Freshwater Sources

Preserving the legacy of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Heart of the World

Learning from Mendoza, Argentina: “Water is not negotiable

Near the end of 2019, the citizens of Mendoza, Argentina united in one of the province’s most important social manifestations. Their objective was clear: to defend their water. People of all ages—members of NGOs, environmental assemblies, anti-mining movements, scientists and academics—took to the streets to demand that the local government reverse the modification of Law 7722, known as "guardian of the water" or "the people’s law." The law is fundamental for the protection of water in Mendoza because it prohibits the use of cyanide, mercury, sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals in mining activities—all of which seriously contaminate rivers, lakes and other natural water sources. Enacted on June 21, 2007, this law resulted from a long struggle by civil society. A step back in environmental protection The government intended to modify Law 7722 with another regulation, Law 9209, which allowed for "the use of chemical substances [including cyanide], mixtures or dissolutions of them, to ensure the sustainability of the [mining] project.” The justification for eliminating the prohibition on the use of cyanide and other toxic elements was "to guarantee the sustainability of the use of natural resources, with special emphasis on the protection of water resources and to ensure compliance with mining activities.” The use of cyanide in legal mining is becoming less frequent due to the risks involved in its manufacture, transport and use. Cyanide compounds are highly toxic in their gaseous form or when dissolved in water. Considering that the limit of cyanide in drinking water for safe human consumption is four drops per liter, the concentrations used in mining present high risks. In addition, there is abundant evidence of cyanide spills and losses from mining facilities during transport, and multiple cases of mass fatalities of wildlife near mining facilities, particularly migratory birds. The legislative amendment sought to make the procedures for environmental control and monitoring more flexible, by establishing that it was no longer obligatory for the Environmental Impact Statement of a mining project to be ratified by law. This undermined the effectiveness of Law 7722. These changes, promoted by the government of Mendoza, violated environmental protection principles contained in Argentina’s Constitution, among them sustainability and other national regulations that the provinces are obliged to comply with and enrich. For example, article 41 of the Constitution states that "all inhabitants have the right to a healthy, balanced environment, suitable for human development and for productive activities to satisfy present needs without compromising those of future generations; and they have the duty to preserve it." The citizen's response The social response to this modification—which intended to give free rein to the use of substances with a high environmental impact—surpassed all precedents. By successfully reversing an initiative already approved by Mendoza's legislators, it became an example for the entire region. The largest demonstrations in Mendoza's history began on December 22. Under the slogans "water is not negotiable" and "water is worth more than gold," the people of Mendoza organized to express their disapproval of the new law. The following day, 50,000 people gathered in front of the Provincial Government House after a journey of more than 100 kilometers, which began in the town of San Carlos, in the Uco Valley. They demanded: Law 7722 is not to be touched. Despite this widespread popular rejection, the Governor of Mendoza enacted the reform. Then, thousands of self-convoked neighbors gathered at kilometer zero—between San Martín and Garibaldi Streets—in the provincial capital to demand the law’s repeal. On December 26, faced with constant and growing social pressure, the Governor announced that he would not enact the new law. That palliative measure was deemed unconvincing and mobilizations intensified. The Governor then decided to reverse the amendment to Law 7722. On Friday the 27th, he announced the reform’s repeal, which finally happened on Monday the 30th. The case of Mendoza teaches a valuable lesson to all Latin American countries: When citizens are aware of the importance of nature and the scale of the dangers it faces, they will not yield. Socio-environmental conflicts are not only a response to those who have control over natural resources, but also to their effects on a complex social network. For humans and also for other beings, nature is a formative part of our identity, culture and customs. We are part of it and it is part of us. It is a living and interconnected network. That is why we must be its main defenders. The prompt and necessary updating of the concept of "sustainable development" is one of the challenges of Environmental Law in the 21st century. We mustn’t promote development that attacks nature and ignores human rights.   Learn more about the use of cyanide in mining (in Spanish).  

