligations to prevent environmental impact and respect the human rights of the population of La Oroya. In response, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and other organizations requested the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in 2005 to issue precautionary measures for people whose health was at serious risk from the pollution in the city. On August 31, 2007 the IACHR ordered the State to adopt measures to protect the health, integrity and life of a group of residents of La Oroya.   The precautionary measures require Peru to provide a specialized medical diagnostic to the beneficiaries plus specialized and adequate medical treatment to those who, based on the diagnosis, are in danger of irreparable damage to their physical integrity or lives.   Also since 2007, a complaint against Peru has been pending before the IACHR for the violation of human rights due to the toxic emissions from the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex. AIDA, APRODEH, Earthjustice and the Center for Human Rights and Environment (CEDHA) are representing the victims and the beneficiaries of the precautionary measures in the case.   “AIDA has been working and monitoring the situation in La Oroya for over a decade. Over this time we have seen the extent of the damage to victims’ health in La Oroya due to the pollution that they have been and continue to be exposed to. The State must assume its obligations and fully comply with the IACHR´s precautionary measures that are in effect”, said Maria Jose Veramendi, an AIDA legal advisor.   Meanwhile, parents of children with high levels of lead in their blood have tried to obtain compensation for the damages through a collective action in the United States (Missouri), headquarters of the complex’s parent company The Renco Group.   In late 2010, Renco initiated international arbitration alleging its rights as a foreign investor as guaranteed by the Free Trade Agreement between Peru and the United States were violated. Renco asked for compensation of $800 million.   “The company not only denied the impacts on the citizens and tried to evade responsibility, but in the face of the protests it pursued a campaign of stigmatization and attacks against those who were trying to defend their rights”, said Souhayr Belhassen, president of the FIDH.   This case illustrates the conflict between international human rights law and investor protection. It also exposes the legal strategy of the companies allegedly involved in human rights violations that seek to evade responsibility and deny victims their right to reparation.   The FIDH report, entitled Metallurgical Complex of La Oroya: When investor protection threatens human rights, includes a series of recommendations directed at the Peruvian authorities and the company involved.   AIDA and APRODEH, as organizations representing the victims of La Oroya before the Inter-American Human Rights System, thank the FIDH and believe that the report is an important contribution to visualize the increasingly serious human rights violations suffered by the residents of La Oroya, who still expect the State to recognize its responsibility and bring justice to their claims. At the same time, the Archdiocese of Huancayo, whose role in defending the right to a healthy environment in La Oroya has been crucial, says the report is a major contribution to its work.   See de PDF version of the report.    

The declaration of Santurbán as a Regional Natural Park is a start toward complying with the prohibition on mining in páramos

