Colombia

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.

Conserving the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta

Victory: Aerial Spraying Stopped in Colombia

Protecting the Santurban Páramo from mining's damages

AIDA celebrates historic decision to suspend fumigation with glyphosate in Colombia

AIDA calls on the National Environmental Licensing Agency to immediately cancel the permit authorizing the chemical spraying program. Thanks to more than 24,000 people who signed a petition on Change.org to suspend fumigation and to colleagues and organizations that participated in the campaign. Bogota, Colombia. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) welcomes the Colombian government’s decision to suspend the aerial spraying of coca and poppy crops with glyphosate in the country. To implement this decision, the National Environmental Licensing Agency must rule immediately and cancel the permit granted to the chemical spraying program. "This is a historic moment for health, the environment, and respect for law in Colombia," said Astrid Puentes Riaño, Co-Director of AIDA. "We know it was a complex decision, but in light of a policy that has proved ineffective and caused serious damage, it was also a smart decision to change course and find real solutions." AIDA has followed the Illicit Crop Eradication Program in Colombia since the late 1990s. We have repeatedly decried the serious damage to health and the environment caused by the glyphosate mixture applied in Colombia, and advocated more appropriate alternatives to eradicate coca and poppy crops. The decision to suspend the spraying, made last night by the National Narcotics Council with an overwhelming majority of seven votes to one, will become effective if the National Environmental Licensing Agency revokes the permit authorizing the program. AIDA believes that the permit should be canceled immediately because the program was designed to use glyphosate, and without it the program no longer makes sense. One day before the decision, AIDA delivered a petition to suspend the spraying, with more than 24,000 signatures, to the Minister of Justice, who also chairs the Narcotics Council. The petition, posted on Change.org, was sponsored by AIDA in conjunction with the Institute for Studies of Development and Peace (INDEPAZ) and the Observatory of Crops and Growers Declared Illicit, with support from Washington Office on Latin America and Latin American Working Group. In one week the petition received 24,933 signatures. "We thank everyone who signed and those who for years have requested this change in policy; this is a shared achievement," said Hector Herrera, AIDA attorney and coordinator of the Environmental Justice Network in Colombia. "We look forward to creation of a technical committee to make recommendations and hope that it is participatory and transparent." The suspension of the fumigation program followed a finding, issued by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, that glyphosate may be carcinogenic. This finding led the Ministry of Health to recommended suspending the program, which Colombia’s Constitutional Court and other national courts had unsuccessfully requested years before, citing the precautionary principle. This principle, found in international environmental law, was incorporated into Colombian legislation in 1993. It holds that in the absence of scientific certainty, when a risk of serious or irreversible health or environmental damage may be present, the authorities should take steps to avoid that risk. In the case of spraying, the requirements for applying the precautionary principle are met. Although there is no absolute scientific certainty of causal harm, more than 15 years of evidence points to possible serious and irreversible damage to health and the environment, including risk of cancer and skin diseases, damage to amphibians and fish, and damage to forests and food crops. The Colombian government, for the sake of caution, finally suspended spraying to prevent further damage.  

Colombian government must immediately suspend the use of glyphosate

Bogota, Colombia. Glyphosate, the herbicide used to eradicate crops considered illicit in Colombia, has been classified as a substance probably carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization. Based on these findings, the Colombian Ministry of Health is recommending that the country’s Ministry of Justice "immediately suspend the use of glyphosate in the Illicit Crops Eradication Program’s aerial spraying operations." The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) strongly supports this recommendation so that the human rights to health and a healthy environment, both closely linked to the right to life, are protected in Colombia. We urge the government to fulfill its national and international obligations, respecting the conclusions reached by the highest health authorities, in order to prevent further damage to the country’s people and environment. For 15 years, AIDA and partner organizations have been warning of the grave impacts glyphosate has on the environment and human health. We’ve advocated for the need to apply the precautionary principle to suspend Colombia’s fumigation program, which has been financed by the government of the United States. Astrid Puentes Riaño, attorney and co-director of AIDA: "Colombia, like no other country, has used millions of liters of glyphosate that have not succeeded in destroying coca and poppy plants, but have irreparably damaged the environment and human health. Without excuses or delays, the National Narcotics Council must act responsibly and immediately suspend the use of glyphosate in the eradication of illicit crops." Anna Cederstav, co-director of AIDA and PhD in Chemistry: "The scientific evidence on the impacts of glyphosate on the environment and human health is sufficient to support a decision of the suspension of aerial spraying of glyphosate in Colombia."

