The Natural Resource Governance Institute analyses more than 100 cases of corruption tied to the extractive sector in 49 countries. From the award of exploration licenses to construction and operation permits, based on which it proposes a list of 12 red flags. Useful for anyone assessing, working in or overseeing the extractive sector. Read and download
Read more
By Laura Yaniz The International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank Group, said “No” to the Angostura mining project in Colombia’s Santurbán páramo. What does this decision mean? It’s one step closer to the protection of this priceless ecosytem. In Santurbán, the rocks become guardians of mirrors of water that reflect the sky. Frailejones stand watch over the remains of glaciers. Condors gaze down upon tiny visitors. The world sits closer to the sky. Santurbán is a páramo, an ecosystem only found high in the Andes Mountains. The Canadian company Eco Oro Mineral has set their sights on these lands because, as rich as they are in water, they are rich too in minerals. The IFC had invested in the company’s Angostura mining project but, at the end of 2016, they made the wise decision to withdraw that investment. It was an important victory in the ongoing fight to save Santurbán, the water source of millions of Colombians. But what exactly would be saved? And what is the allure of Santurbán? Alberto Peña Kay, a local hiker and photographer, speaks through the images he captures of the many reasons this unique ecosystem must be protected: Frailejones (espeletias) are endemic plants that, because of the extreme conditions of the high-Andean climate, have uniquely adapted to protect themselves from the cold, the high levels of UV radiation, and the lack of nutrients. Their succulent leaves absorb water from the clouds, which they then store in their trunk. Some of these plants grow just one centimeter a year. “When I first came to this páramo and photographed it, I knew I had to keep coming back. This place inspired my passion for photography.” “Many don’t see this place as I do; they look upon it with economic eyes, eyes set on mining and extraction.” “At our best, we see the potential here, and recognize that it’s something we can’t lose. There are so many reasons to conserve these lands.” Why? "First, it’s my department, the great Santander. Second, the biodiversity: here live icons like the condor, the puma and the frailejone. Third, this páramo supplies water to more than half of the people who live in Santander and Northern Santander.” "[In Santurbán], I realized I could get closer to the sky." Really, Santurbán speaks for itself. We must save this piece of heaven on Earth, it's well worth the fight!
Read more
By Laura Yaniz 2016 was not an easy year. It was especially trying for the fight to protect the environment in Latin America. The loss of brave defenders broke our hearts. The international political environment became so tense after the US presidential election that we learned to take nothing for granted. The effects of climate change hit us hard, and then harder. But it has not all been grim. This year has also given us important reasons to keep the hope alive. Progress, good news and important victories lay a path to a brighter new year. Here are six pieces of good news to help you recharge and have hope for our natural world: 1. The World Bank said “No” to mining in the Santurbán páramo Just ten days before the end of the year, the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank Group, decided to divest from Canadian company Eco Oro Minerals. Their funding withdrawal includes the Angostura mining project, which has for years threatened the Santurbán páramo, a water source for millions of people in Colombia. It is a victory to which AIDA and our allies have contributed greatly. Now it’s the government’s turn—in accordance with national laws, they must deny all environmental permits for mining projects in Santurbán, and all other Colombian páramos. The fight for Santurbán isn’t over. Next year we’ll continue to closely monitor Eco Oro, who has filed an international arbitration suit against Colombia for measures the nation has taken to protect its páramos, among them, the high court decision to ban all mining in these sensitive ecosystems. 2. The Indigenous struggle gains strength, and wins! The struggle of the Sioux tribe against the Dakota Access pipeline became a global movement. The largest gathering of Native Americans in history inspired solidarity from artists, veterans, activists, and indigenous groups around the world. They won an important victory when the project was suspended. In Brazil, after years of perseverance, the Munduruku people of the Amazon also emerged victorious when the government denied the environmental license for a dam on the Tapajós River that would have threatened their culture and way of life. These important achievements give us hope. They highlight the need to uplift the voices and support the struggles of the world’s indigenous peoples who, according to the World Bank, protect 80 percent of our planet’s biodiversity. 3. A new climate accord is underway On November 4, the Paris Agreement on climate change entered into force. It happened years sooner than anticipated. The global political achievement was propelled by the ratification of the accord by Latin American and European nations, as well as by China and the United States (the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases). The validity of the agreement impels all nations, developed and developing, to make their commitments a reality. During the 22nd UN Climate Convention in Morocco, as a civil society observer, AIDA contributed to ensuring progress was made on securing funding to help developing countries confront the impacts of climate change. The additional news that the ozone is recovering—a fact made possible by the Montreal Protocol—gives us hope that global commitments like this one can actually bear fruit. 