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                 February 7, 2013  Media contacts: Astrid Puentes Riaño, AIDA Co-Director, [email protected], +52-55 5212-0141 Paulo Bacca, AIDA Legal Advisor, [email protected], +57-1 232-4246     The declaration of Santurbán as a Regional Natural Park is a start toward complying with the prohibition on mining in páramos AIDA supports the decision and urges the Ministry of Environment to guarantee the protection of all páramo ecosystems.   Bogotá, Colombia. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) welcomed the declaration of a portion of the Santurbán páramo in the Colombian departments of Santander and Norte de Santander as a Regional Natural Park. The measure, taken in January, reaffirms the prohibition on mining activities in Colombia’s páramo ecosystems, a move that helps improve the protection of these sensitive wetlands and critical carbon sinks.   AIDA expressed its support for the creation of the park in a letter to the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, the Alexander Von Humboldt Institute and the Autonomous Regional Corporation for the Defense of the Bucaramanga Plateau (CDMB) of Colombia, confirming that this act is congruent with the prohibition on mining in the region. It also reminded the government that this does not mean mining can be permitted in other parts of the páramo. The park declaration encompasses 11,700 of the 92,000 hectares of the páramo, and was proposed to the CDMB board of directors by Environment Minister Juan Gabriel Uribe based on a technical report issued by the Von Humboldt Institute.   “At AIDA, we have spent more than five years highlighting the national and international obligation of the state to protect páramos. Although creation of the park is a good first step, we insist that the government comply with the law and ensure mining will be prohibited in the entire ecosystem”, said Paulo Bacca, a lawyer at the NGO.   AIDA has worked to create and enforce the prohibition on mining in páramos, providing feedback on the Mining Code and related bills, and by following paradigmatic cases like Santurbán. It is a positive step that the Ministry of Environment, in accordance with constitutional and international commitments, has denied the environmental license requested by the Canadian company Greystar Resources Ltd. (now Eco Oro Minerals Corp.) to develop the Angostura gold mine in the heart of the páramo.     “This issue goes beyond the legal arena.  It is a matter of national security and the quality of life for Colombians given that the páramos are essential for the supply of 70% of drinking water, biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation and even power generation”, said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-executive director of AIDA.   To prevent the lack of territorial demarcation from being used as justification for allowing mining projects in páramo areas, AIDA urges the Ministry of Environment to immediately make use of the new mapping of páramos provided to it by the Von Humboldt Institute a few months ago. The use of that mapping can help prevent mining companies from hiding behind the lack of a definition and demarcation of critical ecosystems like páramos to advance mining projects in areas where such activities clearly should not be permitted, thus furthering ecosystem and water resource protection critical to Colombian citizens.   See the PDF version of the letter (Spanish only).   For more information about the Angostura case and Santurbán páramo, please see: http://www.aida-americas.org/en/protecting_the_santurban_paramo_from_angostura_project

Peru’s efforts to require La Oroya clean up should not be chilled by investment arbitration

