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
Voices seeking justice for the community of La Oroya
The situation of the community of La Oroya in Peru, affected by decades of toxic pollution and the lack of effective government action to combat it, is not an exception in Latin America. Unfortunately, there are many environmental and social sacrifice zones in the continent where highly polluting activities, such as the La Oroya metallurgical complex, are developed. These activities are poorly supervised by the authorities responsible for guaranteeing life, health, personal integrity and other human rights. The importance of the case responds precisely to these realities and transcends the Peruvian context, representing a historic opportunity to set an important precedent for the entire continent. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has yet to rule on the responsibility of the Peruvian state and the reparations to be made to the victims, has taken up the case. In anticipation of the decision, we’d like to share the testimonies of those who have been a key part of the search for justice for La Oroya. They are voices that demonstrate the gravity of the damage caused, and that show that the road to justice has been long, but fruitful. They are voices that express the urgency of guaranteeing a better future for the inhabitants of La Oroya and, ultimately, the effective enjoyment of the right to a healthy environment in the continent. 1. yolanda zurita, petitioner in the case "Community of La Oroya v. Peru" before the Inter-American Human Rights System: 2. anna cederstav, AIDA’s Deputy Director and CFO: 3. Liliana Ávila, Coordinator of AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program:
Read more
Climate finance and a gender perspective: two concepts that must be intertwined
By Camila Bartelega, Florencia Ortúzar and Francisco Pinilla* Women and girls are disproportionately affected by the onslaught of the climate crisis. This is because they are usually the ones responsible for fetching water and food, and for taking care of children, the elderly, and the sick. Climate change makes this unpaid care work much more difficult. Evidence also shows that women and girls are more vulnerable to natural disasters. It's estimated that they're 14 times more likely to die than men when natural disasters strike. This may be because they are caring for vulnerable people, because they are often not taught how to swim or climb trees, or because they wear inadequate clothing to respond, amongst others. On the other hand, as the climate crisis creates chaos and increases conflict, they are more vulnerable to sexual assault and domestic violence. This is fueled by the growing frustration of a world in which resources are becoming scarcer and more difficult to obtain. It is clear, then, why it is important to include a gender perspective when talking about how best to address the climate crisis. But doing so is important not only to "level the playing field" for historically disadvantaged women, but also because they have a lot of knowledge to contribute, and the additional burdens they carry affect their ability to contribute to the best solutions. Including a gender perspective in climate action is therefore both fair and desirable for more effective and beneficial outcomes. If they are excluded, women lose, and we all lose. For Maite Smet, Executive Director of the International Analog Forestry Network, when we talk about a gender approach, or even a feminist approach, we are talking about issues of power. "Working from a gender and climate justice perspective is about wanting to change systems of power that have historically oppressed and socially excluded people," she said. "It opens up the possibility of including people who have not been part of important climate conversations and decisions." Now let's look at the relationship between gender and climate finance, a critical element in the uphill battle to preserve a livable planet. Gender and climate finance Tackling the global climate crisis will require transforming the way we live on the planet, including energy and food production, infrastructure and transportation. This will require significant financial resources. The Paris Accord stipulates that developed countries must provide financial assistance to the least developed and most vulnerable countries. This brings us to the world of climate finance: The provision of funds to implement mitigation and adaptation measures. All climate finance must have a gender perspective, as the impacts of the climate crisis disproportionately affect women and girls. What does this mean? It means funding that understands and intentionally addresses these differentiated impacts. It means that funding decisions are made with the participation of women, recognizing that they have valuable knowledge of their territories and are therefore the bearers of valuable solutions. Finally, it means making funding available and accessible to women. According to Natalia Daza, gender monitor of the Green Climate Fund for Latin America and the Caribbean and member of the Women Environment and Development Organization, the gender approach to climate finance has a lot to do with understanding that inequality shapes the way social relations take place. "Women are affected differently, usually more negatively, by the impacts of climate change,” she explained. “That's why civil society has a very important role to play in ensuring that climate action includes the voices of women, LGBTIQ+ and feminist organizations, from design to implementation.” The Gender Approach in the Green Climate Fund At AIDA, when we track climate finance coming into the region, we focus on the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the world's leading climate fund, which is accountable to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Although far from perfect (not least because what is written is not necessarily followed), it is perhaps the most progressive fund on gender issues. The GCF's