Tearfund Advocacy case study
Stopping pollution by a cement factory - Peru
Background
Segunda Jerusalen is a town of 8,000 people
situated in the high jungle area near Rioja,
northern Peru. Directly across the road from
the town is a cement factory. The was
privatised in 1998 and the German firm that
bought it received various incentives because the
government is keen to encourage investment
and development in the jungle areas.
-
Part of the agreement in purchasing it was that
the factory could use the surrounding area as
raw materials for cement production. This
meant dynamiting the nearby hillside to gather
rocks and also to find lime and clay, which are
all needed for the factory.
-
To encourage environmental responsibility,
every factory is required by law to undertake a
full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of
the potential environmental consequences of its
operations before starting to work, and ensure
that it has a fund available to mitigate all of the
harmful effects. They are also required to
present this assessment to the community for
agreement before proceeding with their
operations.
day and these pollute the air in the
local community and for miles around,
threatening other communities and
ecosystems as well.
the community also claims that their
water is polluted and causing ill health
in the population.
the factory employs 300 people, few of
whom are from Segunda Jerusalen and
most of whom come from the big
towns of the region.
the price of the cement is the same as it
is in the rest of the country, so the local
people get few tangible benefits from
the presence of the factory, but can see
the negative effects it brings.
Coalition building and intimidation
Confronted with this situation, in early 2000,
Tearfund Partner Peace and Hope, together
with Segunda Jerusalen, met with local
journalists, ecological experts from the
university and local technical experts and agreed
to launch a campaign to expose the actions of
the factory and to try and make them abide by
the law. However, after 2 weeks of planning
everyone apart from Peace and Hope and those
from Segunda Jerusalen stopped coming to
meetings. The journalists and technical experts
had been paid by the factory to keep quiet. The
university, which receives some sponsorship
from the factory, was threatened with
withdrawal of funds if it was involved in the
campaign.
Action by the factory
They paid a consultant to undertake this EIA.
The potential damaging consequences which
were reported included deforestation, noise,
contamination of waterways (particularly by
Sulphur), and altering the aesthetics of the
surrounding area. The report suggested ways to
test whether these things had happened (in
particular, contamination of the water supply)
and plans to mitigate any negative
consequences. However, the document was
presented in the capital Lima and, until now, has
not been presented to the community. Nor
have any of the plans to mitigate the damaging
effects been implemented, nor does the factory
have funds set aside to do so. It was therefore
breaking the law on how to treat the
environment and local communities.
Working with the authorities
Peace and Hope also spoke to the national
government about their concerns over
environmental damage and were asked to give a
demonstration of how the area is being polluted.
However, at the moment, they have only the
community’s views to go by, and no concrete
scientific evidence.
Throughout this process, Peace and Hope,
worked specifically with the mayor of Segunda
Jerusalen and the local municipality to help them
understand what powers and rights they had.
(Most mayors have few resources and are largely
unaware of the role expected of them and of
powers given to them). The community and
Negative impacts of the factory
as well as the damage caused by
blowing up parts of the hillside, the
factory emits fumes for much of the
1
local authorities gradually started to run their
own campaign. The municipality formed a desk
for the environment and for advocacy work.
The mayor then approached the factory and
asked that it use its funds (which, by law, should
have been set apart) for reforestation projects in
the area, to mitigate the destruction of forests
through dynamiting for raw materials. The
factory refused and said it had no funds for this,
and refused to speak any more to the mayor.
connected with the factory are now seen by the
regional authority as the main environmental
issue to address. They have therefore more
chance of being taken to the national level,
which is important as the national government
have greater powers over the factory.
Change of tactics
The local authority then altered their line of
attack. They learned (through the help of Peace
and Hope) that all businesses in the local area
are required to pay another tax - annual tax to
local government for the development of local
infrastructure. The factory had only ever paid
about $600 as a one off payment. Gaining
confidence due to a batter understanding of the
law and of his powers, the mayor asked to see
the factory’s records to see the size of their
turnover. He discovered that they had been
falsifying accounts (to the national government)
and owed annually around 20 times what they
had been paying.
Ongoing plans
the community and their partner
organisations plan to strengthen their
coalition and to work with the regional
government to lobby the national
government. The national government
has the power to hold the factory to
account for its negative environmental
impacts, to force the factory to change
some of its operations and to ensure
that any negative consequences are
mitigated.
Peace and Hope also plan to bring in
technical experts to study the effects of
the factory on the water supply, air
quality, local ecosystems and on health,
so that any future actions by the
factory to mitigate its impact are based
on good scientific evidence.
the mayor will continue to ensure that
the factory pays its local tax for
infrastructure development.
the community also plans to lobby the
factory to reduce the price of cement
and to provide some jobs for them, as
a way of contributing to local
economic development.
This success has also convinced the factory that
it needs to speak with the mayor on the
environmental issues.
Results
The threat of repercussions due to falsifying
accounts was greater that the threat of
punishment for not having an EIA and the
factory agreed to pay the mayor for local
infrastructure development. In 2001 the local
community received the money owed to it, and
they were able to build a water purifying plant
and a pump so that they could, for the first time,
have clean water pumped to their village. The
mayor now plans to ensure that this tax is paid
each year to help with community development
projects. The publicity surrounding the factory
ensures that the factory cannot hide from its
financial responsibility any more.
Key advocacy learning points
- Detailed research is needed
- Work with local government to help them
function properly
- Strong coalition mean that the issues were
addressed at different levels
- Good use of awareness raising to shame
companies into changing bad practice
- Awareness of laws enabled campaigners to
exert appropriate pressure
- Bringing things out into the open brought
about change quickly
- Advocacy needs to happen at various levels
and choosing the right one is essential
Building stronger alliances
However, the environmental problems have still
not been addressed. In fact, concerns have
grown as this new source of the water for the
community is very close to the area that is being
dynamited for raw materials.
One positive result is that these actions and the
ongoing awareness raising in the press has raised
the profile of the problem and a number of new
groups have joined the campaign, including
environmental groups and the regional
government. The environmental issues
Graham Gordon, April 2002
graham.gordon@tearfund.org
2