San Francisco, CA – The following is a statement from the international organizations Earthjustice, the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA), and Public Citizen: In 1997, Doe Run Peru (DRP), an American company, bought from the government of Peru a metallurgical complex located in La Oroya, Peru.  As a condition of the purchase, DRP agreed to comply with a number of environmental requirements aimed at protecting the environment and health of the local population.  For 15 years, Doe Run has failed to fulfill these commitments.  Now, rather than live up to its responsibilities, DRP and its parent company, the Renco Group, are using questionable legal and political tactics to continue to avoid its commitments—most prominently through an international arbitration case against the State of Peru.  In 2011, the Renco Group brought a claim in an international arbitration tribunal for US $800 million against the State of Peru, alleging Peru’s non-compliance with and failure to honor its legal obligations. However, Peru should not be deterred from its efforts to require the company to clean up La Oroya.  Here are just a few of the reasons why: 1.    Even if the Peruvian Congress were to grant DRP another PAMA extension, the liability claims in Renco’s arbitration case against Peru would remain because Doe Run’s case against Peru involves more than the PAMA extension contemplated in the proposed law.  The Peruvian legislature is currently debating a bill to extend Doe Run’s environmental remediation obligations (known by its Spanish acronym, PAMA) for a third time.  The legislature’s Energy and Mining Committee quickly approved the bill.  However, policymakers should not presume that Doe Run will drop its arbitration case against Peru if the legislature grants the extension. Indeed, the company is likely to find it advantageous to keep the investment case going (or launch new ones) in order to pressure the government through the international arbitration proceedings. 2.    The company is using the investment arbitration to insulate itself from penalties in a case in Missouri courts.  In 2007, attorneys filed lawsuits in Missouri (where Doe Run is headquartered) on behalf of children in La Oroya alleged to have experienced serious health problems from exposure to toxic pollution from the smelter in Peru.  In a similar case resolved last year regarding harms to 16 children from Missouri, the Missouri court awarded the children US $358 million.  In the aforementioned 2007 case about La Oroya in Missouri, DRP has insisted that the Peruvian government—not the company—should be held liable for these tort claims (even though the children are only claiming damages that occurred after Doe Run purchased the smelter). Therefore, the company will likely attempt to keep its international investment arbitration case alive until the Missouri case is resolved, so the Renco Group can use the arbitration to force Peruvian taxpayers to pay any penalty awarded against DRP. 3.    The Renco Group is using the arbitration case to move the Missouri case to federal court and evade liability.  Doe Run has aggressively tried to derail the Missouri case by insisting that the La Oroyan children’s claims be heard in US federal courts, where it appears Doe Run believes it is more likely to win the case.  Twice, the Missouri judge refused to allow the company to do so.  After launching the international investment arbitration against Peru, however, Doe Run made a new argument, and convinced the judge to move the La Oroyan children’s case to US federal court, which has jurisdiction over treaty-related claims.  The Renco Group has an incentive to keep the international arbitration pending against Peru—regardless of whether the Peruvian legislature extends the PAMA—in order to maintain its argument that the case belongs in federal court 4.    Giving in to the threat of the international investment arbitration would set a bad precedent for Peru and the world.   As explained above, DRP is using the investment arbitration to serve many different interests.  In each case, the common factor is that the arbitration threatens to make Peru—and Peruvian citizens—responsible for the contamination in La Oroya and any resulting penalties.  If Peru responds to this threat by giving DRP special treatment at the expense of the children of La Oroya, it will send a message to DRP and multinational companies around the world that such threats are effective.  This will weaken Peru’s ability to protect its interests, including the environment and human rights, in the face of corporate misbehavior. 5.    DRP is using false arguments to try to shift the blame to others.   In addition to the arbitration claims, DRP has long argued that Activos Mineros—a state-owned firm—should complete its PAMA obligations to remediate soils around the complex.  Now DRP is claiming unfair treatment because Activos Mineros has not yet been required to do so.  This argument makes no sense.  It is well known that cleaned soils will quickly become re-contaminated if nearby smelter pollution continues.  In Missouri, the authorities calculated that soils near the Doe Run smelter would be re-contaminated only a few years after Doe Run had remediated them at a cost of millions of dollars.  Doe Run is well aware of this, yet argues that Peruvian taxpayers should spend millions of dollars cleaning soils in La Oroya that would be re-contaminated in mere months if the smelter were to reopen without first installing all necessary pollution controls.  This would be a waste of resources and would not solve La Oroya’s health problems.  Activos Mineros should indeed remediate the soils.  But it makes no sense to do so until either DRP completes installing the control technology it has promised yet failed to deliver for 15 years, or after a decision is made to permanently close. The government of Peru should take these facts into account and make sure that it does NOT allow Doe Run to pressure it into reopening the complex in La Oroya.  The government of Peru needs to ensure it is considering and protecting not only the rights of the workers, the economy of the region, and the health and human rights of the citizens in La Oroya that would be harmed by reopening the complex, but also protecting the national economic interests.  Reopening the complex without clarifying the responsibilities for third party claims from cases such as the case pending in Missouri, would be folly and pose a significant economic risk for the nation.  This could even result in economic costs for the people of Peru that exceed the benefits obtained from operating the complex. If the Peruvian legislature believes that it can or should extend the PAMA, it should insist on at least three non-negotiable positions. First, that the Renco Group drop its international arbitration claim.  Second, that Doe Run agree that it will assume any liability in Missouri related to contamination stemming from the smelter in La Oroya.  Third, that DRP complete all of its environmental requirements—before starting any operation—so that Peru can begin its soil remediation efforts and protect the health and human rights of the children of La Oroya. Every day that the fate of the La Oroya metallurgical complex remains undecided without a final solution to the contamination, the citizens of La Oroya suffer grave health risks which in turn increase the harms for which both DRP and the government of Peru could be held liable.