Páramos: Defending Water in Colombia

Colombia’s páramos occupy just 1.7 percent of the national territory, yet they produce 85 percent of its drinking water. These rich sources of life are threatened by activities like large-scale mining, and their protection should be a point of national interest. So just how does the magic happen? The páramos are high altitude wetlands. Despite being located in the equatorial zone, they remain cool throughout the year, which enables their soils to maintain rich volcanic nutrients. All these characteristics make the páramos true sponges that capture moisture from the atmosphere, purify water and regulate its flow.  The growth of the economy, the production of electricity and life itself are all made possible by the water provided by Colombia’s páramos:  Bogota’s water comes from the páramos of Sumpaz, Chingaza (at risk) and Cruz Verde (at risk from mining exploration). The water in Medellin arrives from the páramo of Belmira. The Santurbán páramo (at risk from gold mining projects) supplies water to Bucaramanga. In Cali, the Farallones are vital springs of water.  Life in all these cities depends on the páramos. That’s why AIDA is committed to the protection of these valuable ecosystems. It’s about defending our sources of fresh water, our right to live. This fight recently called us to: Call the World Bank’s attention to the risks of its investment in the Angostura mine, in the Santurbán páramo, which would harm both people and the environment. Co-organize a seminar about páramos and mining at the Universidad Sergio Arboleda in order to discuss and understand the latest legal and technical regulations on the subject.  We Are Not Alone Social movements in defense of water, life and páramos have blossomed across the country. The Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo and the Committee for Cruz Verde are two strong examples. Greenpeace Colombia has also promoted the end of mining in the Pisba páramo in Boyacá.  Meanwhile, after many extensions, the Environmental Minister announced last December the delimitation of the Santurbán páramo. However, he also announced that mining projects that already had a title and an environmental license would be permitted to continue. The Canadian mining company Eco Oro then issued a public statement that, even with the delimitation of Santurbán, it would continue developing the Angostura mine on a smaller scale. This delimitation opens the way for similar actions on which the recognition and protection of other Colombian páramos will depend. As members of civil society we must remain vigilant so that such actions comply with national and international environmental and human rights standards. Our water, and therefore our life, is at risk. Where will our fresh water come from in 2015, when our numbers are millions more? If we don’t protect our páramos today, Colombia’s future generations will be deprived of access to water. Current problems in Lima, Peru and São Paulo, Brazil remind us that this reality might not be too far away.

Fracking prohibited in New York, but promoted in Colombia

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is an unconventional form of extracting oil and gas. The technique requires drilling first vertically and then horizontally, and injecting a high-pressure mix of water, sand, and toxic chemicals. The injection fractures subsurface layers of shale, releasing the oil and gas contained within. Fracking has severe impacts on both the environment and human health: it contaminates surface and ground water sources, causes earthquakes and air pollution, and releases greenhouse gases, among other things. These effects have been documented in studies by the German Ministry of Environment, the US Government Accountability Office, the Canadian Council of Academies, and Anthony Ingraffea, a professor at Cornell University. On December 17, 2014 the Governor of New York announced the prohibition of fracking in the State because of the "significant health risks" posed by the practice.This argument stems from a two-year study conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which analyzed the impacts of fracking on human health and on air and water quality in communities throughout the state. The decision has been celebrated by environmental advocates and criticized by some investors who claim that it is denying the State economic benefits from the extractive industry. The debate over whether or not to permit fracking has been going on in other latitudes as well. In France, fracking was banned in 2011 by national law. After an oil company sued the government, the Constitutional Court upheld the ban in 2013. Bulgaria banned fracking in 2012, and Germany maintains a moratorium on the technique. Bans or moratoriums have also been issued by municipalities in the United States, Canada, Spain, Argentina, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Australia. Despite this international precedent, the Colombian government has promoted fracking. In 2008, the National Hydrocarbons Agency issued a study to identify the potential in unconventional hydrocarbons in the country. In 2012, the National Environmental Licensing Authority authorized a hydraulic fracturing project in Boyacá. That year, the Comptroller General of the Republic issued just one warning recommending that companies "take into account the precautionary principle regarding the latent risk hydraulic fracturing poses to environmental heritage through the possible contamination of groundwater and surface water sources, geological risk, and the risk to public health and nearby urban centers."   In January 2015, in a special performance-monitoring warning, the Comptroller found that the State had not adopted the necessary measures. By the end of 2012, the Colombian government began creating a regulatory framework for fracking in Colombia. They contracted international experts to regulate and identify the impacts of the technique. An investigation by independent news site La Silla Vacía has found that several of these experts are linked to the oil industry. The Ministry of Mines and the National Hydrocarbons Agency then issued legal instruments that would serve as the framework for the start of fracking in the country. Francisco José Lloreda, president of the Colombian Petroleum Association, publicly stated that without fracking “we would have a fiscal catastrophe” within six or seven years. And the Minister of Mines, Tomás González, said that fracking is needed to finance the country’s peace process. Even before fracking began in Colombia, various sectors issued warnings. In August 2014, AIDA publicly urged (in Spanish) the government to apply the precautionary principle and prevent the serious and irreversible consequences of fracking. Later, in September, the National Environmental Forum and other organizations requested a conditional moratorium on fracking in Colombia. Additionally, Housing Minister Luis Felipe Henao voiced concern about the effect fracking would have on the water supply. He said, "To me, as Minister of Water, fracking scares me.… When you see what is happening in Santa Marta, you realize that one can invest a lot in pipes, but if you don’t have clean water supplies, you won’t do much more than carry air through them." From all these arguments, the obvious question arises: Why is fracking – which has been prohibited or restricted in various countries and municipalities – being promoted by the Colombian government? The most apparent response is that it will increase extraction of hydrocarbons and, as a consequence, the revenues of government and private industry. What government and industry do not see is that no amount of revenue is great enough to offset the social and environmental impacts of fracking, or of the possible new conflicts that may arise because of its effects on water resources.  We have seen nationally (Guajira and Arauca) and internationally (Los Angeles and San Paulo) that without drinkable water, a successful economy,and even life itself are not feasible.