Coal or life: Walking where a stream once ran

The appointment was on a hot Sunday in July. Together with Wayuu indigenous and Afro-descendant communities displaced by coal mining, members of social and human rights organizations, employees of Cerrejón, and government officials, I walked for more than five hours over the barren land where the Bruno Stream once ran. What I saw in my path were the remains of snails that died of thirst, stuck to the mud, and the lifeless body of a tigrillo that showed us so clearly what mustn’t happen again. The Bruno is a vein of water that once irrigated the department of La Guajira, located in Colombia’s far north, a region hit years ago by extreme drought. It is a major tributary of the Ranchería River, one of the department’s most important water sources, and forms part of the underground water systems that have long given life to the region’s communities. It was painful to walk where the Bruno once flowed free, and to think—while doing so—that what is now a dry riverbed was once abundant with life. That Sunday, we also toured the area intended to be the artificial channel of the stream. In 2014, the National Environmental Licensing Authority authorized Cerrejón to divert 3.6 kilometers of Bruno’s flow to favor ongoing coal exploitation in La Guajira. Several things made on impact on me that day. One of them was that, although the rivers belong to us all and natural water sources are public, we were accompanied the entire time by employees of the company. While walking the stream, we entered the land “owned” by the coal-mining concessionaire. Communities that used to travel freely along the banks of the stream can no longer do so today. Although the Bruno is one of few streams in Colombia’s driest department and one of the scarce sources of fresh water for communities living there, its channel was clogged and diverted to facilitate mining. An engineering project has altered one of the most important streams for a thirsty region and created an artificial path through which not a single drop of water flows. “If they carry water, they’re rivers; if not, they’re roads,” a verse from Guatemalan indigenous poet Humberto Ak’abal teaches us. The new “channel” of the Bruno is not a river, but “a barren road” attesting to the deterioration of a sensitive ecosystem. The “road” does not recover or mitigate the damages from the stream’s diversion. On the contrary, it produces new ones. The world is facing a climate crisis, and coal mining is one of its primary causes. While many countries are replacing the use of coal in their energy matrices with cleaner options, Colombia has decided to dry up a river to exploit more and more coal. Walking paths of justice The day after the walk, the frustration of the absurd did not prevent me from embracing a glimmer of hope. On Monday, I joined representatives of indigenous communities and local organizations at a public hearing convened by several Congressmen to discuss what happened with the Bruno. The strength and dignity of their words, in which decades of resistance were encrypted, fed my soul. “This territory is ours, our rivers are our life and we care for life—for our children, for our present, for our future and that of the world.” As it has done many times before, La Guajira spoke to the country and the world. They told the Congressmen that it’s not possible to prioritize the use of water for mining over human consumption. They warned that the country must transition to an energy production that doesn’t cause the damages that coal mining has to the climate, human rights, and the species and ecosystems that sustain us. The stream must return to its channel, the snails must drink again from its waters, and no tigrillo should die due to the intentional destruction of its natural habitat. In a 2017 ruling, the Constitutional Court demonstrated that uncertainties exist as to the environmental and social impacts of the Bruno Stream riverbed modification project. The Court ordered the creation of an Inter-Institutional working group to resolve the complaints of the affected people. Communities will continue to demand compliance with that ruling and demonstrate that the uncertainties are, in fact, certain damages that will continue to undermine their lives. AIDA, along with our partner organizations, will continue to accompany this struggle to demonstrate the harms of coal mining and promote clean alternatives that respect both people and the environment.  

Infographic: Lakes Poopó and Uru Uru, at-risk Bolivian wetlands

Located in the central-eastern Bolivian highlands, lakes Poopó and Uru Uru are important sources of water for indigenous and rural communities and the area's planet and animal life.  Both ecosystems, considered Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, are at serious risk due to mining activity, river diversion and the climate crisis.  

Communities request international support to save Bolivia’s Poopó and Uru Uru lakes

