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
The unbridled use of disposable plastic: A new global crisis
The massive spread of COVID-19 has created a global health crisis, leaving millions of people sick and thousands dead. Due to the nature of the disease and the ease of contagion, protective and biosecurity measures have been implemented on a massive scale. These include confinement and safe distancing, constant disinfection of hands and surfaces, and the use disinfectant bottles, bags, and personal protective equipment like mouthpieces, masks, gloves, and other objects. Unfortunately, plastic—single-use plastic, in particular—is the primary material used to make these objects, which implies an indiscriminate increase in the use and disposal of this material. The processes needed to manage those single-use plastics have become another major challenge in the face of a crisis that is collapsing economies and health systems. It’s clear that our greatest global concern is to defeat the pandemic, and prevent more deaths and infections. But also of concern are the side effects it’s producing, like the backsliding of global efforts to reduce plastic waste and prevent environmental damage. Before the pandemic, contamination by plastic waste was already considered one of the main threats to the environment and biodiversity. According to a recent study, only 9 percent of the plastic produced worldwide is recycled. The rest is left as accumulated waste that damages ecosystems, mainly the oceans, and the species that live in them. Plastic pollution directly affects thousands of species, like marine mammals or birds that get entangled in the waste. Other species confuse the debris with food, as is the case with fish and sea turtles. Our greatest global concern right now must be overcoming the pandemic and preventing further death and infection. But let’s also be aware that, because of it, we’re moving backwards in the reduction of plastic waste and the prevention of the damages it causes. Backsliding in the Regulation of Plastics In December 2018, the European Union's parliament approved a ban on single-use plastics, which was due to come into effect next year. However, due to the pandemic, the plastic products industry has asked the European Commission to delay the implementation of the standard by at least one year. Although many countries had committed themselves to reducing the use of plastics this year, the pandemic has forced some of them to postpone such plans. In California, the governor temporarily lifted the ban on single-use grocery bags because of the risk of transmission through reusable bags. In Thailand, where single-use bags had been banned since January, officials expect up to a 30 percent increase in their use. According to that country's Environment Institute, 62 percent more plastic was consumed in Bangkok in April compared to the previous year, most of it being food packaging, which is difficult to recycle. In Latin America, the situation is similar. In the Mexican state of Jalisco, an era free from plastic bags and disposable straws was set to begin in January 2020, after a rule banning their use came into force. When the pandemic struck, the ban was abandoned and consumption of these products by establishments and citizens was only 10 percent less than last year, according to recent data. Greenpeace denounced the plastic industry in Mexico for seeking to reverse local bans using the argument that plastic is the ideal material to avoid COVID-19 infections. The environmental organization warned that nothing replaces continuous hand washing and surface disinfection. It explained that using disposable plastic containers, utensils, and cutlery neither guarantees hygiene nor prevents infection since the virus can remain on these surfaces for two to six days. The Importance of Debate and Seeking Alternatives Before the pandemic, there was greater social awareness of the need to reduce the use of plastics, especially single-use plastics. However, the need to contain the spread of the virus and industry strategies to capitalize on the health concerns of the population have led to the re-emergence of plastic as an indispensable material. Now more than ever, we must take care of each other. We also must protect the natural world that sustains life. The pandemic has exposed our weaknesses, and one of them is vulnerability to pollution. It’s possible that when containment measures are lifted or relaxed we’ll find that our dependence on plastic has increased significantly and that our planet is in more danger than before. We must continue the global debate on plastics and work together to find effective alternatives, taking into account the economic recovery of the sectors most affected by the crisis. Some urgent actions that could be taken in short and medium term include: Promoting environmental awareness and responsible consumption, encouraging non-healthcare workers to use reusable personal protection items made from environmentally friendly materials. Adopting best practices for recycling and policies against pollution by plastics at the national level, as part of a global action plan. Promoting the development of the circular economy, which aims to eliminate waste through the continuous reuse of resources. Requiring companies to make greater investments in sustainability, ensuring compliance with their environmental policies and corporate social responsibility. Encouraging investment in the research and development of alternative materials, which are more biodegradable and recyclable, as well as progress in the design of new, less contaminating, chemical additives. When it comes to plastics, we cannot control everything. But these actions can help give the new normal a more sustainable form.