Colombia’s Ministry of Environment unveils the demarcation of the Santurbán Páramo without specifying details of the measurements

With the water supply of millions of people at risk, we urge the ministry to publish details of the demarcation and ensure that this fragile ecosystem remains free of large-scale mining operations. Bogotá, Colombia. Colombia’s Ministry of Environment announced the delimitation of the Santurbán Páramo, a high-altitude wetland ecosystem that supplies water to millions of people in the country. While the ministry disclosed some aspects of the measure to the media, it has not released full details. These include the full extension of the demarcation, exact coordinates and which mining operations are inside or outside of the defined area. The ministry stated that the protected area would increase from 11,000 hectares to 42,000 hectares in the department of Santander. However, according to the Colombian Humboldt Institute’s atlas, the ecosystem has a surface area of at least 82,000 hectares in the departments of Santander and North Santander. “We do not know if the protected area covers the total area of the páramo in both departments. Nor do we know the coordinates or what mining titles will be affected. We do not even know if there is a written draft of the official decision. This seems incompatible with the right to access accurate and impartial information, as enshrined in the Colombian Constitution,” said lawyer Carlos Lozano-Acosta of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The páramo of Santurbán supply water to nearly two million people, including the cities of Bucaramanga and Cúcuta. As is common for this ecosystem, the páramo of Santurbán has a diversity of flora and fauna and is important for storage of atmospheric carbon, helping to mitigate climate change effects. According to the law, the demarcation of this ecosystem should be formally and clearly defined in order to prevent harmful activities such as large-scale mining, which could cause irreversible damage. According to the Ministry, companies with mining concessions and environmental licenses will remain in Santurbán. The ministry said that the demarcation affects only 10 of 29 mining titles, including those of the Canadian firm Eco Oro Minerals. It did not provide any further details. Without the exact coordinates of the ecosystem, it is not possible to know precisely the extent of the demarcation and the ongoing threat that large-scale mining poses to this water source. Eco Oro has threatened to pursue legal action if the final decision affects their investment, presumably basing its arguments on the free trade agreement between Colombia and Canada that would allow the company to sue Colombia in an international tribunal. “Colombians should not pay a company for investing where it should not, much less if it threatens their water supplies. Colombian law prohibits mining in páramos. We call on Eco Oro to respect Colombians’ right to water instead of threatening legal action to protect their investment,” said Jennifer Moore of MiningWatch Canada. Kristen Genovese of the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) said, “Eco Oro is not only violating Colombian law with regard to mining in the páramo, but the project is inconsistent with the social and environmental standards of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which is financing the project. We believe that an investigation now underway regarding the IFC’s investment in Eco Oro will confirm our analysis.” According to the Ministry, the decision will not be adopted immediately, and no date has been set to implement it. “The participation of citizens in the demarcation process has not been adequate. We do not know, for example, if the Ministry used rigorous technical studies provided by the Humboldt Institute. Nor is much known about how public participation took place regarding this decision,” said Miguel Ramos of the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo. Also unknown is how Andean forest ecosystems, or cloud forests, located at altitudes of 2,200 to 2,600 meters above sea level, will be protected and managed. These are also vital to ecosystem health and water regulation. Similar to Eco Oro’s approach in Santurbán, the mining company AUX plans to carry out underground mining in these ecosystems. To date, more than 19,000 people have signed a petition (in Spanish) urging the Colombian government to protect the water of Santurbán according to scientific criteria. The government received (in Spanish) 16,000 of those signatures in November 2013. Organizations and environmentalists have also asked (in Spanish) the Colombian government to properly define the limits of the páramo ecosystem. The demarcation of Santurbán will set a precedent for protecting the country’s other páramos. Colombia is home to half of the páramos in the world, which supply water to 85% of its population. The demarcation process must take into account the minimum projected area of the páramo in the Humboldt Institute’s Atlas and its technical studies at a scale of 1:25:000. “If the Santurbán Páramo is adequately defined, it would set an important precedent for the protection of all the páramos. This would lead the way, taking another step toward respecting the right to water of all Colombians” said Carla Garcia Zendejas of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). AIDA, CIEL, the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo, MiningWatch Canada and SOMO -- as allied organizations -- ask Eco Oro to refrain from threats of legal action in an attempt to influence the demarcation of the páramo, and ask the Colombian government to provide full, truthful, and impartial information about the process and final decision.