Mining

Civil society urges World Bank to withdraw funding from Colombian mining project

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.   

Latin American environmental defender attacked, hospitalized

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

Open Letter on Mining to Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau

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. 

10 Things You Should Know About Don Diego

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  

New law banning mining in Colombia’s páramos could draw its first lawsuit

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.

Colombian court bans oil, gas and mining operations in paramos

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.”

Organizations condemn Eco Oro’ threat to sue Colombia over efforts to protect páramos

The Canadian company developing the Angostura gold mine in the high-altitude wetlands, or páramo, of Santurbán, has announced that it could file an international arbitration suit against Colombia over measures to protect the páramo, which is an important source of water in the country. Washington/Ottawa/Bogotá/Bucaramanga/Ámsterdam – Civil society organizations condemn Eco Oro Minerals’ announcement that it will initiate international arbitration against the Colombian state. Eco Oro has stated its intention to sue Colombia under the investment chapter of the Canada Colombia Free Trade Agreement over measures that the Andean state has taken to protect the Santurbán páramo and páramos around the country from harmful activities such as large-scale mining. Eco Oro Minerals’ Angostura proposed gold mine in Santurbán has financial backing from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation. The company argues that it will lose money because of the demarcation of the páramo and the recent decision from the Constitutional Court of Colombia reaffirming the prohibition against mining in all Colombian páramos. The company stated in a news release that it could bring the dispute to international arbitration and seek “monetary compensation for the damages suffered.” “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. States should not be sanctioned for protecting their water sources, given that they are doing so in accordance with national and internacional obligations,” remarked Carlos Lozano Acosta from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The páramos are the source of 70% of the fresh water that is consumed in Colombia and are essential for mitigating climate change.  The proposed gold mine was already the subject of a complaint to the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The Committee in Defense of the Water and Páramo of Santurbán filed the complaint in 2012. The IFC is the part of the World Bank Group exclusively focused on the private sector. A report based on this investigation is expected in the coming months. “The implication and the irony of Eco Oro’s statement is that the IFC’s investment in the company could be used to litigate against member states of the World Bank. It’s time for the IFC to withdraw its investment from this company,” stated Carla García Zendejas from CIEL. “In 2011, the Colombian Ministry of the Environment denied an environmental permit for the Angostura project, demonstrating its inviability. The Constitutional Court’s decision reaffirmed this, finding that the right to water and the protection of the páramos takes precedent over the economic interests of companies trying to develop mining projects in these ecosystems,” commented Miguel Ramos from the Santurbán Committee. “Just as has we have seen in El Salvador, where the state is being sued for US$250 million for not having granted a Canadian company a mining permit when the company did not even fulfill local regulations, the international arbitration system enshrined in neoliberal investment agreements is a real threat to the sovereignty of states and peoples to decide over highly important issues, such as water,” said Jen Moore from MiningWatch Canada. The organizations call on the company to abstain from arbitration against the Colombian state and note the risk that other companies with projects in the Santurbán páramo could follow Eco Oro’s example. Find additional information here. 

AIDA celebrates Court decision to protect Colombia's páramos

Colombia’s Constitutional Court on Monday declared unconstitutional an aspect of the country’s National Development Plan that permitted mining in páramos.  Bogota, Colombia. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) celebrates the decision of Colombia’s Constitutional Court to ban mining in the country’s páramos. The ruling—which nullified an article of the 2014-2018 National Development Plan protecting previously granted mining licenses—is vital to the preservation of Colombia’s freshwater resources, and should serve as an example for other countries in the region.  AIDA and partner organizations presented an amicus brief in support of the corresponding lawsuit, filed by the Cumbre Agraria, Campesina, Étnica y Popular. The court’s ruling brings justice to these important freshwater ecosystems and the many people that depend upon them. Although they occupy just 1.7 percent of the national territory, Colombia’s páramos provide 70 percent of its fresh water. The sensitive ecosystems are also strategic reserves of biodiversity, and act as carbon sinks essential to the mitigation of climate change. The high court’s decision is key to the protection of the Santurbán páramo, on which hundreds of thousands of people in the Bucaramanga metropolitan area depend. AIDA has long been working to defend Santurbán from large-scale mining and to provide support to affected communities.  AIDA urges the Ministry of the Environment to promptly enact the court’s ruling and protect all the country's páramos from the impacts of large-scale mining operations.

