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
New Zealand sets shameful emission-reduction target, completely ignores public consultation
By Natalie Jones Natalie is a legal intern on the Climate Change team at AIDA, based in Mexico City. She is a delegate to COP21 with the New Zealand Youth Delegation, and volunteers for NZ youth climate group Generation Zero. In this post, she covers an issue AIDA is following closely in Latin America—emission-reduction targets—in her native country. Last week New Zealand released its INDC, or “intended nationally determined contribution,” for the post-2020 climate deal set to be agreed upon in Paris this December. It’s not good news. An INDC is the target each country must set for its future greenhouse gas emissions—in other words, its intended contribution to the effort to reduce climate-changing pollutants to a sustainable level. At the UN climate talks, the world’s governments agreed that these targets should be nationally determined, to allow each nation to respond best to its own needs, priorities, and abilities. Because climate change is an issue we all face together, New Zealand’s announcement is relevant to people in all parts of the world, including Latin America. New Zealand is one of the world’s higher emitters: the small country emits more than three times its share of global emissions per capita. So far, however, New Zealand is failing to live up to its historic responsibility. The Government announced an emissions reduction target of 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. While this may sound okay – 30 is a big percentage, right? – it actually equates to a cut of just 11 percent below 1990 levels, which is not that much bigger than our already-pitiful 2020 target of 5 percent below 1990 levels. To stay in line with the international effort to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, New Zealand’s target would need to be a minimum of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 – a rate accepted by the European Union and other progressive nations. Instead, the target is worse than those proposed by China, Mexico and other developing countries. To make matters worse, New Zealand has already proposed a conditional target of 10-20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, in addition to the unconditional 5 percent target. It is likely that all the conditions attached to the 10-20 percent target will be met. So the recent announcement is essentially lowering New Zealand’s ambition by giving the country ten more years to hit the low end of its conditional target. At this critical moment in history, we can’t afford a decade of inaction. Accounting rule mischief But it doesn’t stop there. The target will remain provisional until a final deal is reached in Paris, including rules on accounting for land sector emissions and carbon markets. This means the target is even worse than it seems. New Zealand’s existing 2020 target is based on gross emissions calculated for 1990, without accounting for the lower net amount of carbon once some of it is taken up and stored by forests. But for 2020, the target does account for forests as a carbon sink. This skewed approach means New Zealand is on track to meet its 5 percent reduction target by 2020, even though actual emissions are on track to increase 36 percent since 1990. If New Zealand plans to use the same methodology for the 2030 target, which seems likely, our target would actually be a 134 percent net increase from 1990 levels. A target for the 1% What’s more, the Government has completely ignored the results of its own public consultation, which overwhelmingly called for much stronger action. Ninety-nine percent of submitters called for a target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Over 15,000 submissions were made, and more than 4,600 of those submissions were mobilized by youth climate organization Generation Zero’s Fix Our Future campaign, which I helped run. Generation Zero spokesperson Paul Young characterized the target as being “for the 1 percent who deny the need to transition to a low carbon economy.” Failing to take responsibility for the Pacific New Zealand is a neighbour to many vulnerable Pacific Island countries, such as Samoa, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. These countries are some of the lowest contributors to climate change, but are the first to face its devastating impacts, such as rising sea levels and more frequent and severe storms. New Zealand has a responsibility to care for its neighbours. Oxfam New Zealand called the country’s recent announcement a “slap in the face” to Pacific Island nations. A wasted opportunity Perhaps most disappointing about this announcement is the fact that New Zealand has the ability to lead the way to a thriving, zero carbon world. Currently running on more than 80 percent renewable energy, the country is in a prime position to transition to 100 percent renewable energy, shift its transport and heat needs to electricity and other clean energy sources, and absorb carbon by planting forests. Instead, New Zealand is leaving it to other countries to pick up its slack. Historically, New Zealand has used the inaction of major emitters like the US and China as an excuse for its own inaction, but that simply won’t cut it any more. What’s holding us back now is not technology, but political vision. AIDA’s work on INDCs AIDA advocates for public participation in the formation of INDCs throughout Latin America, and calls on nations to include information in their INDCs about the finance needed to meet their commitments and respond to the impacts of climate change. It is important to monitor the contributions of countries outside Latin America, particularly developed countries who have contributed the most to the problem, in order to determine whether each country is upholding their responsibility on this collective issue and to ensure political accountability for poor contributions. Find Natalie on Twitter at @nataliejonesnz.
