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
Belo Sun: at the worst moment of the pandemic, Brazilian government authorizes in-person meeting between mining company and impacted Indigenous peoples
Brazil’s National Indian Foundation claims lack of internet connection and completion of vaccination of Indigenous people, however, 77% of the Indigenous people received the first vaccine jab in the region, and only 34% the second dose. About 994 indigenous Brazilians have died since the COVID-19 pandemic began last March. Brazil (Altamira, Pará) – In a white paper published on February 10, 2021, the Brazilian National Indian Foundation (Fundação Nacional do Índio–FUNAI) gave details on "health protocols" so that Canadian mining company Belo Sun can hold meetings to present and validate its studies on environmental impact to Indigenous residents from the Indigenous Lands (ILs) located in Pará state - Arara da Volta Grande do Xingu and Paquiçamba - in a mixed format—in-person and virtually. The decision is taken at a time when the country faces the bleakest moment of the coronavirus pandemic, with Indigenous peoples being one of the most impacted and vulnerable groups. Brazil has recorded more than 266,000 deaths and 11 million cases since the pandemic began. About 994 indigenous Brazilians have died since the COVID-19 pandemic began last March, according to a tally by APIB, Brazil’s largest indigenous association. Altamira, a reference city for both ILs, has recorded 19,100 cases so far. Moreover, the regional hospital occupancy rate has exceeded 90%. It is expected that, after validation of the indigenous component of the Environmental Impact Study (EIA), the Installation License, suspended by the courts since 2017, will be re-issued by the Pará State Environment Secretariat (Secretaria de Meio Ambiente–SEMA). The Federal Public Defender's Office (DPU) addressed FUNAI on Wednesday (10) recommending that the agency do not authorize or participate in in-person meetings while the Covid-19 pandemic poses a threat to the Indigenous peoples of the region. According to the document, the proposal presented by the company "does not guarantee health security and the preservation of the lives of participants, and is based on information that is not compatible with the situation of the pandemic in the Altamira region." According to FUNAI, “different meetings are being planned for each IL, on consecutive dates (...), and the talks, at least partially in-person, are desirable, maintaining the format adopted throughout the process and which ensured a very fruitful consultation and dialogue process.” The company is intent on becoming the largest open pit gold miner in Brazil, and intends to operate out of Volta Grande do Xingu, one of the most biodiverse sites in the world that already experiences the impacts of the diversion of the Xingu River by the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant. In addition to the Juruna (Yudjá) and Arara ethnicities, the region is home to other non-villagers and several riverside communities. Contrary to what the company claims, the Indigenous peoples of Volta Grande have not yet been properly consulted. “Volta Grande do Xingu has already been dealing with the impacts of the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant. At this time, the Brazilian authorities should guarantee the protection of Indigenous peoples and address the serious technical shortcomings in the project. Authorizing in-person meetings makes it clear which side both FUNAI and the Brazilian government are on: that of the big mining companies,” notes Rosana Miranda of Amazon Watch, the organization is part of the group of institutions that have been denouncing the socio-environmental unfeasibility of Belo Sun’s project. FUNAI's decision is based on the assumption that the indigenous population would have been vaccinated by the end of January 2021. By early March, however, 77% of the Indigenous people served by the Altamira Special Indigenous Health District (Distrito Sanitário Especial Indígena–DSEI) received the first vaccine jab, and only 34% the second dose. According to data from the federal government surveyed by G1, on February 17, 71% of Indigenous people living in the Amazon had not been vaccinated against Covid. At the time, Brazil should have immunized 431,983 Indigenous people against the virus, however, only 164,592 had been vaccinated. The low vaccination coverage of Indigenous peoples is yet another chapter in the neglect of the federal government’s management of the pandemic. This is made clear by the increase in the number of deaths by Covid-19 among Indigenous populations by more than 108%, according to data from the Association of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB). Nearly 50,000 Indigenous people were infected and 988 died, according to APIB. The mining company expects to extract 74 tons of gold in 20 years of operation, one of the largest in Latin America. It has been striving to deny the potential impacts on Indigenous peoples, traditional communities and the environment since the project’s announcement in 2012. Three recent expert opinions attest that the project is not viable from a socio-environmental perspective and raise several technical issues regarding the impact studies on the Indigenous component [Access the documents]. Neither FUNAI nor SEMAS have responded to the technical inquiries made by the specialists. [See here the studies: 1,2,3] The expert opinions add up to examinations conducted by the Federal Public Prosecutor and the Pará State Public Defender's Office within the scope of at least six legal challenges against the project. The studies, carried out by independent researchers, are part of the efforts of several civil society organizations that have been denouncing the socio-environmental unfeasibility of the project, such as Rede Xingu +, Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre, Amazon Watch, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), International Rivers, Above Ground and Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). Mining companies and the Brazilian government take part in meeting in Canada This Thursday, March 11, marks the end of the convention of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC), an annual gathering where major investors and mining companies from Canada present “new business opportunities in the sector for the next decades.” With a busy schedule, the Brazilian government has among its main sponsors for the event Belo Sun Mining. In a pre-recorded presentation for the event, the Minister of Mines and Energy, Bento Albuquerque, stated that the Brazilian government is determined to expand access to mineral resources currently restricted to mining—such as Indigenous Lands and border areas. Belo Sun's CEO Peter Tagliamonte is listed as a speaker on the March 11 session entitled The Brazilian Mineral Exploration & Mining Industry Projects & Opportunities, organized by the Brazilian government. press contacts Camila Rossi, Amazon Watch, [email protected] Anna Miller, AIDA, [email protected]
Read more
Mexico’s climate commitments lack ambition
