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
Litigation to promote (and accelerate) climate action
In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its first assessment report. It was the first time that the international scientific community officially and accurately demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions, produced by human activities, would lead to additional warming of the planet's surface, with global consequences. Over more than two decades of international climate negotiations and agreements to drastically reduce emissions, progress has been slow. And so, climate litigation has become a tool increasingly used by organizations and communities to hold governments and companies accountable for the climate crisis. Legal cases have forced nations to adopt more concrete and ambitious measures to curb emissions and mitigate the human rights impacts of the climate crisis. In May, a Dutch court set a landmark precedent when it ordered multinational oil company Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent over less than 10 years, marking a global environmental victory. "This judgment has been of great significance because Shell is one of the companies that most contributes to climate change," says Verónica Méndez, an attorney with AIDA's Climate Change Program. AIDA's legal and scientific team provides legal support and technical information to organizations and communities initiating climate litigation against governments and companies in Latin America. AIDA also developed a climate litigation platform, which systematizes key information on the cases developed in the region. The mapping of data is being done collaboratively with other organizations and will allow for the strengthening of joint litigation strategies. A brief overview of climate litigation Climate litigation includes cases that raise issues related to the legal obligations that states and companies have in relation to the climate crisis. They are brought before judicial bodies to seek, among other things, the enforcement of existing climate laws; an expansion in the scope of other laws to address climate change; recognition of the relationship between fundamental human rights and the impacts of the climate crisis; and compensation for loss and damage. This, according to a report prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with the Sabine Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University (New York), which assesses the global situation of this type of litigation. According to the report, as of July 1, 2020, at least 1,550 climate litigations have been registered in 38 countries, almost doubling the number of cases registered in 24 countries in 2017. The United States leads the list where the most litigation has been filed (1,200), followed by Australia (97), the United Kingdom (58) and the European Union (55). Climate lawsuits are also booming in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Chile. To date, AIDA has analyzed nearly 50 cases that will form part of the region's climate litigation platform. Challenges and opportunities in climate litigation While climate litigation seeks to achieve justice for communities affected by the impacts of the climate crisis, one of its great challenges lies the implementation of decisions. In 2018, a historic judgement ruled in favor of 25 young Colombians, who sued the government for deforestation in the Amazon and its direct link to the violation of the right to a healthy environment for future generations. This lawsuit is considered a climate litigation due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation. In it, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized the Colombian Amazon as an entity subject to rights and ordered the creation of an action plan to reduce deforestation, and the adoption of an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon. However, the conclusions of follow-up reports on the case indicate that, to date, there has not been full compliance with the ruling. "A judgment does not end with the sentence,” explains Méndez. “It must be followed up with to ensure compliance." Demonstrating that corporations and governments have an enormous responsibility in the fight against the climate crisis not only requires scientific information that proves that the emissions generated or allowed contribute to climate change. It requires linking the facts to human rights to provide more reasons for the courts to act and issue a favorable ruling. "A purely scientific climate change litigation has less chance of success," Méndez emphasizes. "It’s strategic to link a case to direct impacts on the human rights of those people who will be disproportionately affected." According to a report by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the outlook for climate demands in Latin America is encouraging because governments are making more commitments to climate action and, in addition, climate science is establishing direct links between extreme weather events and climate change. The coming together of communities and environmental organizations is crucial in the movement to accelerate strong policies and actions that will ensure a sustainable, just transformation for both people and the environment. Visit the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean
Read moreLitigation to promote (and accelerate) climate action
In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its first assessment report. It was the first time that the international scientific community officially and accurately demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions, produced by human activities, would lead to additional warming of the planet's surface, with global consequences. Over more than two decades of international climate negotiations and agreements to drastically reduce emissions, progress has been slow. And so, climate litigation has become a tool increasingly used by organizations and communities to hold governments and companies accountable for the climate crisis. Legal cases have forced nations to adopt more concrete and ambitious measures to curb emissions and mitigate the human rights impacts of the climate crisis. In May, a Dutch court set a landmark precedent when it ordered multinational oil company Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent over less than 10 years, marking a global environmental victory. "This judgment has been of great significance because Shell is one of the companies that most contributes to climate change," says Verónica Méndez, an attorney with AIDA's Climate Change Program. AIDA's legal and scientific team provides legal support and technical information to organizations and communities initiating climate litigation against governments and companies in Latin America. AIDA also developed a climate litigation platform, which systematizes key information on the cases developed in the region. The mapping of data is being done collaboratively with other organizations and will allow for the strengthening of joint litigation strategies. A brief overview of climate litigation Climate litigation includes cases that raise issues related to the legal obligations that states and companies have in relation to the climate crisis. They are brought before judicial bodies to seek, among other things, the enforcement of existing climate laws; an expansion in the scope of other laws to address climate change; recognition of the relationship between fundamental human rights and the impacts of the climate crisis; and compensation for loss and damage. This, according to a report prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with the Sabine Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University (New York), which assesses the global situation of this type of litigation. According to the report, as of July 1, 2020, at least 1,550 climate litigations have been registered in 38 countries, almost doubling the number of cases registered in 24 countries in 2017. The United States leads the list where the most litigation has been filed (1,200), followed by Australia (97), the United Kingdom (58) and the European Union (55). Climate lawsuits are also booming in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Chile. To date, AIDA has analyzed nearly 50 cases that