4. Our oceans are protected Important steps were made, nationally and internationally, to protect our world’s oceans and the many incredible creatures that call them home. Mexico created the largest expanse of natural protected areas in its history; the nation’s protected oceans are now nearly half the size of its landmass. In the United States, the expansion of a Hawaiian marine reserve made it one of the largest protected areas on Earth. In Ecuador, the Galapagos Islands reserve was also expanded to protect the sensitive marine life it shelters. Beyond national borders, the global community made important progress on protecting our common waters through the development of a new treaty to protect the high seas. AIDA has brought the voice of Latin America into that discussion. 5. Dam-free rivers In Chile, after decades of strong opposition, one company announced it was giving up on building large dams on five virgin rivers. In Peru, the new government announced that Amazon dams are not on their agenda. In Brazil, the government denied a dam that would have altered the course of the Tapajós River. In the United States, dam removal is well underway, enabling the return of native species and the restoration of ecosystems. Additionally, a recent scientific study confirmed that dam reservoirs are a major source of greenhouse gases, worsening climate change. The findings strengthen arguments we’ve been making for years—large dams are not a solution to climate change; they are part of the problem. 6. Your support Our work this year on behalf of Latin America’s environment would not have been possible without your support. When you write to us, donate photographs, join our team of volunteers and interns, or make a donation, you encourage us to keep fighting. These are messages of hope that remind us how important it is to keeping working for a better future for our children, for yours, and for those of the communities we support. We know that you don’t just follow our work, but bring it home and do all you can, in your daily life, to care for the planet, our collective home. Thank you for giving us hope! Happy 2017!
Read more
In an important step for the protection of Colombia’s páramos, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – the private lending arm of the World Bank – has decided to divest from Canadian mining company Eco Oro Minerals. The company’s Angostura gold mining project is located in the Santurbán Páramo, a protected ecosystem that provides water to millions of people. Bogota, Washington, Ottawa, Amsterdam. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), private lending arm of the World Bank Group, has decided to divest from Canadian company Eco Oro Minerals. The company’s Angostura mine is located in Colombia’s Santurbán Páramo, a protected high-altitude ecosystem that provides water to millions of people. Colombian law prohibits mining in páramos. "We applaud the Bank’s decision to side with the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo regarding the inviability of mining in the páramo," said Alix Mancilla, representative of the Committee. "We now call on the Colombian government to abstain from issuing environmental permits to any mining project which may affect Santurbán." "The IFC’s divestment is a serious political and financial blow to mining in the Santurbán páramo," said Carlos Lozano Acosta of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "The Colombian government must now reflect on its lenient approach to large scale mining in páramos, which is illegal under national law." The IFC’s decision comes after a report issued by the Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), an independent accountability mechanism, which found that the IFC's investment did not adequately consider the environmental and social impacts of the project, breaching the financial institution's internal policies. The report was developed in response to a complaint the Committee filed before the CAO in 2012, with support from the international organizations included herein. "After intense public pressure, the IFC finally got the message and, by divesting, amplifies it further. The decision to divest strengthens the Colombian State’s ability to protect water and regulate in the public interest. We applaud this decision by the IFC, which will have an impact on Colombians everywhere," affirmed Carla Garcia Zendejas of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). The IFC's decision occurs in the context of Eco Oro’s announcement that it has initiated international arbitration against Colombia, under the terms of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), part of the World Bank. The company is filing the suit over the State’s measures to protect Colombia’s páramos. "Eco Oro Minerals' interest in Colombia is no longer about mining. Rather, it is about extorting a sovereign government for millions in taxpayer dollars and exerting pressure to weaken protections for water in Colombia. The IFC’s divestment not only extricates the Bank from a clear conflict of interest, but also highlights the presence of ill-advised mining projects in the Colombian páramo and the illegitimacy of the suit," added Garcia Zendejas of CIEL.
