Press Center

April 04 2012 Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Peru’s efforts to require La Oroya clean up should not be chilled by investment arbitration

San Francisco, CA – The following is a statement from the international organizations Earthjustice, the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA), and Public Citizen: In 1997, Doe Run Peru (DRP), an American company, bought from the government of Peru a metallurgical complex located in La Oroya, Peru. As a condition of the purchase, DRP agreed to comply with a number of environmental requirements aimed at protecting the environment and health of the local population. For 15 years, Doe Run has failed to fulfill these commitments. Now, rather than live up to its responsibilities, DRP and its parent company, the Renco Group, are using questionable legal and political tactics to continue to avoid its commitments—most prominently through an international arbitration case against the State of Peru. In 2011, the Renco Group brought a claim in an international arbitration tribunal for US $800 million against the State of Peru, alleging Peru’s non-compliance with and failure to honor its legal obligations. However, Peru should not be deterred from its efforts to require the company to clean up La Oroya. Here are just a few of the reasons why: 1. Even if the Peruvian Congress were to grant DRP another PAMA extension, the liability claims in Renco’s arbitration case against Peru would remain because Doe Run’s case against Peru involves more than the PAMA extension contemplated in the proposed law. The Peruvian legislature is currently debating a bill to extend Doe Run’s environmental remediation obligations (known by its Spanish acronym, PAMA) for a third time. The legislature’s Energy and Mining Committee quickly approved the bill. However, policymakers should not presume that Doe Run will drop its arbitration case against Peru if the legislature grants the extension. Indeed, the company is likely to find it advantageous to keep the investment case going (or launch new ones) in order to pressure the government through the international arbitration proceedings. 2. The company is using the investment arbitration to insulate itself from penalties in a case in Missouri courts. In 2007, attorneys filed lawsuits in Missouri (where Doe Run is headquartered) on behalf of children in La Oroya alleged to have experienced serious health problems from exposure to toxic pollution from the smelter in Peru. In a similar case resolved last year regarding harms to 16 children from Missouri, the Missouri court awarded the children US $358 million. In the aforementioned 2007 case about La Oroya in Missouri, DRP has insisted that the Peruvian government—not the company—should be held liable for these tort claims (even though the children are only claiming damages that occurred after Doe Run purchased the smelter). Therefore, the company will likely attempt to keep its international investment arbitration case alive until the Missouri case is resolved, so the Renco Group can use the arbitration to force Peruvian taxpayers to pay any penalty awarded against DRP. 3. The Renco Group is using the arbitration case to move the Missouri case to federal court and evade liability. Doe Run has aggressively tried to derail the Missouri case by insisting that the La Oroyan children’s claims be heard in US federal courts, where it appears Doe Run believes it is more likely to win the case. Twice, the Missouri judge refused to allow the company to do so. After launching the international investment arbitration against Peru, however, Doe Run made a new argument, and convinced the judge to move the La Oroyan children’s case to US federal court, which has jurisdiction over treaty-related claims. The Renco Group has an incentive to keep the international arbitration pending against Peru—regardless of whether the Peruvian legislature extends the PAMA—in order to maintain its argument that the case belongs in federal court 4. Giving in to the threat of the international investment arbitration would set a bad precedent for Peru and the world. As explained above, DRP is using the investment arbitration to serve many different interests. In each case, the common factor is that the arbitration threatens to make Peru—and Peruvian citizens—responsible for the contamination in La Oroya and any resulting penalties. If Peru responds to this threat by giving DRP special treatment at the expense of the children of La Oroya, it will send a message to DRP and multinational companies around the world that such threats are effective. This will weaken Peru’s ability to protect its interests, including the environment and human rights, in the face of corporate misbehavior. 5. DRP is using false arguments to try to shift the blame to others. In addition to the arbitration claims, DRP has long argued that Activos Mineros—a state-owned firm—should complete its PAMA obligations to remediate soils around the complex. Now DRP is claiming unfair treatment because Activos Mineros has not yet been required to do so. This argument makes no sense. It is well known that cleaned soils will quickly become re-contaminated if nearby smelter pollution continues. In Missouri, the authorities calculated that soils near the Doe Run smelter would be re-contaminated only a few years after Doe Run had remediated them at a cost of millions of dollars. Doe Run is well aware of this, yet argues that Peruvian taxpayers should spend millions of dollars cleaning soils in La Oroya that would be re-contaminated in mere months if the smelter were to reopen without first installing all necessary pollution controls. This would be a waste of resources and would not solve La Oroya’s health problems. Activos Mineros should indeed remediate the soils. But it makes no sense to do so until either DRP completes installing the control technology it has promised yet failed to deliver for 15 years, or after a decision is made to permanently close. The government of Peru should take these facts into account and make sure that it does NOT allow Doe Run to pressure it into reopening the complex in La Oroya. The government of Peru needs to ensure it is considering and protecting not only the rights of the workers, the economy of the region, and the health and human rights of the citizens in La Oroya that would be harmed by reopening the complex, but also protecting the national economic interests. Reopening the complex without clarifying the responsibilities for third party claims from cases such as the case pending in Missouri, would be folly and pose a significant economic risk for the nation. This could even result in economic costs for the people of Peru that exceed the benefits obtained from operating the complex. If the Peruvian legislature believes that it can or should extend the PAMA, it should insist on at least three non-negotiable positions. First, that the Renco Group drop its international arbitration claim. Second, that Doe Run agree that it will assume any liability in Missouri related to contamination stemming from the smelter in La Oroya. Third, that DRP complete all of its environmental requirements—before starting any operation—so that Peru can begin its soil remediation efforts and protect the health and human rights of the children of La Oroya. Every day that the fate of the La Oroya metallurgical complex remains undecided without a final solution to the contamination, the citizens of La Oroya suffer grave health risks which in turn increase the harms for which both DRP and the government of Peru could be held liable.

