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
Let's talk about project closure and responsible exit
No mining, fossil fuel extraction or power generation project lasts forever. Their useful life is determined by internal factors, such as the quantity of resource reserves, and external factors, such as declining demand or financial problems.But no matter how long a project lasts or how it is affected, its promoters—whether public or private—must provide for a closure and responsible exit process that considers the natural environment and affected communities, and that is desired and promoted by all stakeholders.This issue is even more relevant in the context of actions needed to address the climate crisis, largely related to the energy transition, which generally implies the substitution of fossil fuel extraction and use projects, as well as the promotion of low-emission renewable energies associated with mineral extraction. In both scenarios, closure and exit issues are of great importance.In the first, it is necessary to incorporate concrete and enforceable commitments to close down and move on from existing projects. In the second, these requirements should be built in from the planning and pre-feasibility stages and should also be included in the environmental impact assessments and subsequent stages.In all projects, the role of the promoters is essential. Likewise, the obligation of the state to supervise and monitor is of great importance in order to protect and guarantee the rights of those who may be affected. In some cases, the responsible exit also includes other key actors that are part of the value and supply chains of the projects: investors, financiers, insurers, suppliers, distributors and buyers, among others.Therefore, the discussion of project closure and responsible exit is essential to environmental protection and climate management in Latin America.What do we mean by project closure and exit?All mining and energy projects have different phases in their life cycle: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and control, closure, and post-closure. In turn, they have supply and value chains that, as we have said, involve actors from different sectors.In this context, closure refers to the stage of a project in which it ceases to operate and is terminated. Exit, on the other hand, refers to the decision and subsequent process in which the different actors in the project's value and supply chain, in their own roles, completely disengage from the project. What does it mean for a closing and exit process to be responsible?There is currently no consensus on the definition and scope of responsible exit and fair project closure processes. Sometimes these terms are used indiscriminately, which can lead to confusion about the responsibilities of the actors involved and the scope of the processes to be carried out. However, there are elements that allow these concepts to be explained precisely:Responsible and fair project closure is a planned, upfront process that should be considered from the earliest stages of a project and continually updated as the project evolves. Responsible closure ensures a planned, coordinated and participatory cessation of activities and dismantling, and guarantees the right to a healthy environment.The planning and development of a closure plan should focus on risk management as well as impact prevention and mitigation. This will ensure a responsible closure in which the affected areas can be readapted and made safe for both nature and communities, while allowing the ecosystems to recover their functions.The general obligation of the project developer is to properly identify the impacts that the project may cause and to adequately and timely comply with the measures approved by the State in its environmental management instruments.The main obligation of the State (in addition to its general regulatory duty) is to supervise and monitor the project to verify compliance with the developer's obligations and to prevent environmental and/or social damage.The role of other actors in the value and supply chain is to act with due diligence, to use their influence to encourage the promoter to comply with its obligations and, in the event of non-compliance, to act within their role and influence to ensure that the necessary corrective measures are taken.Responsible and fair exit refers to the process undertaken by the various actors in the value and supply chain when they decide to fully divest from a project, considering the responsibilities inherent in their role, which include fulfilling their obligations with respect to human rights and due diligence.In Latin America, there has been important progress in regulating aspects related to the permitting, commissioning and implementation of mining and energy projects. However, experience has shown that there are significant challenges in ensuring that the closure and exit processes are responsible for the ecosystems and communities involved.To learn more about this issue, see our report Closure and Responsible Exit. A requirement for environmental and climate justice in Latin America (in Spanish).
Read more
The international search for justice of the Mapuche communities in Mendoza, Argentina
In the context of a global climate crisis that has deepened existing inequalities in Latin America, Mapuche communities in Mendoza, Argentina, face multiple threats that increase their vulnerability to climate change and violate their rights.One of these activities is hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a method of extracting hydrocarbons widely associated with socio-environmental impacts. In Argentina, it is widely used in the Vaca Muerta mega-development, which covers an area of about 30,000 square kilometers and is considered the second largest gas deposit and the fourth largest unconventional oil deposit in the world.A significant portion of Vaca Muerta is in Mendoza Province. The megaproject covers 8,700 square kilometers. Here, Mapuche communities also face a complex political environment that is threatening their territorial rights and even their identity. Added to this are national policies that are detrimental to indigenous rights in the country. These policies aim to dispossess the communities and make it easier to carry out fracking and other extractive activities.Faced with this situation, the Mapuche people are not willing to give up in the defense of their rights, their way of life and their territorial integrity.The Malalweche Territorial Identity Organization, which represents more than 20 Mapuche communities in the province of Mendoza, has appealed to various international organizations to denounce and publicize the critical situation and to demand justice.This