Defending Mexico's marine biodiversity from deep sea mining

Watch Out! The Mining Industry Wants to Dump its Waste in the Ocean

By Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney, and Karol Rodríguez, AIDA intern Mining gives rise to a serious problem: toxic waste. Tailings from ore extraction have been known to damage the environment and communities living near dump sites. Responsible management, then, is critical if we desire economic development that brings more benefits than problems. In Chile, mine companies are running out of places to dump their dangerous byproducts. Inadequate disposal has already caused substantial harm; nobody wants toxic waste near their home or community. Even depositing tailings in dry areas with low biodiversity is not safe, because rain and floods can wash contaminants into communities. In this context, Chilean mining companies have come up with the “brilliant” idea of depositing mine tailings into the sea, through a pipeline that would transport tons of waste to a valley on the ocean floor. The Ocean: delicate and mysterious cradle of life The ocean is one of the greatest mysteries on our planet. In fact, 95 percent of the ocean floor has not been mapped, which means we know only 5 percent of it. We know more about the surface of the moon than about the depths of the ocean. What’s more, oceans contain the most complex ecosystems on the planet. The variables involved in their health and dynamics are infinite. Given these unknowns, it is impossible to predict the effect that mine tailings would have on the ocean floor. This uncertainty is reason enough to apply the precautionary principle, an important legal tool to prevent environmental degradation caused by human development. We don’t know how the waste may affect complex marine ecosystems, their many species, or even ourselves, who take nourishment from fish and other seafood. So how could we sleep soundly while a pipeline funnels contaminated, and certainly hazardous, waste into our oceans? The effects of the environmental damage could be large and uncontrollable, and, once the water is released into the ocean, there would be no turning back. An international workshop on the idea To understand more about this worrying initiative, two renowned Chilean environmentalists—Juan Pablo Orrego, president of Ecosistemas, and Flavia Liberona, executive director of Fundación Terram—attended an international workshop in Lima in June. Participants at the workshop, convened by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection and the International Maritime Organization, discussed the viability of depositing mine tailings in the ocean. Orrego penned an article on the theme, which you can read here. In the workshop they learned that dumping mine waste into the ocean is nothing new. It happens in Canada, Turkey, Papua New Guinea, and in some African countries. The Norwegian government recently authorized the use of a pristine fjord (a narrow sea inlet) as a repository for mine tailings from a rutile mine. During the workshop, an official from the Norwegian government defended the decision, arguing, “The social benefits from the mine outweigh the destruction of the fjord.” According to whom? For and against Supporters of the Chilean proposal claim that dumping tailings into the sea does not necessarily entail a hazard. They say the risks are minimal because there’s no oxygen on the bottom of the ocean, so the chemical reaction that causes toxicity on the surface would not occur. Leonel Sierralta J., former official of Chile’s Environmental Ministry and current scientific director of Sustainable Initiatives for Mining, penned an open letter in response to Orrego’s article. In it, he says that although there have been disastrous cases involving mine waste in the ocean, there are also cases in developed countries in which waste dumping has been carried out based on science and following strict environmental criteria. His arguments have not convinced those who oppose the proposal, including five Chilean senators who sponsored a bill to prohibit the discharge of tailings into the ocean. An alternative: neutralize the risk Orrego proposes to regulate mining more strictly. He says that before tailings are deposited, mining companies must extract from them all heavy metals and neutralize their chemical compounds.  In that way, it would be feasible to deposit practically inert tailings in places such as old mine shafts. It would even create an economic opportunity for companies to begin extracting and recycling dangerous elements. The neutralization of tailings is an appropriate alternative to continuing environmental destruction. Orrego’s proposal is sensible. It’s reasonable to assert that economic activities dangerous for the environment continue only if their impacts are neutralized. If we generate more waste than we can deal with, it’s because we are not acting sustainably, which means we are not assuring the conservation of a healthy planet for our descendants. This is why we at AIDA work daily to preserve the health of ecosystems in the face of highly polluting activities like mining.