December 21 2011

AIDA President Manuel Pulgar-Vidal named Peru Environment Minister

The Interamerican Assocation for Environmental Defense (AIDA) congratulates Manuel Pulgar-Vidal for being named head of Peru’s Environment Ministry. An accomplished environmental lawyer and thought leader, Pulgar-Vidal served as the President of AIDA's Board of Directors for eight years. He is only the third Peruvian to be sworn into the government's top environmental post. We are extremely thankful for all the hard work and guidance Pulgar-Vidal has provided AIDA since he helped found the organization in 1996. The appointment is a well-deserved recognition for a man who has dedicated his life to defending human rights and the environment. His new role won't be easy. Pulgar-Vidal joins a young government faced with its first crisis: widespread popular dissent over the potential environmental impacts of a massive proposed gold mine. But the opportunity to strengthen environmental governance and institutionalize environmental health protections is priceless. We know he's up for the challenge.

December 07 2011 Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change

AIDA presents report at Durban linking climate change to decline of human rights in Latin America

Calls for measures to protect the human rights of the most vulnerable communities. Durban, South Africa – On Wednesday, December 7, 2011, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) presented delegates at climate meetings in Durban, South Africa with a report detailing the negative effects of climate change on human rights to life, access to water, health, food, and housing for millions of people in Latin America. “Climate change causes the greatest harm to the human rights of those who are least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions – vulnerable and historically disadvantaged communities such as peasant farmers, indigenous peoples, and the urban poor,” said AIDA staff attorney Jacob Kopas. “Governments disproportionately responsible for historical and current emissions have an international obligation to contribute more to lasting solutions.” The most troubling of the impacts detailed by the report is a dramatic reduction in access to freshwater in Latin America. Increased melting of glaciers, degradation of high-mountain páramo wetlands, erratic weather patterns and severe droughts will limit dry-season access to water for up to 50 million people in the Tropical Andean region by 2050. Other impacts include heavier rains and flooding, which affected 2.2 million people and caused $300 million of damages in Colombia alone in 2010, and the loss of 80% of Caribbean coral reefs due in large part to warming ocean temperatures and ocean acidification. “The parties must understand that the climate change problem can no longer be ignored. We need to act now to help the world’s most affected communities cope with climate change by securing urgent yet attainable solutions like the Green Climate Fund here in Durban,” said AIDA attorney Andrés Pirazzoli, who distributed the report to delegates at the meeting. AIDA backs the Green Climate Fund, which would finance low-carbon technology adoption and adaptation programs in the developing world. AIDA issued the report this week to inform an investigation by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on the link between climate change and human rights. The report calls for a binding climate treaty and for the biggest emitters to pay for adaptation and mitigation measures in the developing world.

