Project
Alberto Peña Kay
Protecting the Santurban páramo from mining's damage
In the Andean region, high-mountain ecosystems known as páramos capture water from the fog and supply it to the lowlands. One such ecosystem is the Santurbán páramo, which provides fresh water to more than two million people in Colombia.
Santurbán, like the other páramos on the continent, also captures large amounts of carbon, making it a key ally in mitigating the climate crisis. It is also a refuge for hundreds of endangered species, including the iconic spectacled bear.
The land in and around the páramo contains gold and other minerals. This has put Santurbán in the spotlight of the multinational mining industry, which for decades has sought to establish large-scale projects in the ecosystem that threaten to degrade it.
The Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo—a coalition of environmental advocates—has thwarted these ongoing attempts, with support from AIDA and other civil society organizations.
Background
The Santurbán páramo is located in the heart of the Eastern Cordillera of the Colombian Andes, in the departments of Santander and Norte de Santander, at an elevation ranging from 2,200 to 4,290 meters above sea level.
It covers an area of 129,743 hectares and is home to 57 lakes. It serves as a habitat for 457 plant species and 293 species of vertebrate fauna.
There are mineral deposits in Santurbán, primarily gold, but also silver and copper. This explains the region’s mining tradition, particularly in the part of the páramo located in Santander, in the province of Soto Norte. The communities in the area have built their culture and identity around gold mining, which is mainly artisanal and small-scale.
But since the 1990s, the gold deposits in the páramo have also attracted foreign mining conglomerates seeking to develop large-scale projects. This has raised concerns among the population that relies on the Santurbán water sources, who have mobilized in defense of water, their land, and life.
Although national and international regulations prohibit mining in páramos, the Colombian government has granted mining concessions to transnational corporations in Santurbán.
Photo: Keishpixl / Pixabay.
The long struggle to protect the páramo
One of the companies that sought to develop large-scale mining in Santurbán is Eco Oro Minerals Corp.—formerly Greystar Resources—a Canadian company that intended to establish the Angostura open-pit mine there to extract gold and silver. Between 1994 and 1995, the company acquired its mining titles and conducted exploration. And in 2010, it applied for a mining permit.
That was the year AIDA became involved in defending the ecosystem, supporting the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo. Our legal work helped convince the Colombian government to deny the mine an environmental permit in May 2011.
In January 2013, the government designated a portion of the páramo (11,700 hectares) as a Regional Natural Park. That year—together with the committee and partner organizations—we carried out a campaign and advocacy efforts to urge the government to recognize the entire Santurbán area as a páramo ecosystem through a delimitation based on scientific criteria. In December 2014, the Ministry of the Environment established a delimitation that protected 76% of the páramo (98,954 hectares).
Furthermore, as a result of a litigation supported by AIDA, in February 2016, Colombia’s highest court reaffirmed that mining in páramos is prohibited.
That same year, in December, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the World Bank Group’s private sector arm, decided to divest from Eco Oro Minerals. This achievement was the result of a process that began in 2012, when the committee—advised and supported by AIDA and international partner organizations—filed a complaint before an independent accountability mechanism, which concluded that the IFC’s investment in the Angostura project failed to take into account the project’s social and environmental impacts, thereby contradicting the financial institution’s internal policies.
Also in 2016, Eco Oro Minerals filed an arbitration claim against the Colombian government with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), arguing that it had been adversely affected by government decisions aimed at protecting the country’s páramos, including the delimitation of Santurbán.
In 2017, the Constitutional Court invalidated the delimitation because the affected communities were not consulted. The high court ordered that a participatory delimitation be carried out.
And that year, a new threat to Santurbán emerged when the Canadian multinational Aris Mining applied for an environmental permit for Soto Norte, a gold mining project located near the páramo. Following citizen protests and technical objections, in October 2020, the National Environmental Licensing Authority shelved the project.
Photo: Aztlec.
Current situation
In March 2025, the Colombian government designated the western flank of the Santurbán massif as a temporary renewable natural resource reserve area, delimiting and protecting an area of 75,344.65 hectares. This resulted in a two-year suspension of the Soto Norte project. However, Aris Mining's contract to formalize Calimineros' small-scale mining activities through the purchase and processing of mineralized material remains in effect.