gender policy recognizes that climate change affects women and men differently and emphasizes the importance of women's participation and leadership in decision-making processes related to finance. It is considered progressive, compared to other funds, because of its cross-cutting approach, which seeks to integrate gender considerations into all aspects of financing. According to Seblewongel Deneke, the GCF’s gender specialist, any policy or strategy that emerges from the fund must take the gender perspective into account. "It is clear that both women and men contribute equally and should have equal opportunities. But we need to recognize that there are differentiated challenges for men and women, and that both are part of the solution." The policy includes capacity building, tools and materials. "The climate debate is not just about the climate agenda; it brings other elements of inequality to the table. We need to change access to education and health and ensure the basic rights that every individual should have, including women," Deneke said. What is needed? We cannot deny that we have made progress. The importance of the gender perspective in climate action and finance is discussed and recognized. There are policies to ensure it, institutions to implement it, and sometimes even staff and budgets to do so. But the job is not done. Women still have less access to climate finance and fewer positions of power. And mitigation and adaptation projects often fail to consider the disproportionate impact of climate change on women. It is not easy to change things when they move with the inertia of what has always been. But we cannot give up. At AIDA, we have integrated a gender perspective across all our work. In doing so, we have broken new ground on many fronts and improved our results, and not just for the benefit of women. As a regional node of GCF Watch, an international observatory that monitors the Green Climate Fund, AIDA is a bridge between decision-making at the Board level and the territories that receive the projects financed. Florencia Ortúzar, Senior Attorney at AIDA, says that it is not enough to have funds, there must also be adequate investments. "Civil society monitoring is key to ensure that investments in the name of climate are made with respect for human rights and with a gender focus, and to achieve the maximum potential of the funds allocated to these types of projects and programs." This was the theme of an in-person event held in Rio de Janeiro in June. Supported by the Global Alliance for Gender and Green Action (GAGGA) - and organized by CASA Socio-Environmental Fund, AIDA and Both Ends - the event aimed to train and motivate regional organizations with a feminist base to be better prepared to follow up on the Green Climate Fund. Lola Gutiérrez, director of the Bolivian Women's Fund, who attended the event, emphasizes the importance of learning more about the fund, other countries' experiences, and how to access these resources. "Women are affected in different ways by extractivism and climate change, and we are fundamental actors in the solution. It is important to be present and to problematize what is happening." One of the conclusions of the event was that with the progress in policies and with a narrative that is much more receptive to gender, we can stop being gatekeepers that prevent the passage of bad projects and become strikers that propose projects to be implemented to stop the climate crisis. Therein lies the hope that these grassroots organizations will soon be the ones accessing funds and proposing solutions. Only then can we celebrate and rest. * Camila Bartelega is a fellow with AIDA's Climate Program, Florencia Ortúzar is a senior attorney and Francisco Pinilla is a digital communications strategist.
Read more
Report of the International Mission to Colombia: Stop investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)
In May 2023, a delegation of 13 representatives from social and environmental justice organisations from eight countries in the Americas and Europe visited Colombia to share experiences of struggles against the global investment protection regime. The mission also went to learn firsthand about the peoples and ecosystems being threatened by corporate lawsuits, as well as the environmental, social and cultural harms that transnational investments have already caused, particularly in the departments of La Guajira and Santander.The visit came in response to the significant rise in claims that transnational firms have made against the country in recent years, as highlighted in the Declaration “Recover Colombian Sovereignty in Defense of Water, Life and Territories”, signed by more than 280 organisations from 30 countries as well as 54 Colombian members of Congress. In the last five years, Colombia has faced some of the highest number of arbitration claims in Latin America. In 2018 alone, Colombia received more claims than any other country in the world.Colombia’s pending claims currently total US$13.2 billion – equivalent to 13% of the nation’s budget for 2023 and nearly equal to what Colombia plans to spend on education this year.According to the State National Agency for Legal Defense, as of March 2023, 14 arbitration processes were underway with eight more in the pre-arbitration stage. Colombia’s pending claims currently total US$13.2 billion (52 trillion Colombian pesos as of August 2023), although in three cases the amount claimed is not public. This is equivalent to 13% of the nation’s budget for 2023 and nearly equal to what Colombia plans to spend on education this year.The bulk of investors that have brought arbitration cases are involved in the extractive industries, especially mining.We witnessed how this system enables corporate impunity and threatens the realisation and defence of Colombians’ fundamental human and environmental rights. We also observed how this system interferes with judicial independence, environmental regulation, and national sovereignty. Read and download the report
Read more