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
In historic decree, Costa Rica legally protects its corals
On the occasion of World Oceans Day, Costa Rica issued a decree to protect its vast coral ecosystems. We congratulate the government for taking this important step and setting a legal precedent for the protection of marine environments in the region. San José, Costa Rica. The Costa Rican government issued a precedent-setting decree today that legally protects its vast coral ecosystems from harmful human activities. Following years of work on the issue, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and Conservation International celebrate this important instrument for the conservation of these fragile and vital marine environments. “We are very pleased with this advance, promoted by the Vice Ministry of Water and Seas, which guarantees the survival of coral reefs and the various species that contribute to their conservation—species like the parrotfish, which feed on the algae that can deprive reefs of oxygen,” said Gladys Martínez, senior attorney of AIDA’s Marine Biodiversity and Coastal Protection Program. The decree provides a series of measures the government must adopt in order to preserve reef ecosystems and the species that depend on them, threatened by a combination of unsustainable use, climate change, inadequate management, and invasive species. The measures include: the creation and implementation of science-based strategies and policies to confront the effects of climate change; and the restoration of degraded reefs. The law also prohibits harmful activities like the extraction and commercialization of reefs, dumping of waste, and anchoring. “It’s our hope that the legal precedent established by this decree will be replicated in other countries of the Americas that, like Costa Rica, are bound by international treaties to safeguard their corals,” said Magie Rodríguez, AIDA attorney. “In the coming years, we will be closely monitoring the decree’s implementation.” In 2012, AIDA and Conservation International joined forces with national experts to prepare a report detailing the economic and environmental benefits of corals, urging the creation of legislation in Costa Rica to protect them. AIDA also supported the Vice Ministry in the preparation of the decree based on the organization’s experience in international law and understanding of regulations in other countries of the region. “Costa Rica is a nation privileged by the dimensions of its marine spaces and biodiversity. The coral systems are incredibly productive, but they are also threatened by human activity and climate change,” said Marco A. Quesada Alpízar, director of Conservation International - Costa Rica. “By taking action on this issue, Costa Rica has assumed responsibility for the conservation and management of its marine ecosystems, and has set an example that can be replicated in other countries.” The decree answers a years-long call for Costa Rica to comply with international obligations and protect its threatened marine ecosystems. Scientific studies have shown that a large part of the coral reefs in the country are at great risk due to human activities including land-based pollution and destructive fishing practices. Their conservation must be a priority. “This decree fills an important gap in the regulation of coral reefs in Costa Rica. It recognizes, once again, that marine resources provide people with services and well-being, which requires they be adequately protected and managed,” explained Quesada. “Costa Rica is globally recognized for its ecotourism and natural richness,” added Ana Gloria Guzmán of Conservation International’s Oceans Center. “With this decree, the nation is setting an example about the protection and management of essential marine ecosystems as a means to ensure the health of the oceans and safeguard the well-being of coastal communities that depend on the services they provide.” press contacts: Victor Quintanilla, AIDA, +521 5570522107, [email protected] Kipp Lanham, Conservation International, (202) 412-5533, [email protected] Marco Quesada, Conservation International, +506 2253-0500 ext. 139, [email protected]
Read more
Clean air should be a human right, says UN Special Rapporteur
Even on a clear day in Bogotá, the air pollution can be so overwhelming that the sky is cast in a foggy, washed out haze that hangs over the city. In Bogotá—as in many cities across the Americas—air pollution has become a part of daily life. But it shouldn’t have to be that way. In a recent report, David Boyd, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment said that breathing clean air should be considered a human right. While the majority of countries around the world have recognized the right to a healthy environment, the right to clean air does not yet enjoy the same level of global recognition. Air pollution is a dual killer: not only is it one of the biggest risks to public health worldwide, airborne pollutants also exacerbate the climate crisis. States and the human rights community, therefore, must incorporate the Rapporteur’s recommendations into law, because tackling air pollution is the best thing we can do to improve public health while also saving the planet. Air pollution: a dual killer More than six billion people, including two billion children around the world, are breathing air that adversely affects their health, according to the World Heath Organization (WHO). The effects of ambient and household air pollution cause roughly 7 million premature deaths worldwide each year, more than 300 thousand of which occur in the Americas alone. Hundreds of millions of people around the world suffer from illnesses caused by air pollution, which is considered one of the five leading factors contributing to non-communicable diseases like stroke, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer. Fine particulate matter like soot, black carbon, sulfates, nitrates and heavy metals all significantly increase the risk of these diseases. Moreover, air pollution disproportionately affects society’s most vulnerable populations. Children and the elderly are particularly affected by airborne pollutants, and suffer disproportionate impacts including illnesses and chronic breathing problems. Low income and poor communities, more often located near the sources of pollution—factories, power plants, and busy roads, among others—also suffer outsized health risks. Global air pollution is more than just a public health concern. Often, the same polluting activities that harm human health are also speeding up climate crisis. Research shows that black carbon—generated by burning fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass—may accelerate snowmelt in glaciers, contributing to water insecurity and natural disasters. And methane, another short-lived climate pollutant, can trap up to 30 times more heat than CO2, speeding up global heating. Both issues amount to a costly problem. The World Bank estimates that global costs of air pollution will soon exceed $5 trillion per year, and says that unless countries curb global air pollution, air pollution-induced mortality could increase 50 to 100 percent by 2050. The economic benefits of slowing climate change will far outweigh the astronomical costs caused by flooding, more powerful storms, and crippling droughts, which could reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century, according to a report by the United