will form part of the region's climate litigation platform. Challenges and opportunities in climate litigation While climate litigation seeks to achieve justice for communities affected by the impacts of the climate crisis, one of its great challenges lies the implementation of decisions. In 2018, a historic judgement ruled in favor of 25 young Colombians, who sued the government for deforestation in the Amazon and its direct link to the violation of the right to a healthy environment for future generations. This lawsuit is considered a climate litigation due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation. In it, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized the Colombian Amazon as an entity subject to rights and ordered the creation of an action plan to reduce deforestation, and the adoption of an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon. However, the conclusions of follow-up reports on the case indicate that, to date, there has not been full compliance with the ruling. "A judgment does not end with the sentence,” explains Méndez. “It must be followed up with to ensure compliance." Demonstrating that corporations and governments have an enormous responsibility in the fight against the climate crisis not only requires scientific information that proves that the emissions generated or allowed contribute to climate change. It requires linking the facts to human rights to provide more reasons for the courts to act and issue a favorable ruling. "A purely scientific climate change litigation has less chance of success," Méndez emphasizes. "It’s strategic to link a case to direct impacts on the human rights of those people who will be disproportionately affected." According to a report by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the outlook for climate demands in Latin America is encouraging because governments are making more commitments to climate action and, in addition, climate science is establishing direct links between extreme weather events and climate change. The coming together of communities and environmental organizations is crucial in the movement to accelerate strong policies and actions that will ensure a sustainable, just transformation for both people and the environment. Visit the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean
Read more
Reflections for a Bolivia free of fracking
Text written as part of the series #TRANSFORMAR LA CRISIS, Tomo II. Crisis Ecológica, extractivismo y poblaciones vulnerables by the foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in Bolivia, to be published soon. It all began with a study, published in 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, reporting the existence of large quantities of unconventional hydrocarbons in Bolivia. The study created considerable expectations in the Andean Nation. Given the gradual depletion of conventional oil and gas deposits, fracking has since become a latent threat. Fracking is a risky, costly and highly polluting technique. As a region, Latin America is home to roughly seven thousand fracking wells. The technique’s advance—as well as related public policies, regulations and social opposition—has commonalities across the region, including its affects on protected areas and on urban, rural and indigenous populations. So far, Bolivia remains free from fracking. But without an intentional political decision to avoid it, and without a population better informed about its effects, fracking could soon become a reality here as well. The risks of fracking in Bolivia The implementation of fracking is a latent threat in Bolivia because of the nation’s significant dependence on fossil fuels. In 2013, the state-owned company YPFB signed a cooperative agreement with YPF Argentina to study the potential of unconventional hydrocarbons. It also asked the operating companies to extract samples from the Los Monos geological formation in the Chaco region. That same year, YPFB Chaco (a subsidiary of YPFB), with the support of Halliburton, carried out a "mini-fracture" in the Ingre X-2 well, part of the Tupambi formation, in Chuquisaca. This operation would have allowed for the discovery of tight sand oil. Based on this discovery, YPFB Chaco had proposed to perform a complete fracture of the reservoir in 2014. It is unknown if this occurred because, in the years following, YPFB stopped generating public information on the project. In 2018, Canadian company CanCambria Energy Corp. signed a study agreement with YPFB, the prelude to an exploration/exploitation contract, to determine the unconventional gas potential at Miraflores, also in Chuquisaca. CanCambria's preliminary data points to the possible existence of a mega-field in the area, whose potential gas resources would be comparable to those of Argentina’s Vaca Muerta. The Canadian firm has prepared a proposal to extract gas by drilling 800 wells over 202 square kilometers in the Miraflores area, in the municipality of Macharetí. Miraflores is located in the Heroes del Chaco Municipal Protected Area and is part of the Yrenda Toba Tarijeño Aquifer System, which Bolivia shares with Paraguay and Argentina. The people living in Macharetí, including Guaraní indigenous communities, were shocked to receive news of the project. The alarm raised by the possibility of fracking in this territory led those who live there to learn about the consequences of the technique, particularly in relation to the use and contamination of immense quantities of water. As a direct result, Macharetí included in its autonomous statute the prohibition of fracking in its territory, intensifying the controversy over the technique’s development in the area. Between extreme energy and an energy transition In the face of this controversy over fracking, two paths lay before us: on the first, is the deepening of the extractivist model and the generation of highly polluting energy, with serious and irreversible negative impacts on Mother Earth and local populations; on the second, is a just and democratic energy transition, which implies the decommodification of energy, a change in the energy matrix, and a shift in the development paradigm. Bolivia, and Latin America as a region, need to profoundly transform the way energy is produced; the new system should be formed with a long-term vision and based on the respect for human rights and the protection of nature. The development of fracking, far from initiating any transition, goes against this trend because it continues to promote a polluting, risky and costly energy system. It is based on dependence on non-renewable energy sources with negative impacts on the territories, inequity and lack of citizen participation in the construction of energy policies. Instead, Bolivia must bet on a socially just, economically viable and ecologically sustainable energy transition. "Bolivia should not move towards the implementation of fracking in its territory because it represents one of the greatest risks to its ecosystems, resources and populations," says Jorge Campanini, researcher at the Center for Documentation and Information Bolivia (CEDIB). "It is urgent to generate solid policies that declare a moratorium or indefinite ban on this technique throughout the country". The experience of Latin American countries that have bet on fracking clearly demonstrates the economic, environmental and social impacts of this technique. In this context, many organizations, communities and peoples have organized to confront the threat. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic forces us to reflect on the future of fossil fuels, and the need for a just energy transition. Instead of considering fracking as an easy way to create jobs in difficult times, we must confront the health, economic and climate crises together. It’s time to think of resilient recovery, and thus an energy system that is not based on fracking. One idea usually associated with transition is the change of the energy matrix, yet, while necessary, the rapid and effective de-fossilization of that matrix is not enough. The energy transition must be comprehensive and incorporate environmental, economic and social dimensions so that it is also just and democratic. That’s why it’s so important that governments address the issue with a systemic approach.
Read more