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:


COP20: Towards a climate deal with human rights protections

The impact of climate change on human rights is clear. Yet no international treaty on climate change makes reference to­ human rights, nor does any human rights treaty reference climate change. The next climate agreement, recently drafted in Lima and to be signed in Paris next year, provides an important opportunity to make a clear, explicit connection between climate change and human rights through the incorporation of specific language.  During an event at the UN Climate Summit, Gustavo Alanís, president of the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), cited the human rights to food and water, explaining that rising temperatures reduce crop productivity and decrease the availability of clean water. This relationship highlights the material vulnerability of many people's living conditions. Effective adaptation measures are needed to ensure that conditions do not worsen, added Manuel Pulgar Videl, Peru's Minister of the Environment and President of the COP20.  María José Veramendia Villa, an AIDA senior attorney, recalled that the impacts of climate change on human rights were addressed in a 2009 report prepared by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The report said that climate change will affect the right to life by causing increased hunger and malnutrition, and that related diseases would have consequences for the growth and development of children. Following the report, the UN Human Rights Commission issued a resolution that stated, "the impacts related to climate change have a series of implications, both direct and indirect, on the full enjoyment of human rights…" Agreements signed at COP16 in Cancun, Mexico provide that the State Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change "must fully respect human rights" in all climate change related activities. Given this background, added Veramendi Villa, a challenge for 2015 is to ensure that the new climate agreement includes specific and comprehensive language on the obligation of States to protect, promote, and respect human rights in all its climate actions. "If this happens," she explained, "we will have a binding international instrument that will guide the States' climate actions, and help them to implement the obligations they already have on human rights." For more information from COP20 and to post comments, visit our interactive blog at aida-cop.org

Read more

Fracking

COP20: Fracking, an experimental, hazardous and contaminating technique

During an event at the People’s Summit on Climate Change, a parallel event to the COP20 in Lima, fracking took center stage. Activists expressed their central argument about the controversial oil extraction method: that fracking is an experimental technique that involves serious risks to health and the environment, including the worsening of climate change. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is an extreme method of exploration and/or exploitation of unconventional oil and gas (as both shale and tight gas). Special drills bore holes vertically into the subsoil and then horizontally into rock formations. Drill teams inject a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure to fracture the rock, releasing trapped gas and oil.  "These chemicals have unknown effects due to contact with elements of the subsoil," explained Eduardo D’elia, petroleum engineer and member of the Citizens Environmental Assembly of Rio Gallegos in Argentina, during Fracking: A Challenge for Latin America, organized by the Heinrich Böll Foundation in the People's Summit. "The fracturing of horizontal wells is highly complex and unpredictable, so this makes fracking an experimental technique." Fracking affects people in a number of unfortunate ways: the massive use of water (from 9 to 29 million liters of water per well) reduces availability of fresh water for drinking water, agriculture or other needs; fracking fluids can contaminate surface and groundwaters; the chemicals used may cause cancer, allergies, and malformation, among other diseases. Aroa de la Fuente, member of FUNDAR and the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking, made it clear that fracking is not an option for confronting climate change. She said that in hydraulic fracturing projects, up to eight percent of the natural gas (methane) produced escapes directly into the atmosphere. And methane holds a global warming potential 25 times that of carbon dioxide.  "In 20 years, the climate impact of electricity generated by fracked gas would be higher than 20 percent of the impact of coal-fired electric generation," she stated.  Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico, among other Latin American countries, are intending to develop fracking broadly in coming years. Attendees at the People’s Summit wondered, "What can people do in the face of these hazardous plans?"  Ariel Perez Castellón, an attorney with AIDA, emphasized the existence of legal tools designed to safeguard human health and the environment against fracking. The first, he said, is the precautionary principle, which is recognized in international law and which States and civil society should apply to address the threats of fracking. This principle establishes that "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation". [1] This means that when in doubt about the occurrence, scope, or magnitude of severe environmental damage, States must take proactive and effective measures to prevent such damage. "Based in this principle, States have three obligations related to fracking: to generate broad, clear and impartial information regarding this activity and its impacts; to protect the environment and the people with a moratorium on fracking activities, until there is a demonstration of its innocuous development; and to promote opportunities for public debate about fracking", Pérez said.   Attendees in Lima stressed that social mobilization is key in supporting the legal strategies against fracking. Various civil society organizations within Latin American spoke of their efforts to promote public discussions, disseminate information in their communities, and take the necessary steps to prevent the damage that fracking may bring to their countries. In recent times, these organizations are starting to share experiences and articulate advocacy efforts within the region.  On the occasion of COP20, 80 Latin American organizations issued a statement (text in Spanish) warning that fracking will have disastrous consequences for the environment and the population of Latin America, and that it will worsen climate change. The organizations asked their national governments  to "prevent the use of hydraulic fracturing in their territory under the state obligation of the principle of precaution, and ensure the protection of fresh water resources and their peoples' health." [1] Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development of 1992, principle 15

Read more

COP 20: And what about the effective use of climate finance?

The amount of money required to confront the effects of extreme climate changes is much larger than currently sought in global negotiations. Clearly more resources are needed, but it is also important to track the effective use of climate finance now being mobipzed. "We must recognize the funding gap for adaptation programming," said Annaka Peterson Carvalho of Oxfam America. She was a panel member Wednesday at a COP20 event entitled, A fair and accountable cpmate finance regime: Confronting the contentious issues. In her opinion, we must determine, on the basis of science, the real costs that countries must rightfully bear, and we need a responsible finance system to determine how much money each country needs and where it will come from. Sandra Guzmán, General Coordinator of the Cpmate Finance Group of Latin America and the Caribbean (GFLAC), agreed that while it is necessary to have more resources for the fight, it’s also necessary to use them effectively. "It’s not just about asking for more money," she said. "We must change priorities at a national level to distribute funding by reassigning it to activities that allow for reduced emissions." Guzmán explained that the Climate Finance Group has developed a methodology to know how much money each country receives, and how much they spend in deapng with climate change. Their analysis encompasses many activities, including some that are not traditionally labeled as relating to cpmate change. She identified five challenges in the task of tracking the use of cpmate finance: Transparency and access to information; Definition of the criteria of climate finance; Institutional structure and communication between different institutions; Public participation in the evaluation of projects; and Better methodology for monitoring, reporting, and verification to analyze the effective use of the money. The experience of the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (iCSC) in the Philippines demonstrates that accountability on climate finance is “everybody’s business,” according its Executive Director, Red Constantino. The Institute tracks not only committed funding for adaptation, but also how it is channeled locally. The work that Constantino has done has enabled him to identify difficulties in apgning funding with the real needs and priorities of vulnerable communities; provide limited opportunities to involve communities in decision-making about adaptation; and understand that while money flows, it is not necessarily used efficiently or completely. Andrea Rodríguez, senior lawyer at AIDA, also referred to the importance of ensuring that climate change programs and projects meet the requirements of individual countries and are directed by them. To be effective, she said, the new climate regime must find ways for countries to monitor climate finance, learn from the experiences of other institutions, and reallocate their resources to be effective. "Climate finance responds to a specific need, it is not general assistance for development," Rodríguez added. "Public participation is central to the process, and if we know how much money we need and how to use it, we will know how much to ask for in global negotiations. In this sense, Constantino highlighted coordination between local and national levels, between governments and civil society. For more information from COP20 and to post comments, visit our interactive blog at aida-cop.org          

Read more