Read more
Organizations argue that the International Finance Corporation invested in a gold mine without taking into account potential environmental impacts, thereby failing to comply with its own investment standards. The proposed mine threatens Colombia’s Santurbán Páramo, a high-Andean ecosystem that provides water to millions of people. Washington, DC. A coalition of civil society organizations met at World Bank headquarters yesterday to demand that the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group, withdraw its investment in the Angostura mine. The proposed gold-mining project would be located in Colombia’s Santurbán Páramo, a high-Andean ecosystem that supplies drinking water to more than two million people. The organizations also delivered a petition, signed by thousands of people from throughout the Americas, calling on IFC to withdraw its investment immediately. To present their demand, the organizations met with representatives of the IFC. They are also meeting with members of Congress and representatives of the US Department of State to discuss the situation in the Santurbán páramo and the risks its defenders face. The Committee for the Defense of Water and Páramo of Santurbán led the coalition, with support from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the Interamerican Association of Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), and Mining Watch Canada. The demand presented yesterday tops off an important year in the fight to defend Santurbán. In March, the Canadian company developing the mine, Eco Oro, announced its intention to file an international arbitration suit against the Colombian government. In February Colombia’s Constitutional Court issued a ruling that bans all oil, mining, and gas operations in the country’s páramos. In August, an independent investigation undertaken by IFC’s internal watchdog, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, found that the investment in Angostura did not take into account the project’s potential environmental impacts, thus failing to comply with IFC’s own investment standards. The investigation was triggered by a complaint filed by the Committee and supported by the international organizations.
Read more
Goldman Prize winner Máxima Acuña de Chaupe reportedly attacked by mining company security guards. Washington, D.C. Goldman Environmental Prize winner Máxima Acuña de Chaupe was hospitalized after being attacked, allegedly by security forces hired by Minera Yanacocha, a subsidiary of Denver-based Newmont Mining, according to information provided by the Chaupe family. The attack took place on Máxima’s property in northern Peru that the mining company has been trying to obtain for its Conga gold mine project. “Minera Yanacocha must immediately stop their harassment of Máxima and her family, denounce attacks like this one, and call on its employees, agents and all others to ensure her safety,” said Earthworks’ Executive Director Jennifer Krill. The attack against Máxima is an alarming reminder of the murder earlier this year of Honduran activist Berta Cáceres. Berta was the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize Winner from South and Central America. Both Berta and Máxima put their lives at risk by publicly denouncing multinational corporations threatening their communities. “Environmental defenders like Máxima, and the late Berta Cáceres before her, should not have to risk their lives to protect their homes and communities,” said Martin Wagner, managing attorney at Earthjustice. Máxima, who has lived in Tragadero Grande since the early 1990s, has been beaten, intimidated, and even sued by Minera Yanacocha. In 2014, Peruvian courts ruled in Máxima’s favor in an ongoing criminal complaint by the company. In April, prominent civil society groups including Global Witness, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Earthworks, SumOfUs and others wrote to Newmont calling on the company to drop its lawsuits against the Chaupe family and end their harassment. The company failed to respond. "The Chaupe family has been harassed and beaten by Yanacocha for years," said Katie Redford, Founder and Director at EarthRights International, which has been supporting and advising the Chaupe family. "They are prepared to pursue all legal options to obtain justice." This most recent attack highlights the failures of both Newmont and the Peruvian government to uphold security, human rights and the consent of local communities. Newmont has ignored multiple calls from civil society to stop the physical and legal harassment of the Chaupe family, and the Peruvian government has failed to provide security for the Chaupe family as ordered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). “Everyone involved in the mine project – the companies, the government, the security forces – is responsible for ensuring Máxima’s safety,” said Martin Wagner of Earthjustice. “By failing to speak and act against it, they are condoning this kind of attack and creating further risk to Máxima, not to mention their own reputations.” In February, Newmont filed a statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating that they were no longer pursuing the proposed Conga mine that threatens the Chaupe home. “Newmont needs to immediately address the alleged involvement of its subsidiary Yanacocha in the criminal harassment of Máxima and her husband. Newmont has reported to investors that it isn’t pursuing the Conga mine, but these attacks on poor subsistence farmers indicate that further plans are in development. What's happened is shocking, and shareholders need to know the potential risk of such an unethical venture,” said Glen Berman, Interim Executive Director of SumOfUs. For more information: Goldman Prize profile of Máxima Acuña de Chaupe: http://www.goldmanprize.org/recipient/maxima-acuna/ Blog about the Conga project cancellation: https://www.earthworksaction.org/earthblog/detail/conga_no_va#.V-BPtJMrK-4 Civil society letter to Newmont, April 2016: https://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/letter_to_newmont_re_maxima_acuna Grufides website: www.grufides.org