States’ fourth National Climate Assessment. Respecting human rights While reducing air pollution makes good economic sense, curbing airborne pollutants is also a matter of respecting human rights. Besides violating the right to a clean and healthy environment, poor air quality can affect one’s right to life, health, water, food, housing and adequate standard of living, as well as the rights of the child, the UN report said. According to the Special Rapporteur, States should immediately devise action plans that: Monitor air quality and its impacts on human health; Assess sources of air pollution; Make information publicly available and release public health advisories; Establish air quality legislation, regulations, standards and policies; Develop air quality action plans at the local, nation, or regional level; Implement that air quality action plan and enforce its standards; and Evaluate progress and strengthen the plan to ensure the standards are met. Not only does this framework charge states with monitoring air quality, educating the public on air pollution, and making information accessible, it also urges States to establish strong, enforceable standards that will hold polluters accountable. Without those standards, improving air quality would be impossible. What’s more, States should apply the precautionary principle and use adequate margins of safety in order to protect society’s most vulnerable. Cities across Latin America are already starting to take air pollution seriously. Curitiba, Brazil, for example, built an extensive rapid bus system and, in 2013, launched an ambitious plan to add 300 kilometers of bicycle paths. Now, life expectancy in the city is two years longer than the national average, and the city has relatively low infant mortality, according to the WHO. In 2014, the Chilean government implemented a progressive tax on air pollution, taxing industry at higher rates in more densely populated areas to hold polluters accountable for their disproportionate impacts on urban populations. Although these examples show that change is possible, air pollution won’t be solved overnight, and States must begin establishing ambitious regulations to curb airborne contaminants. Otherwise, the world will continue coughing and sputtering into the 21st Century, as the impacts of climate crisis only continue to get worse.
Read more
Is the UN finally turning against fracking?
The world is divided over the issue of fracking, a fact that is (at times painfully) apparent in the United Kingdom (UK) where I grew up. Four separate countries make up the UK. Of them, England is the only nation that still allows hydraulic fracturing; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (along with a host of other countries worldwide) have banned the controversial process. Despite earthquakes linked to fracking in areas of the country where such things are virtually unheard of—plus waves of protests, controversy and opposition campaigns— the British government has so far refused to change its position. However, a recent United Nations recommendation to the UK may signal the beginning of the end for fracking in England and, hopefully, around the world. Fracking and the United Nations Until recently, the UN has appeared to have a complicated relationship with fracking. Several different UN bodies have made conflicting statements about the benefits of, and issues with, this means of energy production. In early 2018, the UN Conference on Trade and Development released a report that, according to one of its authors, did “not [say fracking] is good or bad,” but rather that each project’s cost/benefit analysis was dependent on a number of context-specific factors. The report cited positive aspects of fracking, calling it a useful “bridge fuel” for States aiming to move towards more environmentally-friendly renewable power sources, alongside it’s disadvantages. This argument is not viable since the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing is even greater than that of conventional gas and oil exploitation. Over the last few months, however, it seems the UN has been hardening its position against fracking, particularly given its negative climate change impacts in the context of the Paris Agreement, the intergovernmental treaty in which nations have committed to taking ambitious steps to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade with respect to pre-industrial levels. Since October 2018, there have been 2 UN recommendations issued against fracking. In the UK, the government was urged to consider a complete and comprehensive ban on fracking; and in Argentina, the government was urged to reconsider the development of a large fracking project. The dangers of fracking Although for its promoters fracking has led to a huge spike in oil and gas production around the world—perhaps most notably in the US—its use has come at great environmental cost, particularly with regards to air quality and water supply due to the amount of water used in the process and its consequent contamination. Fracking releases large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas whose global warming potential is 86 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In addition, the release of this gas can be hugely detrimental to the air quality surrounding fracking sites. Fracking also leads to increased earthquake risks due to the high pressure used to fracture layers of shale rock and extract oil and gas from it. In its recommendations to the UK and Argentina, the UN has clearly stressed the dangers of fracking. The key reason behind its recommendation to Argentina to reconsider the fracking project was its effect on climate change, especially in light of the Paris Agreement, and “the negative impact [that the project would have] on global warming and on the enjoyment of economic and social rights by the world’s population and future generations.” In its recommendation to the UK, it was noted that women in the UK are “disproportionately affected by the harmful effects of fracking, including exposure to hazardous and toxic chemicals, environmental pollution, and climate change.” Stopping the spread of fracking While operational in certain areas of the world, and being banned in others, fracking is advancing rapidly in Latin America. In the face of increasing global energy demand, it is crucial that the region, and the international community as a whole, commits to developing only truly sustainable energy projects. Fracking is not one. I believe the UN’s recent change in tone on fracking is a positive advance that should inspire both Argentina and the UK to react accordingly. From a personal point of view, I hope the UK heeds the growing evidence about the dangers of fracking and abandons the practice immediately. For Latin America, and other regions facing fracking’s blind advance, there are many countries to hold up as examples of how to confront the controversial practice. That’s why AIDA recently published a report highlighting the arguments and mechanisms that have been used around the world to restrict fracking and avoid its negative impacts on people and the environment. It is crucial that these impacts be properly considered as we take the ambitious steps needed to create an energy matrix that can solve the world’s energy needs without violating human rights, destroying our common goods, or worsening the catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis.
Read more