Read more
Why fracking is not an energy transition
The current global health crisis is forcing society to reflect on our ever increasing need for change. It’s putting us face-to-face with the fragility and unfeasibility of an energy system based on fossil fuels. This is evidenced by the historic collapse of oil prices associated with lower international demand for hydrocarbons—due to measures adopted in response to the pandemic—as well as overproduction and speculation in oil contracts, among other factors. Demand for gas is also expected to fall by 5 percent, following a decade of uninterrupted growth. Latin America is highly dependent on fossil fuels, both as an export commodity and for its own domestic consumption—88 percent of the energy used on the continent comes from nonrenewable resources. Since 2010, governments and private businesses have been pushing for fracking, or hydraulic fracturing of unconventional deposits, due in large part to the overexploitation of conventional hydrocarbons. Some countries describe fracking as a ‘bridge’ to reducing dependence on coal and petroleum as energy sources, claiming it gives them time to develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Following this logic, fracking has been promoted as a step toward energy transition. But how can a process that demonstrates a clear lack of economic, environmental, and social viability be labeled a transition? Reasons to say “No!” to fracking To resort to fracking is to continue to promote an energy system characterized by high private ownership and appropriation, the use of non-renewable resources, and negative impacts on affected populations and territories. What’s more, this system is defined by a great inequity in terms of access to, and use of, energy. Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of toxic substances into the subsoil, which can cause the contamination of aquifers and air due to the volatility of some compounds. What’s more, leaks in the production and transport of gas and oil extracted vía fracking have been related to the increase in global emissions of methane, a pollutant responsible for about a quarter of all global warming. The technique also requires large amounts of water, which is especially relevant in a region that continues to confront serious problems concerning access to this basic resource. The use of fracking affects the ways of life of communities, both in terms of health—due to toxic substances in the air, water and soil—and in the violation of human rights and democracy. Many communities, particularly indigenous ones, lack access to information and are not properly consulted on fracking projects in their territories. The damages may be more serious for women, aggravating previously existing structural inequities. In economic terms, hydraulic fracturing requires large investments and, in order to be viable, it needs a market with high prices. In that sense, the unpredictability of oil prices makes it so that any nation that depends on hydrocarbons for its energy sovereignty is taking a dubious risk. Also, in fracking the rate of return on energy is lower. This means that the extraction process demands much more energy that it can capture. All this results in an energy benefit that is sometimes non-existent, and in which profits come from financial speculation. To promote fracking today would be to take a step backward, rather than forward. It simply does not meet the definition of a transition away from fossil fuels, and the logic of fracking has little to do with satisfying the social and economic needs of the people, among them environmental sustainability. A Movement for Change A growing number of organizations, institutions, communities and individuals throughout the Americas have organized to prevent the advance of fracking. These joint efforts, like the Latin American Alliance On Fracking, promote access to information and dismantle the position of businessmen and governments that claim fracking and more extractive activities are the only way out. Initiatives have emerged that seek energy alternatives by promoting dialogue and creating working groups on a just transition. Examples range from the experience of energy autonomy through small community hydroelectric plants in Guatemala, the Rio Negro Production and Energy Transition Working Group in Argentina, and the various experiences of Censat Agua Viva in Colombia, including a Social Working Group for a New Mining, Energy and Environmental Model. Meanwhile, using legal and administrative mechanisms, several municipalities and communities in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Uruguay have prohibited or declared a moratorium on fracking in their territories. Thinking about another society requires thinking about another energy system, one that is just and democratic. These spaces of resistance and the construction of alternatives give us a roadmap to promote structural changes and to jointly confront our society’s health, economic, and climate crises. Only then can we move beyond a system in which what was once considered "normal" simply wasn’t working.
Read more
Challenges and conditions to advance towards energy justice in Mexico
This blog entry accompanies the launch of the first ever Benchmark on Renewable Energy and Human Rights. It was originally published by the Business & Human Rights Information Centre. By Rosa Peña Lizarazo and Astrid Puentes Riaño The climate crisis, in the words of Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is the greatest current threat to human rights, and one that requires urgent political decisions and collective action. One such decision concerns progress in the energy transition, that is, the shift from the use of energy derived from fossil fuels to the use of energy that is renewable and less emission-intensive. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, this transition would help to address the climate crisis and improve air quality. In Mexico, this transition has motivated multi-sector debates and requires a participatory, inclusive, and transparent dialogue with a human rights approach and a territorial perspective. There are four main challenges to this: main challenges 1. The socioeconomic context Mexico has some of the highest levels of inequality on the planet, with ten of the country’s richest people holding wealth the equivalent to 50% of its poorest. Understanding this context is key to adapting energy transition policies that meet international climate obligations without creating more inequity. It is also essential to learn from the past. The 2013 energy reform set in motion a model for the massive implementation of renewable energy projects, both large-scale and private. This made it impossible to overcome the wide gaps in exclusion for socio-economic and territorial reasons. 2. Energy consensus Another challenge is achieving regulatory and social consensus on what clean and renewable energy is and what the goal should be in its implementation. Despite the proposals of some environmental organizations, the Mexican Government accepted vague and more convenient definitions to fulfill its climate commitments. It defined clean energies as those that do not generate polluting emissions during their production, ignoring whether they can generate other negative impacts on the environment. 3. Respect and protection of human rights The generation of energy from fossil fuels has violated human rights, provoking scenarios of exclusion and serious implications for Mexico’s indigenous and rural communities. Likewise, many non-conventional renewable energy projects, like those developments in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec or in the Yucatan Peninsula, have generated new socio-environmental conflicts. These relate to the lack of transparency and participation, violation of the rights of native peoples, lack of knowledge of traditional ownership and uses of land, obstacles to access natural resources, and environmental degradation. It is therefore a challenge to undertake a transition that considers and prevents these harms from a human rights perspective. 4. Energy diversification and reliability Given current dependence on fossil fuels in the energy grid - which by 2018 generated 75.88% of the country's energy - progress towards mitigation and adaptation to climate change requires a process of diversification of energy sources that takes advantage of Mexico's potential to develop renewable energy. Another associated challenge is to guarantee the reliability of the system to ensure it can continuously meet the country's energy demand. how can a fair transition come about? At AIDA, we believe this can be done by building energy justice in Mexico, through the following: Adapting to the socioeconomic context: Betting on a transition that becomes an engine of local development, through for example, the generation of jobs, the democratization of energy and energy generation in the scale necessary for self-supply. This requires overcoming existing barriers to exclusion by implementing, for example, community energy projects. Designing participatory energy policy: Propose scenarios of effective and inclusive participation in order to agree on the minimum aspects of the goals of energy policy in the country, in response to the climate crisis. Compliance with environmental and human rights standards: Advisory Opinion 23 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights highlights that any policy or project must guarantee access rights in environmental matters and labour rights, comply with the principles of prevention and precaution, respect the rights of indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples, and have a gender perspective. Diversification of the energy grid: Promote financing mechanisms that encourage clean technological innovation and investment in decentralized renewable energies and with better storage strategies. Without a doubt, a just energy transition is necessary and urgent in Mexico. The country now has the opportunity to undertake a progressive and timely transition that allows for better scenarios of social, environmental and climate justice, and that responds to current social demands.
Read more