October 26 2011 Large Dams, Freshwater Sources, Human Rights

Brazil boycotts OAS meeting over Belo Monte Dam

Government refuses to meet affected community leaders at Human Rights Commission. Washington, D.C.—The government of Brazil refused to attend a closed hearing convened by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States (OAS) today, taking a stance that threatens to set a chilling precedent for human rights and sustainable development throughout the Americas. The meeting, scheduled for 2pm, was intended to foster dialogue toward resolving conflict and discuss failures in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples threatened by the proposed Belo Monte hydroelectric dam in the Amazon Basin’s Xingu region of Brazil. Plans for the Belo Monte Dam ignore international protections such as the right to free, prior and informed consent, and jeopardize the health, livelihood and ancestral lands of thousands. “The government’s constant refusal to dialogue and its undiplomatic posturing shows its negligence as it sidesteps the law and ignores the rights of local peoples,” said Sheyla Juruna, a leader of the Juruna indigenous people who are affected by the proposed dam. “I am appalled by the way in which we are treated in our own land without even the right to be consulted on this horrific project.” Brazil’s refusal to attend today’s hearing is only its most recent rebuke to the IACHR, a bulwark of human rights protection in the Americas for more than 50 years. The government has not only ignored an IACHR request to halt the project in order to consult with affected communities, but also withheld its dues and recalled its ambassador to the OAS in protest of the IACHR, according to press reports. Brazil’s intransigence is similar to that of Peruvian strongman Alberto Fujimori’s regime, which took a similar stance against the OAS in 1999. “This flies in the face of the image Brazil promotes of a regional leader and host of important international environmental events like Rio +20 next year,” said Attorney Jacob Kopas of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), a nonprofit environmental and human rights organizations representing affected communities. “With this decision, the government is shooting itself in the foot,” said Andressa Caldas, Director of Global Justice. “Should Brazil be granted a permanent seat on the UN Security Council when it undermines human rights institutions like this?” Organizations supporting communities affected by the dam, including the Xingu River Alive Forever Movement, AIDA, Amazon Watch, Global Justice and the Para Society for Human Rights, call on Brazil to comply with its international commitments and engage in a meaningful dialogue on human rights.