Read more
Excerpt: As activists, Latin American organizations and networks, along with international groups and organizations that have partners in Latin America, we are aware of and concerned about the human rights violations committed by Canadian mining companies operating in the region. On the basis of our experience, we offer the following observations and recommendations, as we share certain universal principles of human rights and justice that transcend borders. ... In light of early indications of concern for human rights from your administration, we urge the adoption of workable measures to promote legislative and administrative reforms that will more effectively regulate the operations of Canadian mining companies around the world. In particular, we recommend an immediate change in existing policies in order to: Ensure Canadian mining companies operating in Latin America do so in conformity with the international human rights standards established in treaties, which apply to both host countries and to Canada. In recognition of the increasing number of mining conflicts in the region, it is vital that the Canadian government and Canadian mining companies respect the rights of Indigenous communities to self- determination and to free, prior, and informed consent before any mining activities are undertaken on their territories. Respect the decisions of numerous communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who have said no to large-scale mining because of its severe damaging impacts on the environment and social wellbeing. Implement the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 2005. End Canadian intervention and the provision of any kind of governmental support, be it through overseas development aid, trade, and investment agreements, public financing or technical assistance, or diplomacy that seeks to influence the adoption or modification of regulatory frameworks in recipient countries for extractive projects. Incorporate international human rights and transparency standards in the regulation of credit agencies and public and private investment that finance extractive activities and impose safeguards on companies that receive state subsidies. Guarantee effective access to Canadian courts so that victims of human rights violations caused by Canadian businesses abroad can obtain justice, truth, and reparations. Create objective and impartial mechanisms to effectively monitor and investigate complaints of individual and collective human rights violations in connection with Canadian mining companies abroad. These mechanisms should be designed in conformity with the Paris Principles regarding the status and functions of national human rights institutions. End the pursuit of free trade and investment agreements that favor the protection and promotion of Canadian mining companies over individual and collective human rights, as well as environmental protection. Refrain from promoting international arbitration mechanisms, which is a powerful tool to shield foreign investments that profit from the absence of effective accountability measures aimed at preventing human rights violations. After many years of a lack of will to dialogue and an absence of critical self-evaluation by previous governments, we are hopeful that your commitment to human rights will lead to measures that hold state agencies and corporations to account and prevent further abuses by Canadian mining companies operating abroad. Such measures would earn Canada greater recognition as a nation that respects human rights.
Read more
1. Don Diego is a proposed marine mining project in Mexico. Marine mining is a process used to extract metals or minerals from the seabed. The Don Diego proposal calls for dredging seven million tons of phosphate sand from the seabed 19 kilometers off the coast of Baja California Sur.[1] Leftover materials – excess or waste – that are not of interest would be returned to the sea.[2] 2. If created, it would be the first phosphate mine of its type, using this technique, in the region. This makes it impossible to accurately predict the damage that it could do or the measures that could be taken to protect against it.[3] Other countries, such as Namibia and New Zealand, [4] have rejected similar projects due to the severity of their potential impacts. Exploraciones Oceánicas, the company in charge of the project, does not have adequate experience in this area,[5] nor does the Mexican government have the experience to implement and monitor it properly. Even with this uncertainty, the company has not provided a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the plan for managing, monitoring and supervising Don Diego. 3. It would alter the marine ecosystem. The collection of phosphate sand from the sea, and the deposition of waste, would create sediment that blocks light from entering, in turn affecting marine photosynthesis.[6] Dredging would destroy the health and habitat of benthic species such as oysters and clams, damaging the food chain and the natural equilibrium of the area.[7] The ecosystem could take years to recover. 4. The mine will not necessarily create greater food security in Mexico. Phosphate is used in fertilizer, which helps to produce food. The project’s proponents say a marine mine is needed to make up for reduced global phosphate reserves on land.