In addition, the Canadian mining company continues to move the project forward. In September 2025, it released its prefeasibility study, revising the mine’s original design.
Meanwhile, members of the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo face threats and stigmatization because of their work. In March 2025, UN Special Rapporteurs and the Working Group on Business and Human Rights denounced these incidents in communications sent to the governments of Colombia, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as to the companies Aris Mining and MDC Industry Holding Company LLC, the former co-owner of the Soto Norte project.
Regarding the arbitration claim filed by Eco Oro Minerals, in July 2024, ICSID ruled in favor of the Colombian government and rejected the Canadian company’s claim for USD 1.1 billion in compensation.
Concerning the delimitation of Santurbán, in July 2026, the Ministry of the Environment issued a resolution introducing the concept of "progressive delimitation." On that basis, the government proposes to progressively demarcate the páramo, covering 29,199 hectares across 19 municipalities—those where the participatory agreements required by the Constitutional Court in its 2017 ruling have already been finalized. It also proposes two measures on the creation and expansion of reserves to restrict mining in the ecosystem.
Learn more about the impacts of mining on the páramos of Latin America (in Spanish).
Partners:
Related projects
Latest News
Declaration for the protection of the páramos and montane forests of the Tropical Andes
The undersigned civil society organizations, gathered in the framework of the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Cali, Colombia: 1.URGE States Parties to the CBD to adopt domestic regulations and make international commitments to:recognize the crucial role of the páramos and the montane forest that protects them in global water regulation, mitigation and adaptation to the climate crisis, as well as in the conservation of biocultural diversity;protect the human rights, traditional knowledge and sustainable practices of indigenous peoples and peasant and traditional communities that inhabit the páramos and montane forest; andprohibit large-scale mining or similar practices in paramos and montane forests in terms of their socio-environmental impacts, in accordance with the principles of precaution and prevention. 2. REQUEST the States to include in their national biodiversity strategies and action plans indicators and monitoring mechanisms before the CBD that allow them to adequately measure and report compliance with the commitments they assume to advance in the conservation of these ecosystems under the terms of this declaration, as well as to guarantee the rights of the peoples and communities that inhabit them. 3. REQUIRE States and multilateral financial institutions to mobilize sufficient resources and technical capacities to guarantee the conservation of these ecosystems, as well as the protection of the indigenous peoples and peasant and traditional communities that inhabit them. We submit these requests to the States Parties to the CBD: Taking into account that there is a scientific consensus on the water regulatory power of the páramo and montane forest ecosystems[1] because they not only host endemic flora that captures freshwater from rain and fog, supplying it to the Andean cities located downstream; but also soils, lake and peatland systems that have a high concentration of organic matter and an enormous capacity to retain the liquid. In addition, the páramos wetlands are high Andean wetlands[2] under the protection of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance.Recognizing that páramos and their montane forests are fundamental in the carbon cycle; that due to low temperatures and the slow rate of decomposition of organic matter present in them, their soils, vegetation and wetlands capture and retain carbon dioxide (CO2)[3], contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and reducing the impact of meteorological events; and that these ecosystems are carbon sinks under the terms of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).Reminding that, due to their biological and climatic characteristics, these ecosystems provide essential services for the population and contain biodiversity that is subject to special protection[4] and are home to endemic and native species of flora and fauna such as frailejones, pajonales, epiphytes, the chivito hummingbird, the Andean condor and the Andean bear, among others.Considering that the indigenous peoples and peasant and traditional communities of the region manage and protect the páramos and montane forests, ensure the preservation of common goods in their territories and are guardians of ancestral knowledge that is crucial for the conservation of biodiversity; that the integrity of the páramos is fundamental for the conservation of these ancestral practicess[5]; and that the páramos and montane forests are reserves of biocultural diversity within the framework of the CBD.Reiterating that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[6] warned