August 04 2011

Jury finds former owners of lead smelter liable for $358.5 million in damages

Doe Run Investment Holdings Company, Fluor Corporation and A.T. Massey Coal knew that lead pollution was harming children’s health. St. Louis, Missouri — Last Friday, the former owners of a lead smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri, were found liable for $320 million in punitive damages for negligently exposing 16 children and other residents living in the area to harmful lead pollution. “They obviously wanted to send a message: Don't choose profits over people,” said Mark Bronson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The jury awarded $320 million in punitive damages last Friday, July 29, against the Missouri-based Doe Run Investment Holdings Company, Texas-based Fluor Corporation and Virginia-based A.T. Massey Coal, corporations that owned the smelter prior to 1994. A day earlier, a civil judge had ruled that the three companies would have to pay $38.5 million to the families as compensation for health problems and lost lifetime earnings as a result of pollution that occurred between 1986 and 1994. It should be noted that according to court documents the current owner of the smelter, Doe Run Resources Corporation, had already reached a settlement with the plaintiffs for an undisclosed sum. This settlement covered the impacts of harmful pollution that occurred after 1994. DOE RUN PERU AND THE CASE OF LA OROYA Doe Run Resources Corporation is a subsidiary of Renco Holding Company, owned by Ira Rennert. After buying Doe Run Resources, Renco purchased the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex in 1997 and established another subsidiary, Doe Run Peru (DRP), to operate it. DRP has kept the La Oroya smelter idle since 2009, and is negotiating with the government to reopen it. AIDA and the SPDA have worked since 1997 to encourage the Peruvian government to hold DRP accountable for the pollution in La Oroya, which involves contaminants similar to those found in Herculaneum. The government demanded greater environmental controls at the metallurgical complex, which have not been fully implemented. This year, Renco Holdings began a process of international arbitration within the framework of the Trade Promotion Agreement between Peru and the U.S., arguing among other things that Peru has treated the company unjustly in requiring environmental improvements to the Complex. AIDA and the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) have brought a case and a request for precautionary measures on behalf of residents in La Oroya affected by the pollution before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. "The amount of damages awarded by the US court indicates the severity of lead contamination, particularly in children, and reminds us once again of the magnitude of human rights violations that have taken place in Missouri and in La Oroya," said Astrid Puentes Riaño , Co-Executive Director of AIDA. "So we insist on greater protections in La Oroya to address the situation there." Ramón Rivero, with the Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental (SPDA), praised the jury’s verdict and believes that it should be a model for similar cases in other parts of the world. “Measures such as the verdict against Doe Run in the United States are corrective actions taken by a government that aim to justly compensate those affected for the harm they suffered. We have to ask ourselves if the measures taken by the Peruvian government to date, with regard to the harm caused by DRP in La Oroya, comprise such just compensation,” said Rivero. “We need to take steps to protect public health that go beyond measurements and controls and that affect the wellbeing of the residents of La Oroya. We also need to evaluate the possibility of increasing the amount of compensatory damages that have been awarded,” Rivero concluded.

July 27 2011

Living beyond our means

An article from Waterkeeper on the valuable ecosystems services provided by coastal mangrove swamps and the threats these face from developers.

July 25 2011

Civil society groups go to Court to defend Panama Bay

Groups submit arguments supporting government’s case for maintaining wildlife refuge. Panama City, Panama — Today, on International Mangrove Day, two civil society organizations announce their legal support for the government of Panama in a lawsuit brought by developers challenging the protected status of Panama Bay. The groups, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Centro de Incidencia Ambiental (CIAM), submitted legal briefs detailing national and international legal arguments for upholding environmental protections established by the government in 2009 through a resolution issued by the environmental authority in Panama. The developers who are contesting the law, Panama Bay Development and Compañia Lefevre, are seeking to open the area to development of vast tourism complexes. Extensive tourism in the area would bring devastating environmental impacts to the sensitive ecosystem. The Panama Bay coastline is ringed with miles of pristine mangroves, which provide critical breeding ground for species relied upon by Panama’s fishing industry. Each kilometer of mangrove-covered coastline generates about $100,000 USD for Panama annually. Mangroves also help protect Panama from the effects of global climate change by buffering the coast from increasingly powerful tropical storms and by storing carbon from the atmosphere in their roots. A mangrove forest can sequester 50 times more carbon than a tropical forest of the same size, making mangroves a conservation priority if countries wish to halt catastrophic climate change. The protected area of Panama Bay is roughly 211,000 acres, slightly larger than the land area of New York City. Panama Bay is one of the earth’s most biodiverse places and is an essential habitat for migratory birds and threatened species such as jaguars and loggerhead turtles. “In the face of ever more powerful and dangerous climate-change-driven tropical storms, destroying coastal mangroves is one of the worst things a country like Panama could do,” said Anna Cederstav, Ph.D., staff scientist and co-director of AIDA. According to Sandra Moguel, an attorney for AIDA in Mexico, “Article four of the Constitution of Panama requires the observance of the rules of international law throughout the territory of that country. Obligations under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance and the Convention on Biological Diversity, both of which have been ratified by Panama, should thus be taken into consideration in deciding the challenge against the natural protected area.” "The creation or declaration of a protected area does not constitute expropriation. What it does is protect and guarantee the right to a healthy environment contained in the Panamanian Constitution” said Maria Acuña, CIAM´s legal advisor.