[8] But beginning an operation of this type, without necessarily understanding the technique and its impacts, could cause more harm than good. In addition, extracting phosphate from Mexico’s waters does not guarantee that the phosphate will then be used to meet the demands of agriculture in Mexico, or in the Americas at all. 5. It would put at risk fisheries and the families that depend upon them. The location of the mining project would overlap with fishing concessions.[9] Ulloa Bay produces nearly 8,450 tons per year of commercial species including abalone, clams, squid, shrimp, snail, dogfish, crab, lobster, oyters, octopus, sharks and rays.[10] Fisheries would decline considerably due to the impacts of dredging the seabed.[11] 6. It would impact an ecologically rich and vulnerable area. Ulloa Bay is a unique marine region characterized by its biodiversity and high productivity. The bay is home to a great number of species of interest both to fisheries and to conservationists. In addition, a portion of the project would spread over 20 percent of the Magdalena Bay Region of Marine Importance,[12] a mangrove ecosystem that provides essential environmental services to coastal communities, including mitigation of climate change. 7. It would further endanger the habitat of the loggerhead turtle. Ulloa Bay is a critical habitat for the endangered loggerhead turtle, so much so that the Mexican government previously named it a refuge for the protection of the species.[13] Studies show that heavy noise, such as the mine would generate, would cause drastic changes in behavior and displace turtles from their habitat.[14] In addition, the Interamerican Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles has recently included mining as one of the listed activities threatening the health and habitat of sea turtles.[15] 8. It would destroy a refuge for the grey whale. Each year, the grey whale travels from Alaska to the warm waters of Baja California Sur to give birth to and raise its young.[16] Whales use sound to identify and locate their pod, and to find and capture their food.[17] Don Diego would generate noise, increase traffic and change the marine ecosystem, forever altering what has been for centuries a refuge for migrating whales.[18] 9. Approval of the project would involve a breach of international obligations on the part of the Mexican government. Mexico has obligations under international law to protect its marine ecosystem and the vulnerable species that depend on its health. The precautionary principle should be applied to this case, as there is no scientific certainty about the magnitude and intensity of the environmental damage that could occur. The Mexican government is required to take measures to avoid such damage, including evaluating a no-project alternative, until it proves that harm can be avoided or minimized. 10. The details of the project are confusing and available public information is incomplete. The duration and specific location of the project remain unclear. For example, the project is proposed to last 50 years, but under the Mining Law it could be extended 50 additional years.[19] [1] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego”, pp. 4, 5 y 7. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/resumenes/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf [2] Todo el proceso es descrito por el promovente, con mayor énfasis en el Capítulo II de la Manifestación de Impacto Ambiental, pp. 23-42. [3] Rofomex was a phosphate project in San Juan de la Costa, close to the city of La Paz, Baja California; the mine produced two million tons of phosphate annually, information available at http://www.dredge.com/dred2-10.html , http://defiendelasierra.org/wp-content/uploads/San-Juan-de-la-Costa.pdf y http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/show-mrds.php?dep_id=10048963; however, the project was located on land and was not in Ulloa Bay, see the extact location here. [4] The first marine phosphate mine was proposed in Namibia in 2013, however the project was not approved and a moratorium was subsequently announced on this activity. See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1307/S00188/marine-phosphate-mining-cannot-be-sustained-by-namibia.htm and http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/sandpiper-project.html; New Zealand used the precautionary principle to negate permission of an underwater phosphate mine, see: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/66038589/Chatham-Rock-Phosphate-aghast-mining-consent-refused [5] Website of Exploraciones Océanicas and activity on the NASDAQ stock exchange, which shows the company has never before undertaken a marine phosphate mining project. [6] The phosphate mining industry is considered of the potential sources of nuclear contamination, stemming from elements like Uranium (238U) and Thorium (232Th). The sediments that would be returned to the sea may contain high levels of toxic chemicals, including the presences of these two elements, which would be exposed during the phosphate separation process. Al-Masri, M., Mamish, S. et al. (2002). “The impact of phosphate loading activities on near marine environment: The Syrian Coast.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 58 (2002) 35-44. P. 1. [7] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego,” Chapter VIII, Table VI.3, p. 64, y Chapter V, p. 48. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/estudios/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf [8] U.S Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2015. Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_rock/mcs-2015-phosp.pdf [9] Instituto Nacional de la Pesca Oficio RJL/INAPESACA/DGAIPP/978/2014 [10] CONABIO. Estudio sobre la caracterización socioeconómica y pesquera del Área Golfo de Ulloa, BCS (2010). Available in Spanish at: http://goo.gl/7An5o5 [11] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project: “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego,” Chapter VIII, Table VI.3, p. 64. