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
The dams that couldn’t contain Hurricane Harvey
The Addicks and Barker dams were built near Houston, Texas in an attempt to save the city from potential flooding. But the huge storage capacity of the reservoirs was not enough to contain the more than 15 billion gallons of water that Hurricane Harvey brought to the state in less than a week. Given the climatic reality of increasingly intense natural phenomena, we must ask ourselves, are dams really the best option? On the night of August 25, Hurricane Harvey appeared on the coast of Houston, quickly transforming the sprawling city into a huge flooded lake. In it’s path it left death and destruction, and the forced evacuation of more than 30,000 people. Because it is a flat city near sea level, Houston is particularly susceptible to flooding. In an effort to protect the city, the Addicks and Barker dams were built in the 1940’s. Together, the dams could hold more than 132 billion gallons of water, a capacity so large it meant that if they broke, the whole city would be submerged. With Harvey’s torrential rains, so much water has fallen that the dams have taken in more than they can hold. To avoid uncontrolled overflows, which would have been catastrophic, the authorities decided to gradually release water from the reservoirs. Even these precautionary measures, however, were not enough to prevent one of the dams from overflowing. Addicks began to overflow on Monday August 28, filling an already flooded city with more water. Barker was expected to follow suit, but ultimately did not. The spillover comes as no surprise. Since 2009, the danger posed by both dams has been well known. The dams were once located in rural areas of Harris and Fort Bend counties, surrounded by open land. But they have since been pushed to their limits, largely because of the people and buildings that have been built both upstream and downstream from the reservoirs. Before the hurricane arrived, both dams were undergoing a $75 million renovation process. But those efforts and investments weren’t enough to adequately adapt the dams to the extreme weather conditions brought about by climate change. The bottom line is that Houston has become less resilient to major climate events. In addition to the natural aging of the dams, and the intensification of climate events, half of the area’s wetlands have been replaced by concrete. Since 2001, nearly 360 thousand buildings have been constructed in the area, without adequate measures to avoid the destruction of natural wetland areas. This inadequate urban planning coupled with weak regulations has destroyed the city’s natural defenses against storms and floods. Dams and climate reality Increasingly frequent and devastating climate events are bringing into question whether the costs involved in building and maintaining large dams are worth it. Such dams are incredibly expensive to implement, let alone repair. Since 2010, 73 dams across the United States have failed. Their vulnerability to heavy rains puts in doubt their compatibility with a world shaken by the serious and uncertain effects of climate change. What’s more, the reservoirs of large dams actually aggravate climate change. Among other impacts, they flood organic matter, which emits a large amount of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. That means that large dams actually make storms like Harvey more intense. The time has come to stop and question this dangerous cycle.
Read more
Latin America advances on climate change
Though the United States is no longer committed to the fight against climate change, Latin America is making much needed progress. Countries throughout the region are beginning to take the protection of nature seriously, evident through new laws and sustainable projects. But we still have a long way to go. Latin American is home to more than half the biodiversity on the planet. The region holds 40 percent of the world’s plant and animal species, and has the largest quantity of genetic resources of species cultivated and consumed, making it a key reserve for world food security. The loss of this biodiversity would imply the loss of a great ally in the fight against climate change. The region’s abundant green areas capture excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, allowing for climate regulation. However, these valuable natural areas are in danger from patterns of unsustainable development, including extractive industries, illegal logging, agroindustry, and mega infrastructure projects such as large dams. The United States, one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, has denied the very existence of climate change, and has turned it’s back on global efforts to find effective solutions. So now it’s up to the rest of the world. Some Latin American governments, thankfully, have been taking the lead by adopting laws, implementing policies, and jumpstarting projects that are fundamental to countering extreme changes in climate. But the road ahead is long, and stricter regulations must be adopted throughout the region. Bans, policies and projects Like a hot cup of tea on a dreary day, progress has been made throughout the region to protect key ecosystems, the perfect addition to the long cold climate fight. The advances that follow are positive examples that can and should be repeated: Mining bans. Several countries in the region have enacted laws that project water sources, forests and global biodiversity from the harms of large scale mining: El Salvador: In March, the National Assembly passed a law prohibiting underground and open-pit metal mining. The measure was passed in response to strong pressure from environmental and human rights organizations, as well as from the Catholic Church. Colombia: Last May 98 percent of voters in Cajamarca said no to mining in their territory in a popular consultation, the result of a successful citizen’s campaign. Wetland Protection. Two countries of the region—Mexico and Costa Rica—have created policies geared toward the preservation