June 16 2011 Large Dams, Freshwater Sources, Human Rights

Belo Monte Dam may lead Brazil to OAS High Court

Local communities and NGOs deliver petition exposing human rights violations to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Brasilia, Brazil—Local communities and NGOs delivered a petition to the Organization of American States’ (OAS) human rights body today claiming that Brazil has steamrolled human rights in its rush to fast-track construction of the controversial Belo Monte Dam, slated for construction on the Xingu River in the Amazon interior. The petition, signed by representatives of indigenous communities and other populations threatened by the dam, denounced the Brazilian government and called on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to declare human rights violations and order the Brazilian government to cancel the project and pay damages. Two weeks ago the Brazilian government defied IACHR’s demand that Brazil halt the dam’s licensing process. Brazil instead granted Belo Monte’s installation license, clearing the way to commence construction despite blatant non-compliance with social and environmental protections. Petition-signers scrutinized illegal aspects of the dam’s licensing process, especially with regard to the rights of indigenous peoples living along the Big Bend of the Xingu River, where 80% of the river's flow would be diverted to an artificial reservoir, undermining livelihoods and potentially leading to the forced displacement of thousands of people in clear violation of Brazil’s Constitution and international law. NGO and legal groups expect the Commission to determine that the Brazilian government has violated the rights of local peoples, and will recommend compensation. If the government continues to ignore the IACHR, the case could go to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, which could formally condemn the Brazilian government for violations of its international obligations. The petition delivery today follows an initial complaint submitted last November that led to the granting of "precautionary measures" by the IACHR in April 2011. These measures recommended to the Brazilian government that urgent action be taken to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples—as required by the Brazilian Constitution and international agreements such as the American Convention on Human Rights, Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—before proceeding with dam construction. That decision by the IACHR provoked a defensive response from the administration of President Dilma Rousseff, which refused to take additional measures to protect indigenous rights. Eleven civil actions lawsuits against the Belo Monte Dam, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, are still pending in Brazilian courts. “It is clear that the Brazilian judicial system is not working to protect human rights in the case of mega-infrastructure projects such as Belo Monte, given the tremendous economic and political pressures, often linked to corruption,” said Antonia Melo, coordinator of the Xingu Forever Alive Movement (Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre). “As a result, we have no alternative but to request the support of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.” “Our community is under threat and the leaders are the ones who suffer the most,” stated José Carlos Arara, an indigenous chief of the Arara village in the Big Bend region of the Xingu. “I am stuck in my village and no longer leave my community after receiving death threats.” "Brazilian diplomacy is in serious danger of an international embarrassment,” said Roberta Amanajás, a lawyer with the Pará Society for the Defense of Human Rights. “The Rousseff administration's aggressive response to the IACHR, followed by the Brazilian Senate’s vote to censure the OAS last week is a dangerous sign.” "The Brazilian government's position on Belo Monte goes against the image it promotes as a regional leader and its role as the host of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) in 2012," said Astrid Puentes, Co-Director of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "We hope that the governments of the region stop promoting environmentally and socially harmful projects and instead seek truly sustainable development based on respect for human rights.”

April 05 2011 Freshwater Sources, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Large Dams

Organization of American States requests immediate suspension of Belo Monte Dam in the Brazilian Amazon