Colombian Ministry of Mines announces wetlands protection from open pit mining

Bogotá, Colombia – Colombia has signaled it will halt construction of one of the world’s largest open-pit gold and other metals mine. In a surprisingly bold step March 17, Colombia’s Minister of Mines Carlos Rodado announced “Pursuant to Colombian law, mining projects cannot be developed in wetlands areas.” If enforced, this would prevent construction of the massive Angostura mine in the Santander department, on the Santurban paramo.   "This is an important step in fulfilling Colombia’s obligations to its constitution and international wetlands protections,” said Natalia Jiménez Galindo, AIDA's legal adviser in Bogotá. “The State should refrain from approving any phase of the Angostura project, including any additional infrastructure."   If built, the Angostura mine would jeopardize the Santurban paramo, a sensitive high-altitude wetland that supply freshwater to more than 1 million people in nearby communities. In collaboration with various partners, AIDA has advocated for the protection of the paramo ecosystems against mining and provided related legal advice to organizations and sending to the authorities an analysis on the international law applicable.   “We applaud the Ministry of Mines for recognizing the prohibition against mining in paramos and we expect this will be reflected in an official decision” said Astrid Puentes Co- Director of AIDA. “This will send a strong message from the Government that it is truly interested in protecting paramos and making a difference in climate change”.   AIDA calls upon the Colombian government to formally reject the entire Angostura mine project as proposed by Greystar Resources Corporation of Canada. This is the only decision consistent with the norms, the pronouncement by the Ministry of Mines and the Alexander von Humboldt Institute concept.

The Colombian Government Should Reject the Angosture Mining Project in the Páramos (Spanish Text Only)

PARA PUBLICACION INMEDIATA CONTACTO: Natalia Jiménez, [email protected] Teléfono: (+57) 310-5734176 El Estado colombiano debe rechazar proyecto de gran minería de oro "Angostura" en zona de páramo Desconocería obligaciones constitucionales internacionales   Marzo 4 de 2011, Bucaramanga, Colombia – Hoy, La Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA) instará al gobierno colombiano a detener un proyecto de gran minería de oro y otros metales que sería un precedente perjudicial para los ecosistemas frágiles en América Latina. El proyecto de minería a cielo abierto Angostura, planeado en el páramo de Santurbán, se encuentra en proceso de aprobación por parte del Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial colombiano. Hoy se celebra una audiencia pública en la que el Ministerio recibirá argumentos de diferentes sectores. AIDA argumentará que las obligaciones internacionales y constitucionales del Estado colombiano de proteger el ambiente, especialmente áreas de gran importancia ecológica como los páramos, impiden la autorización. "Los páramos son ecosistemas altamente frágiles y la minería a cielo abierto causaría daños graves e irreversibles," dijo Natalia Jiménez, abogada de AIDA. "De acuerdo con la Constitución Política y los Principios de Río, la Convención de Biodiversidad y la de Cambio Climático, todos ratificados por Colombia, el Estado está obligado a conservar los páramos y procurar su intangibilidad." De ser aprobado el proyecto Angostura afectaría de forma definitiva por lo menos 575 ha del páramo de Santurbán (más del 50%), pudiendo afectar un área mayor. En Colombia, como en el resto de la región Andina en los páramos se origina la mayor parte del agua dulce que consumen los habitantes. Tienen una alta capacidad de purificar el ambiente, de estabilizar los suelos y el clima, de prevenir los deslaves y los derrumbes y de contener un alto nivel de animales y plantas. En efecto, son el hábitat de especies únicas en el mundo como el oso de anteojos y el cóndor de los Andes. La Procuraduría General de Colombia, miembros del Parlamento Andino y ex ministros de ambiente, así como organizaciones y expertos ambientales se oponen a la licencia. El proyecto carece de un adecuado Estudio de Impacto Ambiental integral, pues los impactos de la mina y los de la infraestructura complementaria, se analizan en dos procesos de forma fragmentada. Por ello, AIDA también solicita que el Ministerio los unifique y analice el impacto global del proyecto. Así lo ordenan los estándares internacionales y la Corte Suprema de Canadá, país de origen de la empresa Greystar Resources Ltds. que promueve el proyecto. La misión de AIDA es fortalecer la capacidad de las personas para garantizar su derecho individual y colectivo a un ambiente sano por medio del desarrollo, aplicación y cumplimiento efectivo de la legislación nacional e internacional. La protección de agua dulce es una de nuestras líneas mediante la cual buscamos proteger el derecho al agua y asegurar recursos de agua dulce adecuados para las comunidades y los ecosistemas en las Américas. AIDA, 426 17th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 T. (510) 550-6753, F. (510) 550-6740 AIDA Atlixco 138, Col. Condesa, México, DF, 06140, T/F (5255) 52120141 AIDA Diagonal 40 A No 14 – 75, Tel. (57 1) 3381277, Bogotá - Colombia AIDA Costa Rica, San Pedro c/o Centro de Derecho Ambiental y de los Recursos Naturales (CEDARENA) T. (506) 22837080 E-mail: [email protected], Website: www.aida-americas.org