process of international denunciation includes communications to the UN Special Rapporteurs on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and on the Environment and Human Rights, and the submission of an amicus curiae brief to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate emergency and human rights. Fracking's many impactsOil and gas extraction through fracking in Vaca Muerta takes place on the ancestral lands of the Mapuche people. Fracking is an extreme extraction technique that has significant environmental impacts, including increased greenhouse gas emissions. In the provinces of Neuquén and Río Negro, where the exploitation of Vaca Muerta is most widespread, serious environmental and human damage has been occurring for more than a decade and continues to increase.For Mapuche communities, the impact of fracking goes beyond physical damage to the environment. Extractive activities in their territories undermine their capacity for self-determination and profoundly affect their psychological and spiritual well-being, as their relationship with the land is fundamental to their identity and culture.Although fracking in Mendoza is in its infancy, with only a few active wells, the companies and the province have plans to expand it, in addition to the continued growth of activity throughout Vaca Muerta. In order to do this, they will need larger areas of land and the availability of large amounts of water. In this context, traditional practices such as transhumance – a type of seasonal migration in which shepherds move their animals between pastures at different times of the year – are seriously threatened.The growth of these activities, in the current context of water and climate crises in the region, increases the vulnerability of these communities and compromises their ability to continue living sustainably in their natural environment. Reduced human rights safeguardsThe strategy of expanding the occupation of Mapuche lands with mining and other extractive activities has led to the adoption of retrogressive policies that are undermining the framework for the protection of the rights of the Mapuche people in Mendoza and throughout the country.One of these is the declaration approved in March 2023 by the Chamber of Deputies of Mendoza, which questions the status of the Mapuche as an indigenous people of Argentina. This has raised concerns about the possibility of recognizing their territorial rights and the increase in evictions they are already suffering.Complementary measures that facilitate the development of extractive activities over the human rights of indigenous peoples are also being promoted at the national level. These include the closure by decree of the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism, whose mission was to promote policies and actions aimed at achieving a society free of discrimination. This measure weakens the institutional protection of human rights.Similarly, the government announced the closure of the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs, dedicated to the promotion and defense of indigenous rights. Although this measure has not been carried out, its functional autonomy has been abolished and the areas dedicated to the recognition of communities and the regularization of their territories have been eliminated. In practice, these measures prevent these peoples from exercising their constitutional right to their ancestral lands.In addition, Law 26160, which had suspended the evictions of indigenous peoples while their territorial regularization was in process, has also been repealed. The Secretary of National Security, Patricia Bullrich, argued that there cannot be permanent laws preventing evictions, since "there cannot be a right to usurp.” Violent evictions against indigenous communities have already begun. Actions of international defenseIn response, the Mapuche communities of Mendoza have shown an enormous capacity for organization and resistance.They have turned to international bodies to expose their situation and demand concrete action from local and national authorities. A key example is the communications sent to the UN Rapporteurs on Indigenous Peoples and on Environment and Human Rights to denounce political persecution and violations of their territorial rights. These communications highlight the complacency of the authorities towards extractive interests. The focus of these denunciations has been the defense of their rights in the face of the advance of fracking and other extractive activities.Additionally, the communities were part of the advisory opinion process through which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will clarify the continent's states' obligations to protect human rights in the face of the climate crisis.The Malalweche Organization submitted an amicus curiae brief, and its representative testified at a public hearing before the International Court of Justice to demonstrate that the extraction of hydrocarbons through fracking and metalliferous mining in their territories reduces their capacity to resist the climate crisis and exacerbates the severe water scarcity in the area, threatening their very survival.The Mapuche communities of Mendoza also presented concrete proposals for action. They called for their inclusion in all consultation and decision-making processes that affect their territories, in accordance with Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization. They stressed the importance of including their traditional wisdom in the development of public policies that benefit indigenous communities and contribute to more effective and sustainable solutions to global environmental challenges.They also called for the intervention of multilateral organizations to demand that the Argentine state guarantee free, prior and informed consultation and strengthen the national institutions responsible for protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.Supported by organizations that defend human rights and the environment, these struggles aim not only to protect the ancestral territories of the Mapuche, but also to guarantee their right to live in peace, with dignity, and in harmony with their natural environment. Their goal is to ensure the self-determination of indigenous peoples. This will allow them to manage their lands and resources in accordance with their worldview, which is deeply linked to conservation.Recognition of the rights of Mapuche communities, including the cessation of extractive activities such as fracking in their territories, is essential to protect their culture, health and livelihoods. With their ancestral wisdom, they offer a way to effectively address the climate crisis and build a more just and sustainable future.