Read more
“My Mom Is the Best Lawyer in the World”
“My mom is the best lawyer in the world because she defends the turtles, the corals, the salted forests they have in the sea, and alllll the fish.” As I listened to my 4-year-old daughter, Daniela, say this to an auditorium full of parents, boy and girls, my eyes filled with tears and my heart filled with love and happiness. Listening to my little girl brag about what her mother does renewed my strength and enables me to continue working passionately. Daniela summed up quite well my work on AIDA’s team of attorneys in the Marine and Coastal Protection Program. My colleagues and I focus on three key areas: coral reefs, mangroves and fisheries. We use national and international standards to support marine ecosystems and the people who depend upon them. Coral Reefs We know that by protecting coral reefs, we’re preserving natural barriers that protect coastal communities from storms and hurricanes—which are growing ever stronger due to climate change. We’re also conscious that the many varieties of fish we enjoy on our dinner table exist only because of the important breeding grounds that corals provide. Mangroves Mangroves, or “salted forests” as my daughter calls them, are swampy forests that exist in lakes, rivers and tropical coasts where fresh river water mixes with saltwater from the sea. My colleagues and I are determined to safeguard these ecosystems because we know they are our greatest allies. Mangroves capture from the atmosphere 50 times more carbon dioxide than tropical forests. They are also an important food source for birds, and a center of breeding and development for shrimp, crab and some fish, which provide a livelihood for coastal communities. One example of these unique ecosystems is Marismas Nacionales, the largest mangrove forest in Mexico, which we’re currently fighting to protect. Fishing Conscious that ecosystems are interrelated and reliant upon each other, we work to create sustainable fisheries. If we care for one fish, the rest of the fish will also benefit. We hope that future generations will also be able to taste a fish from the sea, not just observe one in a photograph. We have seen that adopting appropriate measures has allowed fish populations to recover, as occurred with the hoki in New Zealand, the anchoveta in Spain and France, and the cod in the northern Atlantic ocean. Every day I appreciate and enjoy the privilege my children, Daniela and Agustín, have to run through a forest, stick their feet in the ocean and feel the movement of little fish between their toes, or marvel at their first glimpse of a magnificent butterfly or a towering tree. In these moments, I reaffirm the words my parents said one day to my husband and me: “Many good memories outside are worth much more than many toys in the house.” At AIDA we are 26 people working throughout the continent with dedication and commitment. We do it for Daniela and Agustín, and for the rest of the little boys and girls who are part of our organization: Amber, Esteban and Eloísa, Constanza, Jared, Isabelle and Caroline, Izabela, Paloma, Marc and Rosalie. We work for our children and for all children, so that current and future generations have the opportunity to enjoy a healthy environment. Thank you for supporting our work!
Read more
Belo Monte Dam may begin operations despite noncompliance
The dam has failed to comply with conditions for the protection of the health, integrity and way of life of affected communities. Organizations reiterate the validity of the precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in favor of the indigenous communities of the Xingú River basin, whose situation of risk has worsened. Altamira, Brazil & Washington, DC – The Belo Monte dam is applying for authorization to begin operations, with construction reported at 70 percent complete. This authorization may happen despite the fact that the project has failed to comply with conditions necessary to protect the health, integrity and way of life of affected communities, including the indigenous peoples of the Xingú river basin. Civil society organizations solicited the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights to maintain the precautionary measures granted in 2011 in favor of the indigenous peoples of the Xingú river basin. They did so as a response to the Brazilian government’s request that the Commission lift the measures, which were authorized to avoid irreparable damage to the rights of the communities. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Justiça Global, the Sociedad Paraense de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (SDDH) and the Movimiento Xingú Vivo para Siempre (MXPVS) filed the brief on behalf of indigenous and river communities affected by Belo Monte. The organizations argued before the Commission that the social and environmental situation surrounding Belo Monte continues to be serious and urgent, and could cause irreparable damages. Their arguments are based on a recent report by the Socio-Environmental Institute of Brazil (ISA), as well as on official government data that include information from health and indigenous protection authorities and the Public Ministry. The ISA report analyzes in detail the situation of Altamira, Pará—the region where Belo Monte is being constructed—and emphasizes the human rights violations and irregularities of the project. The report warns that necessary conditions do not exist for the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) to grant the project’s operating license. If granted, the license would authorize the filling of the dam, and, thus, the final diversion of the Xingú River. One part of the dam would then begin operation. According to the ISA report, measures to avoid the project’s impacts on health, education and basic sanitation have not been met. This neglect will lead to further damage, such as the fracturing of indigenous communities, saturation of public health services, lower quality education, and greater forest degradation. “The consequences we announced years ago are now a reality,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of AIDA. “The filling of the dam, scheduled for the year’s end, will cause the loss of homes and land, and the modification of the traditional lifestyles and livelihoods of Xingú communities. Brazilian authorities and the Commission must act effectively to prevent this disaster.” It is clear that the conditions necessary for Norte Energía, the consortium in charge of the project, to receive the license are not in place. The vice-governor of Pará explained that although the construction is 70 percent complete, only 30 percent of the social and environmental conditions have been met. Similarly, the Attorney of the Republic of Altamira, Thais Santi, said that the consortium is not respecting the protection plan for indigenous lands, the principal condition for the protection of the peoples of the Xingú. The decision on the authorization of Belo Monte must also take into account the recent corruption scandal that has engulfed the project. The investigation Lava Jato, which began a year ago, exposed a massive network of corruption involving the government and Brazil’s largest construction companies. A senior executive, currently in prison on corruption charges, mentioned in his declaration how they had set up and executed bribes for the construction of Belo Monte. The Comptroller General (CGU) thereafter decided to investigate the use of public funds in the project. “The lack of effective control in the execution of the project has made the consequences much worse than anticipated. Giving free reign of operation to the dam at this time would mean completely shutting down the options available to avoid major social and humanitarian disasters in the region,” said Sandy Faidherb of SDDH.
Read more