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
Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: A life jacket in times of climate change
By Florencia Ortuzar, AIDA attorney They’re all around you – the air conditioner hanging from your neighbor’s window, the charcoal powering your grill, the black smoke pillowing out of a passing truck, even the cows dotting the fields outside town. These familiar aspects of our daily lives are just some of the sources of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). When released, SLCPs warm our atmosphere. But, compared to carbon dioxide, they have a relatively short lifespan. Consequently, their effective mitigation could provide a life jacket on the troubled waters of climate change. That’s why SCLPs are worth considering as the world moves rapidly toward the new global climate accord to be signed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The meeting in Paris this December will be the most important in the global climate negotiations thus far. The new accord it produces could help us out of the planetary dilemma we’re currently in. The task is difficult. There have been 20 conferences of the UNFCCC so far, none of which has made substantial progress. Emissions have increased each year since the convention began, except for 2008 and 2009, when they decreased due the global economic crisis (not, notably, due to human will to survive). Sometimes, it’s hard to keep hope alive, but at AIDA, we never lose it. What are SLCPs? These contaminants include black carbon, tropospheric ozone, methane and hydroflourocarbons (HFC). Each one of them is different, but they share two main characteristics: they are major contributors to global warming, and, once emitted, they remain in the atmosphere briefly. The second feature is the one to which we must draw attention if we seek to mitigate climate change in the short term. Unlike SLCPs, carbon dioxide (CO2) can remain in the air for centuries. That means that even if we stopped all emissions today, the CO2 emitted would continue to warm the atmosphere for a very long time. How big of a problem are they? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that SLCPs are responsible for more than 30 percent of global warming. More recent studies estimate between 40 and 45 percent. Mitigating carbon dioxide, responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect, is essential to maintaining the climatic equilibrium of the earth in the long term. But the opportunity offered through the mitigation of SLCPs is much more immediate, and its effects could be felt in our daily lives. Advantages of reducing SLCPs The desirability of reducing SLCPs is much greater if we consider that, in addition to heating the atmosphere, these contaminants cause other problems that directly affect human health and the natural environment. Black carbon and tropospheric ozone, for example, are the cause of millions of premature deaths each year, since they increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease. They also damage crop yields, so their control would help improve food security worldwide. What does the Convention say? The Convention and its Kyoto Protocol do not recognize SLCPs as a concept, although the Protocol does include methane and HFCs in the greenhouse gases it seeks to combat. But this lack of recognition may change with the new climate accord. The current agreement includes a list of specific polluting gases that States must reduce. With the new agreement, however, countries will be free to decide what to include in their gas mitigation targets. Mexico has become a notable example in this regard by unconditionally committing, through its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), to reduce black carbon by 51 percent by 2030. This percentage has the potential to rise to 70 percent with international assistance. The work at hand At AIDA we work to inform governments of the measures they could take to effectively reduce short-lived climate pollutants in their countries. We advocate for the adoption of solutions whose effectiveness has already been tested in various parts of the world. We are preparing a report that reviews current regulation of these pollutants in three Latin American countries: Brazil, Chile and Mexico. We hope this report will facilitate progress towards a better approach to SLCPs in these countries. We will then continue working on this important issue in the rest of the region. You can find more information about SLCPs HERE!
Read more
NGOs testify before IACHR regarding violation of the right to water by extractive activities
In a hearing before the Commission, advocates explained how extractive activities, especially mining and energy projects, restrict individual and community water use. They also documented the failure of states to protect the right to water and effectively control companies and projects that affect this right. Washington, DC, United States. Civil society organizations[i] drew the attention of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to the growing pressure to use natural resources for the development of extractive activities in the Americas, including the construction of dams and mining projects. They did so at a hearing in which they showed how this situation has resulted in the systematic violation of the right to water in the region. "We have identified four patterns that characterize this problem: the use of judicial frameworks that favor the appropriation of water resources for extractive projects, ownership of the resource that favor its use for mining projects over human use and consumption, pollution and deterioration of water sources, and the lack of consultation and free, prior and informed consent in the implementation of these projects," explained Maria José Veramendi Villa, lawyer from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, at the beginning of the hearing. The organizations presented cases of appropriation, pollution and irreversible damage to water sources due to the implementation of extractive projects. This situation not only affects water rights but also infringes upon other rights such as health, decent life, integrity, healthy environment, food and culture. The participating organizations noted the impacts both on individuals and communities that are in areas directly influenced by projects for which there was no prior consultation, as well as for those who are outside of the immediate project area but depend on affected water sources for their livelihood. Such cases have been documented extensively in a report that was delivered to the IACHR. "In Argentina, the exploitation of the Alumbrera mine has caused the leakage of toxic waste into three rivers and, although a court case on the pollution is open, measures to effectively remediate the damage have yet to be taken. We are