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/estudios/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf [12] Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. Oficio RJL/INAPESCA/DGAIPP/757/2014 [13] The Agreement that establishes the Area of Refuge for the Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta Caretta) in Ulloa Bay in Baja California Sur was before the Federal Regulatory Improvement Commission to obtain an approving opinion, December 9, 2014. 2014. Available in Spanish at: http://www.cofemermir.gob.mx/mir/crLecAnte.asp?submitid=33808 [14] Convention on Biological Diversity. “Sea turtle hearing and sensitivity to acoustic impacts.” Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/mcbem-2014-01/other/mcbem-2014-01-submission-boem-03-en.pdf, pgs. 3 and 4. [15] Interamerican Convention on the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Seventh Conference of Parties, June 24-26, 2015, Mexico City. Resolution CIT-COP7-2015-R3. Available at: http://www.iacseaturtle.org/docs/resolucionesCOP7CIT/CIT-COP7-2015-R3_Cabezona_ Resolucion_ESP_7.15.15_ADOPTADA.pdf [16] Guerrero Ruiz, M., Urbán Ramírez, J. y Rojas Bracho, L. 2006. Las ballenas del golfo de California. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE). 537 pp. [17] Baker C. S. y C. M. Herman. 1984. Aggressive behavior between Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) wintering in Hawaiian waters. Can. J. Zool. 62(10): 1,922-1,937.; Croll, D. A., C. W. Clark, A. Acevedo, B. R. Tershy, S. Flores, J. Gedamke y J. Urbán. 2002. Only male fin whales sing loud songs. Nature 417: 809. [18] Annex 13 is a three page document that does not support the conclusions of the company in the environmental impact assessment. [19] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego,” Chapter II, p. 4. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/estudios/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf
Read more
The new law that bans mining in Colombia’s páramos took years to materialize, and was the product of multiple activist campaigns, lawsuits, and pressure from civil society to preserve one of the world’s most sensitive ecosystems. Last month, Colombia’s Constitutional Court approved a law that has no precent. It bans mining and oil exploitation –effectively blocking 473 already-existing concessions– in the country’s páramos. The law is expected to impact more than 300 mining operations in 25 moorlands, according to data from the National Authority of Environmental Licenses (ANLA). One of those companies is the Canadian transnational, Eco Oro. Its Angostura mine is located within the Santurbán moorland, in the Norte de Santander and Santander departments, within an area larger than 142,000 hectares. Santurbán includes five regional parks and a variety of species in danger of extinction, such as the condor (Vultur gryphus), the chirriador (Cisttothorus apollinari), the moorland duck (Anas flavirostris) and the curí (Cavia porcellus). On its website, the company has announced that it is “developing a multi-million ounce gold-silver deposit in Colombia.” Eco Oro has already completed more than 350,000 meters of drilling and 3,000 meters of underground development, thanks to an investment by the International Financing Corporation of the World Bank. Juan Orduz, president of Eco Oro’s board of directors, said back in 2014 –before the law was approved– that the company “has invested more than 240 million dollars in the region.”“It’s no secret that we’ve had many challenges and that we will keep having them. There’s always a new source of conflict, and even then, we’re going to keep coming up with strategies to keep working in this area,” said Orduz back then, when the demarcations for mining in Colombia’s páramos were an issue of conflict. In a recent press release, Eco Oro announced that it has the option of bringing the dispute to international arbitration and seeking “monetary compensation for the damages suffered” due to the new anti-mining law. “Since the Angostura project got underway, it has been clear that páramos are constitutionally and legally protected and that this project could affect Santurbán, such that it might not be authorized,” said Carlos Lozano Acosta, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “States should not be sanctioned for protecting their water sources, given that they are doing so in accordance with national and international obligations.” According to data from the Institute of Biological Research Alexander Von Humboldt, half of the world’s páramos are in Colombia and are the source of 70% of the fresh water in the country, besides being an ecosystem essential for mitigating climate change. Their importance is especially acute right now, since Colombia is facing the El Niño climate phenomenon and going through one of the worst droughts in its history. Eco Oro’s critics explain that five years ago, Colombia’s Environment Ministry had denied the Angostura mine its environmental license. And now, the decision of the Constitutional Court reaffirms that decision, “finding that the right to water and the protection of the páramos (moorlands) takes precedent over the economic interests of companies trying to develop mining projects in these ecosystems.” That’s according to Miguel Ramos, from the Water Defense Committee and the Páramo of Santurbán (El Comité por la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán). The Committee has presented a complaint about the Angostura mining project to The World Bank, and hopes to receive a response in the next few months.