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) are the mechanism through which the countries that signed the Paris Agreement contribute to the fulfillment of the global pact's objective: to keep the increase in the planet's average temperature below 2°C. Each country's NDC outlines its national mitigation and adaptation commitments in the face of the climate crisis, including emission reduction efforts. The Paris Agreement stipulates that these commitments must be communicated to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) every five years and that each successive NDC must represent a progression from the previous one, reflecting the highest possible ambition (Article 3). In addition, NDCs must contain sufficient information on clear, transparent and understandable targets (Article 8, paragraph 8). And, in the case of Mexico, the General Law on Climate Change (LGCC) considers the NDC as one of the planning instruments of the National Climate Change Policy (Article 58) and establishes that it must observe, among others, the principle of progressivity, which implies that the established goals must be progressive and gradual over time (Article 26, section XIII). In its most recent update, Mexico's NDC does not comply with the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and the LGCC. Ambition in the spotlight The Mexican State presented its first NDC in 2015. In it, the government made an unconditional commitment—through its own resources—to a 22 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and a 51 percent reduction in black carbon emissions, by 2030. Last December, Mexico presented its updated NDC, which should be more ambitious than the previous one. However, the new instrument merely reiterates the mitigation commitments made in 2015. Moreover, the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario—a tentative scenario in which there are no mitigation policies and which serves as a baseline for climate actions—was adjusted upwards with a higher total level of emissions by 2030 than indicated in the first NDC. This, according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent scientific analysis that tracks governments’ climate action and compares it to what was agreed globally in the Paris Agreement. The CAT analysis states, "Because the NDC is based on a percentage reduction below BAU projections, a higher level of emissions in 2030 effectively reduces the country's mitigation ambition, even if the reduction targets remain unchanged." Due to its lack of ambition, Mexico's updated NDC was rated as "highly insufficient" in the CAT ranking. This means that the commitments adopted by the country "are not at all consistent with keeping [global] warming below 2°C [...]," being instead "consistent with warming levels of between 3°C and 4°C.” International agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the European Commission have emphasized the need for Mexico to increase its mitigation ambition, especially in the energy sector, which contributes most to the climate crisis and where the greatest emissions reduction opportunities exist in the short and long term. But Mexico's recent NDC does not set out specific actions in key economic sectors to achieve the endorsed targets, although it does state that these will be developed in an NDC implementation roadmap to be presented in the next Biennial Update Report. In this sense, the instrument lacks sufficient information to have clear, transparent and understandable targets. Regarding the adaptation component, Mexico's updated NDC includes nature-based climate solutions. However, the inclusion of such actions is not sufficient to have the level of ambition required to address the climate crisis and meet the objective of the Paris Agreement. A violation of the principle of progressivity In light of the facts, the updating of Mexico's climate commitments fails to meet the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and with this the Mexican State also disregards the principle of progressivity established in the LGCC since the targets set do not represent a progression and gradualness with respect to the first NDC. Other countries in the region—including Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica and Chile—have updated their NDCs, demonstrating increased climate ambition. Although they include measures that could be improved, their actions demonstrate a willingness to make further progress in terms of their contribution to global climate action. In this context, the Mexican State is leaving behind the progress and leadership it had years ago on climate issues. Its lack of ambition demonstrates indifference to the climate crisis and its impacts on the human rights of the most vulnerable populations. Mexico must assume its responsibility, one that comes from being on the list of the 20 largest emitters in the world. It must adopt mitigation and adaptation commitments compatible with the global goal of preventing global warming from reaching a point of catastrophic consequences.
Read more
Fracking regulation in Mendoza violates Argentina's climate commitments
AIDA filed a legal brief before the Supreme Court of Mendoza arguing the unconstitutionality of a decree allowing for unconventional oil and gas drilling through hydraulic fracturing in the Argentine province. Mendoza, Argentina. In support of a lawsuit filed by Argentine ally OIKOS, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) filed a “friend of the court” brief claiming the unconstitutionality of local regulations allowing for the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons, known as fracking. Using arguments based on international law, the brief outlines how Mendoza’s Decree 248 violates Argentina’s climate commitments and disregards the precautionary principle. "As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a signatory of the Paris Agreement, the Argentine State has assumed international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the climate crisis," explained AIDA attorney Claudia Velarde. "Betting on fracking implies an increase in those emissions and non-compliance with the nation’s climate commitments.” Several studies of fracking in the United States have posited that leakage and flaring during fracking operations are associated with a significant increase of methane in the atmosphere. Though less notorious than carbon dioxide, methane emissions are responsible for around 25 percent of global warming. Decree 248 fails to contemplate any provision to control greenhouse gas emissions generated by fracking or limit their climate impacts. “There are not sufficient grounds for the government of Mendoza to claim they can effectively regulate fracking,” Velarde said. "It’s clear that this regulation is insufficient, and that it ignores the precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle establishes that, when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not prevent the adoption of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In fracking, being an unconventional technique with a high degree of technical and scientific difficulty, there is no certainty about its impacts, which merits the application of the precautionary principle. The brief also documents the applicability of this argument based on similar cases in other countries of Latin America. Colombia currently has a moratorium on fracking based on this legal principle. "In recent decades, the development of fracking has raised alarms worldwide due to evidence of serious and irreversible damages to the environment and public health, both of which are aggravated by the climate crisis," Velarde added. AIDA’s brief joins others filed by national and international organizations against the decree regulating fracking in Mendoza, including Xumek, FARN (Environment and Natural Resource Foundation) and Earthjustice. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +5215570522107.
Read more