of the impact of the climate crisis on páramos; and that they face other anthropogenic pressures such as fires, monocultures, livestock and invasive species[7].Warning that despite being strategic and sensitive ecosystems, deserving of the greatest protection, some of them are currently under strong pressure to develop large-scale mining projects, while others are at risk of being subject to mining concessions due to non-compliance with regulations and public policies that protect them or the lack of them.Bearing in mind that indigenous peoples and peasant and traditional communities have rejected these mining projects in their territories, even winning by majority vote "popular consultations" with which they have succeeded in defending the use of the land for traditional activities in their territories.Insisting that the removal of vegetation cover and the fragmentation of ecosystems generated by large-scale mining can affect the ecological balance, biocultural diversity and the provision of ecosystem services essential for life; acidify and reduce the amount of freshwater available for life systems; and break ecological and spiritual interconnectivity with other biomes and ecosystems, ending their capacity to capture carbon[8] and causing impacts in perpetuity.Following the warnings made by several UN rapporteurs and working groups on the negative impacts of mining on the environment and on human rights[9].Warning about certain dynamics recently employed by some mining companies in the countries of the region, particularly multinationals -such as the splitting of large mining titles, the change of exploitation method from surface to underground mining, as well as the formalization of small-scale miners in the area to outsource their activities by requesting multiple smaller areas-, which threaten to disguise large-scale mining processes with cumulative and synergistic environmental impacts on páramo ecosystems and montane forests that can be equal or more serious than those of a large-scale mining concession.Recalling that under the CBD States are required to: (i) monitor activities that have or are likely to have significant adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity[10], such as mining; (ii) establish protected areas for biodiversity conservation[11] based on the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and peasant and traditional communities[12]; and (iii) adopt emergency measures when there are serious and imminent risks to biological diversity from natural or other events[13], such as risk from extractive activities. Signed byCentro Sociojurídico para la Defensa Territorial Siembra (Colombia)Colectivo Socio-Ambiental Juvenil de Cajamarca COSAJUCA (Colombia)Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán (Colombia)Consejo Territorial de Cabildos de la Sierra Nevada de Gonawindua CTC (Colombia)Corporación Ecológica y Cultural Penca de Sábila (Colombia)Movimiento Socioambiental Kumanday (Colombia)Natural Seeds Alliance (Colombia)Proyecto Dulcepamba (Ecuador)Acción Ecológica (Ecuador)Latinoamérica Sustentable (Ecuador)Unión de Defensores del Agua - UNAGUA (Ecuador)Federación de Organizaciones Indígenas y Campesinas del Azuay - FOA (Ecuador)Alianza de Organizaciones por los Derechos Humanos del Ecuador (Ecuador)Legal Defense Institute - IDL (Peru)Red Muqui (Perú)Red Internacional de Forestería Análoga - RIFA (Costa Rica)Mining Watch Canadá (Canada)Both ENDS (Netherlands)Redes del Agua Latinoamérica (Regional)Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense - AIDA (Regional)[1]Buytaert W. et al. Hidrología del páramo andino: propiedades, importancia y vulnerabilidad. Lovaina, U. de Lovaina, s.f.,, p. 10, 11, 23.[2] COP del Convenio de Ramsar, Resolución VIII.39. Los humedales altoandinos como sistemas estratégicos. Valencia, 2002.[3] Robert Hofstede et al. “Los páramos del Ecuador: Pasado, presente y futuro”, capítulo 12, págs 328 – 330, 2023[4] Robert Hofstede et al. págs 158 – 163, 2023.[5] IPBES (2018). The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for the Americas. Recuperado de: https://www.ipbes.net/assessment-reports/americas[6] IPCC (2013). Panel Intergubernamental de Cambio Climático, Quinto Informe de Evaluación, Recuperado de: http://www.ipcc.ch/home_languages_main_spanish.shtml[7] Ochoa-Tocachi et al., 2016, Tomado de IPBES (2018).[8] Madriñán, S., Cortés, A. J., & Richardson, J. E. (2013). Páramo is the world's fastest evolving and coolest biodiversity hotspot. Frontiers in genetics, 192.[9] Asamble General de la ONU, (i) Relatoría Especial sobre derechos humanos y sustancias y desechos peligrosos. Asamblea General de la ONU. A/HRC/51/35, 8 de julio de 2022, (ii) Relatoría Especial sobre el derecho humano a un medio ambiente limpio, saludable y sostenible. A/79/270, 2 de agosto de 2024, (iii) Grupo de Trabajo sobre la cuestión de los derechos humanos y las empresas transnacionales. Asamblea General de la ONU. A/78/155, 11 de julio de 2023.[10] Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica, Art. 7.C.[11] Ibid. Art. 8.C. CDB.[12] Ibid. Art. 8.J CDB.[13] Ibid. Art. 14.E. CDB.