Read more
10 legal advances toward climate justice in 2024
If there is one thing we've seen in the world this year, it's the advancement of climate litigation and the publication of new guidelines and best practices with future generations in mind. We know that the climate fight can often seem exhausting, but today we invite you to take a breath and celebrate the good news and small victories that are bringing us closer to climate justice. 1. The climate emergency comes before the Inter-American CourtThis year, a very important question came before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR): What obligations do States have to protect people, especially those in vulnerable situations, from the effects of the climate crisis?Colombia and Chile asked the Court for an advisory opinion to answer this question. To this end, the Court called for public hearings with unprecedented participation. AIDA testified before the court and we supported communities, organizations and civil society alliances through the productions of 15 amicus briefs. We expect their pronouncement in the first half of 2025.Learn more about the voices that arrived to the Court. 2. Inter-American Court highlights climate in landmark ruling on a healthy environment In March, the Inter-American Court of Justice found the Peruvian state guilty of violating the rights of the inhabitants of the town of La Oroya to a healthy environment, health, personal integrity, a life of dignity, access to information, political participation, judicial guarantees and protection, and the right to childhood. It was an unprecedented decision for failing to act in a timely and effective manner to protect the residents from extreme levels of pollution from a metallurgical complex that has operated in their community for almost 90 years.In its ruling, the Court highlighted the relationship between the protection of children and action on climate change, stating that the protection of children requires the adoption of effective measures to prevent and mitigate the risks to their health caused by the emission of polluting gases that contribute to climate change.Learn more about the case's legal contributions. 3. Brazil's biggest trial on climate impactsIn July, a cattle rancher was sentenced to pay more than US$50 million for destroying part of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest and ordered to restore the affected area. The decision is seen as a milestone in the fight against illegal deforestation in the country and sets a precedent for future legal action.This is the largest lawsuit ever brought by the Brazilian Attorney General's Office for damage to the rainforest. It was filed by the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and seeks compensation for climate damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of vegetation and the loss of carbon sinks from deforestation. The court stressed the importance of holding violators accountable and restoring the Amazon ecosystem.Learn more: The Guardian and Climate Case Chart. 4. Landmark victory for island nations at the International Tribunal for the Law of the SeaSmall island states have won a resounding victory at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The unanimous ruling established that the 169 signatory states to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as marine pollution. This decision strengthens the struggle of island nations, which are least responsible for the climate crisis but face its worst consequences. The ruling sets a global precedent by underlining that compliance with the Paris Agreement is not enough and that concrete action and accountability are required from the major powers.Learn more: Grist, EuroNews and High Commission on Human Rights. 5. Ruling urges regulation of carbon credits in indigenous territoriesColombia's Constitutional Court has issued a ruling highlighting the importance of protecting the rights of indigenous communities in carbon credit projects, in a case involving the Pirá Paraná indigenous territory. The ruling, which defends the self-determination of communities, underlines the need for clearer regulations and an approach that guarantees their participation and respect in these projects. The decision has been welcomed as a positive step by both indigenous communities and carbon market actors, who believe it will provide greater legal certainty and strengthen the sustainability of environmental projects.Learn more: La Silla Vacía and Corte Constitucional. 6. Mexico Recognizes First Climate Displaced and Orders RelocationIn an unprecedented development in Mexico, the first families displaced by climate change have been relocated to new homes in Tabasco. The residents of El Bosque, a fishing community affected by sea erosion, received 51 houses from the federal government, marking the beginning of official recognition of climate impacts in the region. After years of uncertainty, these families, who saw their homes swallowed by the sea, describe their relocation as "a dream come true." While there is still work to be done to count all those affected, this step is a crucial step towards climate justice and the protection of vulnerable communities.Learn more: Nuestro Futuro, Greenpeace and El País. 7. A global commitment to move beyond fossil fuelsThe UN General Assembly adopted the Compact for the Future, an agreement that reaffirms the commitment of members to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. The Compact, the result of years of negotiations, sets clear goals such as tripling global renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency by 2030. It also commits to a "just phase-down" of fossil fuels, recognizing the need for a global transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy system. While it remains to be seen how these goals will be implemented, the agreement marks a significant step forward in reducing the use of fossil fuels.Learn more: Pacto por el Futuro and EuroNews. 8. South Korea Recognizes Climate Crisis as Constitutional IssueIn a landmark ruling, the Constitutional Court of Korea declared parts of the Carbon Neutrality Act unconstitutional because the law does not set greenhouse gas reduction targets beyond 2030, thus shifting the burden of climate action to future generations. This is a significant development for climate litigation globally, as it is the first time that the climate crisis has been recognized as a constitutional issue in the country, and the rights of future generations have been recognized.Learn more in the Plataforma de Litigio Climático. 9. UN launches principles to prioritize equity in energy transitionThe United Nations Panel on Critical Minerals for Energy Transition has issued key recommendations to ensure the fair, equitable and sustainable management of these minerals, which are essential for the transition to renewable energy. The report emphasizes the importance of prioritizing human rights and social equity, especially in regions such as Latin America where large reserves of these minerals are found. The proposal includes seven guiding principles, ranging from environmental protection to international cooperation, with the aim of promoting sustainable development and equity in developing countries.Learn more: AIDA and the UN Principles. 10. Climate crisis reaches the International Court of JusticeWe close the year with hearings at the International Court of Justice on the legal obligations of governments to protect the environment and curb climate change. Initiated by a group of law students from Vanuatu, this case could set important legal precedents for global action on climate change. The ICJ is expected to issue an advisory opinion in 2025 that could strengthen international cooperation and assistance to vulnerable countries, promoting a more effective approach to addressing climate challenges and protecting human rights.Learn more: The Conversation. BONUS: The Climate Litigation Platform continues to growWith so much progress to serve as inspiration, the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean continues to grow in information, membership and cases. This project, the result of the collaboration of organizations and professionals, is an effort to continue promoting climate litigation and supporting those who want to learn more and work for environmental justice.
Read more