Local communities and organizations call on the Ramsar Convention to visit the lakes and issue recommendations for their preservation. The lakes are at grave risk from mining, river diversion and the climate crisis, threatening the subsistence of indigenous communities and the region’s unique plant and animal species. La Paz, Bolivia.  Local communities along with a coalition of organizations request that the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands, send an expert mission to evaluate the health of lakes Poopó and Uru Uru, and issue recommendations to the Bolivian government for the urgent recovery of these key ecosystems. “The Ramsar Convention’s specialized knowledge on wetlands can be of great use to save lakes Poopó and Uru Uru,” said Carlos Lozano Acosta, senior attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). These lakes are an important source of water for the plants and animals of the Central-Eastern Bolivian highlands, particularly for several endemic and migratory bird species. Lake Poopó is the second largest lake in Bolivia, after the iconic Lake Titicaca. Together, the lakes host the largest number of flamingos in the Bolivian highlands and, quite possibly, in the entire high Andean region of South America. These highland ecosystems are also home to unique species such as the Titicaca grebe (Rollandia microptera), an endangered species of flightless bird. The lives and livelihoods of peasant and indigenous populations—including Quechua, Aymara, and Uru Murato communities—depend on the preservation of lakes Poopó and Uru Uru. The Uru Murato are known as the “people of water” due to their dependence on the lakes, and are among the oldest native indigenous communities in Bolivia. “It was precisely to preserve the lakes that, in 2002, the government registered Poopó and Uru Uru as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention,” explained Sergio Vásquez, director of the Andean Communication and Development Center (CENDA). “As such, we ask that Ramsar support the Bolivian government in the protection of these and other high Andean wetlands.” In December 2015, the water levels of Lake Poopó were reduced to such a degree that the body of water actually disappeared, in what is now considered one of the largest environmental catastrophes in the country. The causes were various: sedimentation produced by mining activity; the diversion of the lake’s tributary rivers; and natural phenomenon aggravated by the climate crisis. Although the lake’s levels have since increased in times of rain, the situation remains critical during the dry season. “We’re requesting that Ramsar experts identify measures to strengthen the surveillance and monitoring of these ecosystems,” said Angela Cuenca, of the Coordinated Collective for Socio-Environmental Actions (CASA Collective). “We’d also like them to recommend mitigation and restoration actions for the damages caused by mining activities.” The degradation of lakes Poopó and Uru Uru directly affects the wellbeing of the people who depend on them, causing harms to public health, particularly among women, girls and boys. The grave situation of the lakes forced the Uru Murato people, previously dedicated to fishing, to migrate for work in the mines, placing them among the region’s first climate refugees. “We indigenous and rural women live and feel the effects of pollution and the lake’s disappearance, because we are responsible for feeding and sustaining our families,” explained Margarita Aquino, from the National Network of Women Defenders of Mother Earth (RENAMAT). “These water sources are vital for our communities and for Mother Earth Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107  

What we must do to preserve the planet’s biodiversity and natural heritage

Society is at serious risk of losing our natural world and all that sustains us. Our actions are provoking mass extinction and accelerating the loss of natural resources, plants and animals. Among these actions are the growth of agriculture and livestock production, the destruction of habitats, the introduction of invasive species, the expansion of urban areas, poaching and overfishing, overpopulation and pollution. That’s according to the most complete global evaluation of biodiversity yet, recently published by scientists at the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The report shows that the capacity of Earth’s ecosystems to provide benefits to people has diminished drastically over the last 70 years. That’s because, on average: global resources have diminished by 47 percent; 25 percent of flora and fauna species are in danger of extinction; and the climate crisis is driving higher temperatures and increased acidification of the ocean, which is causing coral reef coverage worldwide to shrink. What’s more, a third of all species in the ocean are being overfished. Despite these alarming statistics, we can still take the planet out of the grave situation we’ve put it in. But it will require radical changes to our approach. The diagnosis for Latin America Historically, the world has passed through five mass extinctions that have caused the loss of more than 70 percent of the Earth’s life forms. Currently, we seem to be living through the sixth. Although species extinction occurs naturally, it generally does so at a rate of about one species per million each year. The current rate far exceeds that, as at least 100 species per million are going extinct each year—and that rate is rising. Another way to visualize this global threat is by listing the countries with the most species in danger of extinction. Five countries in Latin America are in the top 10 for species loss, with Mexico topping the list at 665 threatened species (71 species of birds, 96 mammals, 98 reptiles, 181 types of fish and 219 amphibians). Mexico’s situation is largely being driven by high rates of deforestation, a practice aimed at increasing agricultural area to cover the country’s growing demand for food. In fact, Latin America and Southeast Asia have lost millions of hectares of terrestrial ecosystems and fresh water through increased livestock production and agriculture (which includes the use of fertilizers). Other countries in the region with high rates of species loss include Colombia (540 species), Ecuador (436), Brazil (413), and Peru (385). Species extinction alters and impedes the proper functioning of ecosystems, which rely on interactions between varied forms of life to produce food, manage water supply, regulate climate, and more. Big changes to ensure a better future Although life on our planet has existed for some 4 billion years, humanity has only been around 200 thousand of those; yet we’ve managed to disrupt the Earth’s natural balance. Although our actions have negatively affected the earth, this shows that we, as humans, have the ability to transform our environment. The IPBES report mentions the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as transformative actions that can protect biodiversity. One of those is the creation of natural protected areas, which have helped reduce the risk of extinction for species like mammals and amphibians. Nevertheless, the report emphasizes the need for a drastic change in the values and objectives of our governments so that decisions at the local, national, and international levels are aligned to combat the causes behind the planet’s degradation. To that end, and taking into account the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, nations must: Expand and coordinate the global network of natural protected areas. Invest in green infrastructure. Produce food, materials, and energy in sustainable ways. Conserve and use water efficiently. Support indigenous and traditional communities, who protect many of the planet’s remaining natural resources. Adequately approach population growth and global consumption levels. Create new environmental laws and better compliance with existing ones. Slow pollution and the overexploitation of our natural resources. “People shouldn’t panic, but they should begin to make drastic changes,” said Josef Settele, an IPBES co-chair and entomologist at the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in Germany. “Business as usual with small adjustments won’t be enough.” Our air, water, and food depend on biodiversity—the varied forms of life on our planet and the interaction between them. Caring for this natural heritage is a shared task; it is now more important than ever.  