of wetlands. Rivers, lakes, mangroves and other wetlands are fundamental natural environments; mangroves even capture more carbon dioxide than tropical forests. Protected Areas. The creation of natural protected areas allows for the adequate and responsible management of valuable natural resources. Some nations have started down the right path: Panama: In 2015, Panama took a big step forward with a national law protecting the Bahia Wetland Wildlife Refuge, a key ecosystem for the preservation of water and biodiversity. Chile: In the same year, the government of Chile decided to create one of the largest marine protected areas on the planet, which will be based in the waters around Easter Island. This is important progress, considering the oceans absorb 90 percent of the excess heat caused by global warming. Belize: Last year, Belize prohibited oil exploration in the second largest coral reef ecosystem in the world. Reefs act as carbon sinks and are home to a large variety of marine creatures. Green projects. Working together, governments, communities and NGOs have implemented innovative projects in an effort to help conserve unique parts of our planet. Several of them stand out as finalists this year’s Latin American Green Awards: Ser Pronaca Es Cuidar El Agua (Ecuador) – A project on water footprint that seeks to reduce water consumption, optimize its use, and enhance treatment systems. Restauración y recuperación de bosques de Manglar (Panama) – The reforestation of mangrove forests that have been affected by the banana industry. Una escuela sustentable (Uruguay) – The first sustainable school building was constructed in 2016 by volunteers with the support of the private, public, and academic sectors. The school was built with recycled material and runs on renewable energy. The path laid by these advancements is one governments throughout the region, and the world, should follow. But much work, and little time, remains. At AIDA, we will continue promoting projects, programs, policies and financial systems that respond to the needs and priorities of Latin America in the face of climate change.
Read more
In Colombia, the power to stop fracking lies with the people
In Colombia’s fight against fracking, one tiny town is putting up a big fight. Since early 2016, the residents of San Martín, 300 miles north of Bogotá in the department of Cesar, have mobilized, protested, and peacefully resisted the government’s plans to begin fracking in their municipality. By staging marches and protests, and forcibly blocking oil company employees from accessing fracking exploration sites, concerned citizens are raising their voices against an environmentally destructive industry. But San Martín is just one municipality of many affected by the fracking fever now sweeping Colombia’s oil and gas industry. Colombia has vast reserves of unconventional fossil fuel deposits trapped in tight deposits of shale rock. Fracking breaks up that rock—using a mixture of water, sand and chemicals—and releases those deposits, which analysts say could produce 6.8 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the US. Energy Information Administration. That’s enough to satisfy the country’s energy demand for decades. While operations have not yet begun in Colombia, to date 12 blocks have been reserved for fracking exploration, according to the National Hydrocarbon Agency, and one concession has been granted to a multinational corporation. These fracking sites are expected to affect municipalities all across the country. Colombia has followed the lead of other Latin American countries that have embraced fracking as a quick and dirty fix to their fossil fuel addiction, which feeds energy-hungry populations. Currently, Mexico, Argentina, and Chile are the region’s fracking powerhouses. Colombia “can’t afford not to frack,” said Juan Carlos Echeverry, the then President of Ecopetrol, Colombia’s state oil company. But San Martín’s residents—along with many other Colombians concerned about the future of their communities, their country, and the planet—have a different opinion. In support of the citizens of San Martin, CORDATEC has been organizing an on-the-ground resistance to limit fracking exploration in Cesar. Another organization, the Alianza Colombia Libre de Fracking is also fighting back: it recently signed an open letter asking President Juan Manuel Santos to pass a moratorium on fracking. While these efforts are integral to the fight against fracking, it’s also necessary to fight the battle on the local level. Wherever possible, cities and municipalities can use creative solutions like strict zoning laws or referendums to achieve fracking bans locally. This technique has seen significant success in Brazil, where more than 70 municipalities have passed fracking bans, simultaneously stalling the spread of the fossil fuel industry and protecting their environment. In the United States, states like New York, Maryland, and parts of California have also banned fracking. In partnership with organizations throughout the region, AIDA is working diligently to stop the spread of fracking in Latin America. Through the Alianza Latinoamericana Frente al Fracking and the Red por la Justicia Ambiental en Colombia, we’re focusing on local solutions with potentially regional implications. “The Alianza works to promote public debate, awareness, and education among civil society organizations in Latin America,” said Claudia Velarde, AIDA attorney. “We also support local resistance efforts against the spread of fracking in the region.” The Alianza is petitioning for a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in which they’ll demonstrate the impacts fracking has on the human rights of affected communities. If our governments are committed to continuing to drill for fossil fuels, it’s time for local communities to stand up and demand a future of clean, renewable energy. By focusing our power at the grassroots level, like the people of San Martín, we too can demand a better future and push back against the fossil fuel industry.
Read more