concerned that none of our countries are implementing plans to prevent additional damage, nor are they taking measures to remediate the cumulative damage from the pollution," said Johana Rocha, of the Centro de Estudios para la Justicia Social “Tierra Digna” of Colombia. The hearing before the IACHR highlighted the failure of States in the region to implement effective measures to ensure the right to water. The participating organizations reported that existing legal frameworks favor the appropriation of water for mining projects over the use and human consumption. They also explained the failure of national mechanisms to control and monitor the performance of companies that implement extractive projects - a situation which allows them to continue to commit gross violations of human rights. "We have found a contradiction in the States' obligations to protect and guarantee the right to water, which has been incorporated into their Constitutions and legislation. They instead give preference to corporations, thus denying the right to water of the communities," stated Pedro Landa, of the Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación de la Compañía de Jesús (ERIC-SJ) of Honduras. Raphaela Lopes, of Justiça Global, spoke of the easing of legal frameworks, which violates human rights. "With the energy reform recently approved in Mexico, for example, the right to water is undermined in favor of hydrocarbons and electricity." Lastly, the organizations asked the IACHR, among other things, to reaffirm at a national level the recognition of water as a human right; to consider the importance of water as a fundamental element to the right to a healthy environment; to remind States of their obligations to protect the rights to water and environment above any extractive activity or infrastructure; to highlight the obligation of the states to effectively control the activities that could affect the right to water, including the companies that operate within their territory and the national companies that operate externally; and to remind states of the importance of the right to free, and prior, informed consent before the implementation of any project. [i] Acción Solidaria para el Desarrollo (COOPERACCIÓN) – Perú, Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA) – Regional, Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) – Perú, Bienaventurados los Pobres (BePe) - Colectivo SumajKawsay – Argentina, Centro de Acción Legal Ambiental y Social (CALAS) – Guatemala, Centro de Derechos Humanos “Bartolomé Carrasco Briseño A.C.” (BARCA-DH) – México, Centro de Estudios para la Justicia Social ‘Tierra Digna’ – Colombia, Centro de Incidencia Ambiental (CIAM) – Panamá, Centro de Investigación sobre Desarrollo y Comercio (CEICOM) – El Salvador, Comité de Unidad Campesina (CUC) – Guatemala, Comitê Nacional em Defesa dos Territórios frente a Mineração – Brasil, Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación de la Compañía de Jesús (ERIC-SJ) – Honduras, Fundación para el Debido Proceso Legal (DPLF) – Regional, Grupo Internacional de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas (IWGIA) – Regional, Justiça Global – Brasil, Observatorio Ciudadano – Chile, Pensamiento y Acción Social (PAS) – Colombia, y Pax Christi – Internacional.
Read more
Protecting Sea Turtles in the Gulf of Mexico
By Sandra Moguel Every few years, hundreds of hawksbill and kemp’s ridley turtles glide through the warm, shallow waters of the Veracruz Reef System. There they swim and feed amongst the brightly colored corals, which stretch for miles through the Gulf of Mexico. When the sun goes down, many of the females make their way back to the very beach from which they hatched, to lay the eggs of the next generation. This ritual has happened for centuries, as the migratory turtles move and feed and breed their way through the Gulf and Caribbean waters. But it’s happening less and less. As their critical habitats are threatened by reckless human activities and a changing climate, the population of hawksbill turtles in the region has declined by 95 percent, making them a critically endangered species. The hawksbill (eretmochelys imbricata) and Kemps’ ridley (lepidochelys kempii) turtles are just two of the five neotropical species of sea turtle that spend a portion of their migratory cycles along the coast of Veracruz, Mexico, and within the confines its reefs. Now, these turtles are facing a new threat – the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. To raise awareness of the risk posed to these threatened species, AIDA and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) on September 22 presented a petition (in Spanish) before the Scientific Committee of the Inter-American Sea Turtle Convention (IAC), under which Mexico has obligations to protect turtles found within its borders. In the petition, we detailed the direct and indirect impacts that the expansion of the Port would have on the various turtle species and their habitat. We also mentioned that in the project’s environmental impact statement, the Veraruz Port Authority stated that the port expansion “will never have a direct effect on protected species.” They therefore failed to present protection measures for sea turtles, particularly the hawksbill, which is listed as threatened under both the Sea Turtle Convention and Mexican law. Our petition before the IAC requests they take measures to understand the threat and urge Mexico to act, including: conduct an investigation on the impacts the port expansion would have on the turtles and their habitat; conduct a site visit; make recommendations for the protection of the species and their habitat; and urge the Mexican government to apply precautionary measures while evaluating potential environmental impacts on the turtles. Also on September 22, alongside CEMDA, we delivered more than 36,000 signatures from a citizens’ petition urging the Secretariat of Environment & Natural Resources to revoke the environmental authorization granted for the Port’s expansion. The petition argues that the expansion project would put in danger two of Mexico’s natural treasures – the Veracruz Reef System and Los Tuxtlas Reserve, a natural protected area from which basaltic rock for the construction would be extracted. The permit has been approved without considering the severe environmental impacts it would have on the unique ecosystems of the region and the creatures that call them home. The Mexican government has thus violated national and international obligations to conserve biodiversity and protect its natural heritage. As long as the Port of Veracruz expansion project threatens sensitive species and ecosystems, we will continue to advocate through national and international bodies to stop it. Thank you for supporting our work to defend the health and biodiversity of the Veracruz Reef System!
Read more