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights considered that Indigenous Peoples must be consulted BEFORE the dam’s construction begins. Altamira, Brazil / Washington, D.C., USA - The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), part of the Organization of American States (OAS), has officially requested the Brazilian Government to immediately suspend the Belo Monte Dam Complex in the Amazonian state of Para, citing the project's potential harm to the rights of traditional communities living within the Xingu river basin. According to the IACHR, the Brazilian Government must comply with legal obligations to undertake a consultation process that is "free, prior, informed, of good faith and culturally appropriate" with indigenous peoples threatened by the project before further work can proceed. The Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs must inform the OAS within 15 days regarding urgent measures undertaken to comply with the Commission's resolution. The IACHR's decision responds to a complaint submitted in November 2010 on behalf of local, traditional communities of the Xingu river basin. The complaint was presented by the Xingu Alive Forever Movement - (MXVPS), the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations in the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB), the Prelacy of the Roman Catholic Church in the Xingu region, the Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI), the Pará Society for the Defense of Human Rights (SDDH), Global Justice and the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). According to the complaint, there were no appropriate consultations with affected indigenous and riverine communities regarding the impacts of the mega-dam project. The document argues that the dam would cause irreversible social and environmental damage, including forced displacement of communities, while threatening one of the Amazon's most valuable areas for biodiversity conservation. "By recognizing the rights of indigenous people to prior and informed consultations, the IACHR is requesting that the Brazilian Government stop the licensing and construction of the Belo Monte dam project to ensure their right to decide," said Roberta Amanajas, SDDH lawyer. "Continuing this project without proper consultations would constitute a violation of international law. In that case, the Brazilian Government would be internationally liable for the negative impacts caused by the dam." The IACHR also requests Brazil to adopt "vigorous and comprehensive measures" to protect the lives and personal integrity of isolated indigenous peoples in the Xingu river basin, as well as effective measures to prevent the spread of diseases and epidemics among traditional communities threatened by the project. "The IACHR's decision sends a clear message that the Brazilian Government's unilateral decisions to promote economic growth at any cost are a violation of our country's laws and the human rights of local traditional communities," said Antonia Melo, MXVPS coordinator. "Our leaders no longer can use economic "development" as an excuse to ignore human rights and to push for projects of destruction and death to our natural heritage and to the peoples of Amazon, as is the case of Belo Monte." "The OAS's decision is a warning to the Federal Government and a call to Brazilian society to broadly discuss the highly authoritarian and predatory development model being implemented in this country," said Andressa Caldas, Global Justice director. Andressa recalls examples of human rights violations caused by other infrastructure projects within the federal government's Accelerated Growth Program (PAC). "There are numerous cases involving the forced displacement of families without compensation, as well as serious environmental impacts, social disruption of communities, rising violence in areas surrounding construction sites and poor working conditions." Criticism of the Belo Monte dam comes not only from civil society organizations, and local communities, but also from scientists, researchers, and government institutions. The Federal Public Prosecutor's office in Pará state has already filed ten civil lawsuits against the mega-project that are still awaiting final decisions. "I am very moved by this news," said Sheyla Juruna, an Indigenous leader of the Juruna community in Altamira. "Today, more than ever, I am sure that we were right to expose the Brazilian Government - including the federal judicial system - for violations of the rights of indigenous peoples in the Xingu and of all those who are fighting together to protect life and a healthy environment. We will maintain our firm resistance against the implementation of the Belo Monte Dam Complex." The IACHR's decision is founded on international law established by the American Convention on Human Rights, Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Rights (UNDRIP), and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as well as the Brazilian Constitution itself.

March 22 2011 Freshwater Sources, Mining, Toxic Pollution

Colombian Ministry of Mines announces wetlands protection from open pit mining

Bogotá, Colombia – Colombia has signaled it will halt construction of one of the world’s largest open-pit gold and other metals mine. In a surprisingly bold step March 17, Colombia’s Minister of Mines Carlos Rodado announced “Pursuant to Colombian law, mining projects cannot be developed in wetlands areas.” If enforced, this would prevent construction of the massive Angostura mine in the Santander department, on the Santurban paramo. "This is an important step in fulfilling Colombia’s obligations to its constitution and international wetlands protections,” said Natalia Jiménez Galindo, AIDA's legal adviser in Bogotá. “The State should refrain from approving any phase of the Angostura project, including any additional infrastructure." If built, the Angostura mine would jeopardize the Santurban paramo, a sensitive high-altitude wetland that supply freshwater to more than 1 million people in nearby communities. In collaboration with various partners, AIDA has advocated for the protection of the paramo ecosystems against mining and provided related legal advice to organizations and sending to the authorities an analysis on the international law applicable. “We applaud the Ministry of Mines for recognizing the prohibition against mining in paramos and we expect this will be reflected in an official decision” said Astrid Puentes Co- Director of AIDA. “This will send a strong message from the Government that it is truly interested in protecting paramos and making a difference in climate change”. AIDA calls upon the Colombian government to formally reject the entire Angostura mine project as proposed by Greystar Resources Corporation of Canada. This is the only decision consistent with the norms, the pronouncement by the Ministry of Mines and the Alexander von Humboldt Institute concept.