Read more
Colombia’s Constitutional Court has ruled against a controversial legal loophole permitting oil, gas and mining operations in the country’s paramos - high altitude eco-systems. Colombia’s paramos are the most extensive on earth and supply more than 70% of the country’s population with water, according to the Bogota-based Alexander von Humboldt Institute. The loophole is in a June 2015 law implementing Colombia’s “National Development Plan 2014-2018.” The law prohibits “agricultural activities” and the “exploration for or exploitation of non-renewable natural resources”, as well as the “construction of oil and gas refineries”, in paramos, but then states that mining operations which have contracts and environmental licenses dating to before 9 February 2010, or oil and gas operations with contracts and licenses dating to before 16 June 2011, are exempted. This was challenged by four congressmen, three lawyers and 12 representatives from a coalition called the Cumbre Agraria, Campesina, Étnica y Popular, who argued that the loophole violates rights to the environment, water and Colombia’s patrimony because of the impacts oil, gas and mining operations would have on the paramos’ vegetation, soil, sub-soil and water. On 8 February the court’s ruling, which was made public on Thursday, deemed three paragraphs relating to the loophole in the June 2015 law “unconstitutional” - or “inexequible” in Colombian Spanish. “Paramo eco-systems exist in very few places in the world and Colombia is privileged to be the country that has the highest number of paramos globally,” senator Alberto Castillo, one of the plaintiffs, told the Guardian.“Because of this, we believe that the absolute ban on natural resource extraction that we now have in Colombia is of great magnitude and should delight the world.” “It’s a ruling that will make history,” says senator Iván Cepeda, another plaintiff. “The court went further than we hoped, without a doubt. [Mining and oil and gas operations in the paramos] is a serious abuse against natural resources, especially the fundamental right to water.” “The court’s ruling is a major advance in environmental matters,” Viviana Tacha, another plaintiff and an adviser to senator Castillo, told the Guardian. “No doubt about it, it’s a victory for the entire country and for the communities resisting the imposition of a development model based on natural resource extraction which fails to take into account the environment and local people. Given global concern about climate change, the protection of the paramos by the court is one of the most important recent decisions on environmental matters.” According to a communiqué by the court issued on 8 February, the offending three paragraphs “ignore the constitutional duty to protect areas of special ecological importance [and] put at risk the fundamental rights of the entire population to access good quality water.” The communiqué says the court arrived at its decision after “analyzing the state’s power to intervene in the economy and its duty to protect areas of special ecological importance, weighing them up against economic freedom and the rights of individuals to exploit the state’s resources.” It concluded that, in this case, the former overrides the latter for three reasons: 1) the current lack of protection of paramos; 2) the “fundamental role” played by paramos in regulating the country’s drinking water cycle and providing cheap, high-quality water to 70% of the population; and 3) the particular vulnerability of paramos due to their “relative isolation”, low temperatures and low oxygen levels. Carlos Lozano-Acosta, from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), told the Guardian the court’s decision is “historic” and sets an example to other countries in the Andean region where there are paramos. “The paramos [in Colombia] are vital because they’re a source of drinking water for 70% of Colombians, strategic reserves of biodiversity, and carbon sequesters,” he says. “The court acknowledged all that in the sentence.” An ‘amicus brief’ sent to the court and written by Lozano-Acosta together with the Bogota-based NGO Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad (AAS) argued that the loophole contradicts Colombia’s constitution, international environmental law, and international treaties signed by Colombia, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention. NGO Dejusticia, also based in Bogota, is another civil society organisation which sent an ‘amicus brief’ to the court, calling the crucial three paragraphs an “unjustified regression” because mining, oil and gas operations in paramos had already been banned back in 2010 and 2011. “Before [the June 2015] law, such activities were prohibited,” the NGO stated in an interview in Colombian newspaper El Espectador. “This means that the current National Development Plan is a step backwards in protecting the paramos.” That “regression” was acknowledged by the court in its ruling, which described the offending paragraphs as “reestablishing the possibility” of oil, gas and mining operations in paramos despite them being “prohibited by Laws 1382 in 2010 and 1450 in 2011.” “The paramos are key ecosystems and water sources which are insufficiently protected,” Dejusticia’s Diana