Colombia

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.

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.