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.

The False Promises of Hydropower

How dams fail to deliver the Paris Climate Agreement and UN Sustainable Development Goals A Joint Statement by Civil Society Organizations on occasion of the 2019 World Hydropower Congress in Paris, France We live in an age of urgency. Scientists have warned that we have little time to act to bring climate change under control and protect the integrity of life on our planet. Confronting the climate crisis requires creative solutions that both protect nature and respect human rights. Facing these challenges, we cannot remain silent onlookers while corporate profiteers, financiers, and their allies peddle false solutions for addressing climate change and implementing sustainable development. A flagrant example of such deception is the attempt to portray large hydroelectric dams as a ‘clean and green’ source of energy, as can be seen at the 2019 World Hydropower Congress. Organized in Paris by the industrial lobby of the International Hydropower Association (IHA) in partnership with UNESCO, the conference’s title reads, “Delivering the Paris Climate Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals.”   Such glossy portrayals of hydroelectric dam projects—with an eye toward capturing financial incentives through mechanisms like Climate Bonds and the Green Climate Fund—conveniently ignore a long legacy of social and environmental catastrophes, economic waste and, all too often, massive corruption schemes that are the antithesis of truly sustainable development. ... A Call for Action The undersigned civil society organizations call on the members of the International Hydropower Association, governments and international financial institutions to implement the following urgent actions:  Steer priorities, investments and financial incentives away from additional hydroelectric projects and towards energy efficiency and truly sustainable renewable energy options (solar, wind and biomass and, when appropriate, micro-hydro). Special attention should be given to opportunities for technological innovation, decentralized generation and improving energy access among isolated, off-grid communities. Eliminate financial incentives for new hydroelectric projects within climate change mechanisms, such as the Green Climate Fund and Nationally Determined Contributions, and within programs to promote implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (with the possible exception of micro-hydro projects). Commission independent audits of controversial existing dam projects and basin-wide cascades in terms of their social and environmental consequences, identifying steps to mitigate impacts and ensure just reparations for affected communities, based on direct consultations. When such measures are prohibitively expensive or otherwise inviable, the de-commissioning of dam projects should be promoted.  Ensure the alignment of operational procedures for existing hydroprojects with relevant territorial plans at the basin level, such as integrated water resource management and protected areas that ensure key ecological processes and the rights of local communities, based on the concepts and tools of participatory, adaptive management. Ensure that renewable energy policies and projects adopt, across the board, robust guidelines to safeguard human rights and environmental protections, such as ILO Convention 169 and the UN Principles on Business and Human Rights. No energy facilities that potentially impact the territories and livelihoods of indigenous peoples and other traditional communities should be authorized without obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of the community and ensuring the cooperative design of co-management strategies. Among the benefits of such a paradigm shift in energy strategies and development planning will be major contributions toward protecting the world’s last free-flowing rivers, vital for climate resiliency, biodiversity conservation and sustainable livelihoods.  Energy companies and governments must halt all efforts to dam the world’s remaining free-flowing rivers and concentrate instead on: i) improving efficiency and the sustainability of existing hydropower projects and cascades; and ii) investing in energy efficiency and truly sustainable renewables.  Moreover, governments must urgently promote the permanent legal protection of the world’s last free-flowing rivers, including transboundary watercourses, with due respect for the territorial rights of indigenous peoples and other traditional communities, who play fundamental roles as the guardians of healthy rivers. Read the Full Statement Here