Combating Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs)

Victory: Biosphere Reserve in Baja California Saved from Toxic Mine

Inter-American Commission admits case on human rights violations in La Oroya

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 19, 2009   IACHR Will Examine Case Against Peru for Violating the Human Rights of Residents of La Oroya, A City Extensively Contaminated by the Doe Run Peru Smelter ► According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States, Peru may be violating the rights to life, personal integrity, and to information and access to justice, due to toxic pollution from Doe Run Peru’s multi-metal smelter in La Oroya, Peru. ► The potential extension of an environmental management plan for the complex, announced by Peruvian President Garcia, must include effective measures to guarantee against further human rights violations.   WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) will examine a complaint against Peru for human rights violations in La Oroya, a Peruvian town described as one of the “most contaminated places on earth.” AIDA, Earthjustice and CEDHA submitted this case in 2006 with the local support of the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA).   In the Inter-American Commission’s recent report accepting the case, it “considers that the alleged deaths and/or health effects of the presumed victims are a consequence of acts and omissions by the State with regard to environmental pollution arising from the multi-metal complex operating in La Oroya, which if proved could constitute a violation of the rights conferred in Articles 4 [life] and 5 [personal integrity] of the American Convention.”   “This claim stems from the lack of action by Peru, considering that the government has known about the impacts of the pollution on persons and the environment for at least ten years without acting to resolve the contamination problem,” states AIDA Co-Director, Astrid Puentes. “Even if some steps have been taken in La Oroya, the measures implemented have not been effective in safeguarding health and the environment, as noted by the Peruvian Constitutional Court, the Ministry of Health, and the Commission.”   “This is excellent news that brings us hope that things will finally improve in La Oroya” said one of the case’s plaintiffs, whose names are confidential.   In 2006 the Constitutional Court of Peru ordered actions to protect public health in the city. The “unjustified delay” in complying with this order may also constitute a violation of the human rights of access to justice and judicial guarantees.   The Commission will also investigate whether Peru’s actions violate the right to access to information and freedom of expression. In addition to serious health effects, this case alleges unjustifiable limits to accessing information about the community’s environmental and human health situation and pressure toward those trying to distribute this information.   The IACHR’s decision to examine the complaint coincides with negotiations between the Peruvian Government and the Doe Run Peru company, owner of the Multi-Metal Complex, over a potential extension for the complex’s Environmental Management Plan (PAMA). The effective implementation of this plan would improve environmental quality in the area. There is little certainty whether the company will ever meet its obligations for environmental controls under this Plan, as the government has already granted several extensions. The Commission will likely monitor the compliance process and consider the results in any final decision regarding the violations of human rights in Peru.   The PAMA does not actually allow for extensions, and the government could fine the company for violating the Plan. If Peru does not impose fines, it would further prolong the unjustified delay of actions necessary to control the pollution in La Oroya and protect the human rights of its inhabitants,” states José Luis Capella, of SPDA. “Any future decision regarding the PAMA must include effective measures to enforce the obligations to improve health and the environment in the city already contained within the Plan.”  Connected with this case, the IACHR also requested in 2007 that Peru implement urgent precautionary measures to guarantee the life and safety of La Oroya residents. These measures insist that Peru provide specialized medical evaluations and treatment for those affected by the toxic pollution.  “The IACHR’s acceptance of this case is vital to protect human rights in La Oroya. It demonstrates that the severe pollution in the city has an impact, not only on the environment, but on human health, and that it affects their human rights,” stated Martin Wagner Director of the International Program of Earthjustice. “We hope the case has positive impact on the protection of human rights in La Oroya and in the region."