Rodriguez told the Guardian. “We’re thrilled the court has taken a stand for their immediate protection and sent a message that economic development cannot sacrifice respect for the environment.” Just how big an impact the court’s ruling could or will have isn’t immediately clear. How many oil, gas or mining operations stand to be affected? In its interview with El Espectador, Dejusticia stated that the National Mining Agency (NMA) believes approximately 500 mining titles covering over 140,000 hectares of the paramos have been issued, while senator Castillo told the Guardian the NMA states there are currently 448 mining titles in paramos - 347 of which have environmental licences. “Taking into account that this is official information, which the court itself recognized, other sources have no basis in speaking of lower numbers,” Castillo says. “The three companies who have most mining titles in the paramos are AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A., Eco Oro Minerales Corp and Leytah Colombia.” Senator Cepeda told the Guardian the 448 mining titles include 26 of Colombia’s 32 paramos and extend for more than 118,000 hectares, “more than 11,000 of which are [also] affected by four oil and gas projects.” According to one media report, Environment Minister Gabriel Vallejo has said he will request a clarification from the court and believes that “other sources” say up to 522 titles could be affected. “There are very different estimates about the number of titles and even more confusion related to how many have environmental licenses,” says Dejusticia’s Rodriguez. “Indeed, some mining companies didn’t wait for the [court’s] full ruling [and] already announced that they will forego their mining concessions in the paramos.” Another question is how far Colombia’s paramos extend. Although the court’s ruling cites a 2011 Humboldt Institute publication stating there are 1.9 million hectares in Colombia, Humboldt’s Carlos Sarmiento told the Guardian their current estimate is 2.9 million hectares - 2.5% of national territory. That 2.9 million figure is also used by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. But what if the government disagrees that certain areas really are paramos, and permits oil, gas or mining operations to take place there anyway? As the court’s ruling acknowledges, the paragraph immediately preceding the three offending paragraphs in the June 2015 law states that ultimately it is the Environment Ministry which, according to its own “technical, environmental, social and economic criteria”, is responsible for “delimiting” paramos. And that paragraph wasn’t challenged by the plaintiffs. “The court’s decision could result ineffective given that that part of Article 174 wasn’t part of the lawsuit and Congress has given the Environment Ministry the function of delimiting paramos, and in doing that the Ministry isn’t subject to the scientific criteria established by the Alexander von Humboldt Institute,” the court ruled. “It would be possible for the Ministry to not delimit paramos, or exclude from delimitation, certain areas where mining or hydrocarbon operations are happening or are going to happen. That would nullify [our] decision because such operations could take place in areas that have been scientifically classified as paramos, but the Ministry has excluded.” AIDA’s Lozano-Acosta says that risk exists “without a doubt.” “But the court also said that the government mustn’t ignore the Humboldt Institute’s technical recommendations,” he told the Guardian. For senator Castillo, that risk only exists “if the Ministry doesn’t closely read the court’s sentence or doesn’t want to comply with it.” “In the court’s words, delimitation must ensure the maximum degree of protection,” Castillo says. “This is absolutely crucial given that what the government wants to do is reduce to the utmost the extent of the paramos via a very restricted delimitation process and thereby pave the way for exploitation. Dispute will continue in the delimitation of each paramo, but we will continue in their defence and the court’s sentence gives us many tools to do so.” According to senator Cepeda, the court’s ruling will lead to a “profound discussion about how paramos are delimited.” He told the Guardian that the plaintiffs, together with environmental organisations and others, intend to ensure the government abides by the court’s ruling and “will seek the suspension of more than 400 mining titles.” AAS’s Margarita Florez says the court’s ruling cannot be appealed. “The decision is a constitutional sentence and therefore it is binding on the government and must be complied with,” she told the Guardian. “There is no way to appeal it.” The court’s ruling cites various definitions of paramos, including “the highest and most exposed regions of tropical Andean mountain ranges” and “neotropical mountains between the upper limit of forest vegetation (3,200-3,800 ms above sea level) and the lower limit of perpetual snows (4,400-4,700 ms) in Andean systems.” It quotes the Humboldt Institute describing them as “key sites that “harvest” rainfall and snow water stored in glacial lakes, bogs, marshes and peat soils” that are “held for a relatively long period of time and released constantly and slowly.”
Read more