Conserving our water, drop by drop

Water is powerful. Even the idea of not having it in our daily life disturbs us. Yet we so often take it for granted. Many of us believe it will flow indefinitely, without having to do anything to guarantee its presence. As if to prove how wrong we are, reality has been hitting us harder and more frequently.   In 2016, Bolivia suffered its worst drought in 25 years. Water scarcity affected five of the country’s nine departments, and a national emergency was declared. In the city of La Paz, seat of the federal government, the water cut-offs employed to confront the crisis led to some people having to subsist up to two days on only 50 liters of water. Bolivia isn’t an isolated case. Since 2010, central Chile has been experienced a mega-drought that is far from ending. And in 2018, the drought in Central America caused severe crop losses, putting the food of millions of people at risk. The causes of water shortages Water scarcity in Bolivia and other countries have common causes, problems that we must confront with urgency, such as: Climate change. Latin America is one of the world’s most vulnerable regions to climate change, which intensifies the water cycle, meaning the driest regions of the world are becoming even drier. Lack of long-term policies. Population growth has not been accompanied by policies for the more efficient use of water, or the better conservation of its sources. Inadequate water management. The management of water resources has not considered the growing demand on all sectors, the protection of natural sources, or the use of traditional and indigenous knowledge for conservation. Damages from extractive projects. An increase in mining activity in the region is contaminating rivers and using large quantities of water; fracking does as well. Large dams irreversibly damage important water basins. No culture of conservation. The growth of cities and the consequent growth of water consumption have not come accompanied with an increase in responsible citizenry. Best practices for water conservation It’s expected that the gap between water supply and demand in cities will reach 40 percent by 2030, so we must work quickly to implement good water management practices, including the following: Recycling wastewater from sewage systems, agriculture and industry. The reuse of water requires less energy than desalinization (which produces more toxic waste than water); it is also sustainable and profitable. Adopting solutions that take advantage of the natural processes that regulate the water cycle. They could be applied on a personal scale (for example, a dry toilet), at the landscape level (conservation agriculture that minimizes soil disturbance and uses crop rotation), or in urban environments (green walls and rooftop gardens). Harvesting rainwater and implementing better systems to store it would help reduce the impacts of future droughts. Applying appropriate environmental impact assessments would prevent the authorization of projects that threaten to damage natural sources of water supply. Motivating a change of mentality in key actors—those responsible for public policies, the private sector and consumers—would guarantee the availability and sustainable management of water. Humanity needs water, and for this year’s World Water Day, celebrated March 22, we join the focus on “leaving no one behind.” At AIDA we understand that water is a human right. That’s why we work to defend the ecosystems that provide our water from the damages of inadequately implemented mega-projects.  

Organizations ask the UN to intervene in the protection of the Santurbán páramo, at risk from mining

They request that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Drinking Water and Sanitation prepare a report on the case, visit the site, and support the Colombian government in taking the necessary actions to protect the ecosystem, an important source of water for millions of people, from the dangers of mining. Bucaramanga, Colombia. Civil society organizations in Colombia sent a communique to Léo Heller, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Drinking Water and Sanitation. In it, they warn that their rights are at serious risk in the face of proposed mining projects in or near the Santurbán páramo, a water source for more than 10 municipalities and 3 large cities. They request that the Rapporteur prepare a report on the case, visit the site, and support the Colombian government in protecting that ecosystem. Actions and omissions by the Colombian government have allowed the development of mining projects that threaten the availability and quality of water provided by the páramo. The government’s protection of the páramo did not include the entire ecosystem, leaving a part of it unprotected, and did not allow for public participation. As a result, the Constitutional Court ordered the government to redo the process of delimiting the páramo. The submission details: the process of defining the boundaries of the Santurbán páramo; the importance of that process for the environment and the enjoyment of the right to water in Colombia; the legal framework for the protection of páramos in the country; and the development of projects in or near the site. It also outlines associated environmental impacts or threats, including a decrease in the quality and quantity of water, contamination due to the use of explosives, a decrease in air quality, an increase in noise level, and the permanent loss of habitats. Likewise, the submission details the impacts of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) claims on governmental decisions to protect their water sources. Several mining companies have tried for more than 15 years to extract gold from the Santurbán páramo. Some of those are Canadian companies, who are currently using this arbitration process to demand hundreds of millions of dollars from the Colombian government in compensation for their “lost” profits. The organizations ask that the Rapporteur monitor the situation in the Santurbán páramo and urge the Colombian government to comply with its international obligations in relation to the right to water. Find more information on the case here.  press contacts: Alix Mancilla, Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, [email protected], +57 311 2439273 (Spanish only) Carlos Lozano, AIDA, [email protected], +57 300 56 40 282 Carla García, CIEL, [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Kirsten Francescone, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected], +14373459881 Kristen Genovese, SOMO, [email protected], +31 65 277 3272