Read more
Report of the International Mission to Colombia: Stop investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)
In May 2023, a delegation of 13 representatives from social and environmental justice organisations from eight countries in the Americas and Europe visited Colombia to share experiences of struggles against the global investment protection regime. The mission also went to learn firsthand about the peoples and ecosystems being threatened by corporate lawsuits, as well as the environmental, social and cultural harms that transnational investments have already caused, particularly in the departments of La Guajira and Santander.The visit came in response to the significant rise in claims that transnational firms have made against the country in recent years, as highlighted in the Declaration “Recover Colombian Sovereignty in Defense of Water, Life and Territories”, signed by more than 280 organisations from 30 countries as well as 54 Colombian members of Congress. In the last five years, Colombia has faced some of the highest number of arbitration claims in Latin America. In 2018 alone, Colombia received more claims than any other country in the world.Colombia’s pending claims currently total US$13.2 billion – equivalent to 13% of the nation’s budget for 2023 and nearly equal to what Colombia plans to spend on education this year.According to the State National Agency for Legal Defense, as of March 2023, 14 arbitration processes were underway with eight more in the pre-arbitration stage. Colombia’s pending claims currently total US$13.2 billion (52 trillion Colombian pesos as of August 2023), although in three cases the amount claimed is not public. This is equivalent to 13% of the nation’s budget for 2023 and nearly equal to what Colombia plans to spend on education this year.The bulk of investors that have brought arbitration cases are involved in the extractive industries, especially mining.We witnessed how this system enables corporate impunity and threatens the realisation and defence of Colombians’ fundamental human and environmental rights. We also observed how this system interferes with judicial independence, environmental regulation, and national sovereignty. Read and download the report
Read more
International Arbitration Tribunal rules in favour of a Canadian company and puts foreign investment above Colombia's legitimate right to protect Santurbán
Bucaramanga, Bogotá, Washington, Ottawa. National and international civil society organizations are widely rejecting the decision made by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on September 10 in the case of Eco Oro v. Colombia, for at least three reasons: we consider that (i) it is inconsistent and reflects a profound ignorance of the socio-environmental complexity of the case; (ii) it is the result of an unfair and widely discretionary investment arbitration system that allows for arbitrary decisions made by those who oversee these cases and, (iii) increases the risk of further arbitrations being brought against the State of Colombia at the ICSID. ICSID is one of the institutions responsible for resolving disputes between States and international investors — in this case, within the context of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In the case of Eco Oro v. Colombia, the ICSID Tribunal concluded that, although the protection measures of the páramos adopted by Colombia were legitimate and did not constitute an expropriation of the rights of the Canadian company Eco Oro, its actions in the delimitation of the Páramo de Santurbán did violate the “minimum standard of treatment” to foreigners. The Tribunal has yet to decide on compensation for damages to Eco Oro and has asked both parties for more information to inform its decision. The Tribunal’s decision was the result of a process initiated by a supranational arbitration claim filed by the Canadian company Eco Oro against Colombia in 2016, which questioned the decisions made by the Colombian government to protect the páramos — the natural source of water for 70% of inhabitants. The Canadian investor [Eco Oro] intends to construct the Angostura gold mine in the Santurbán páramo, located in the northeast of the country. An inconsistent decision that ignores the socio-environmental complexities of the case. The majority of the Tribunal held that the decisions made by the Colombian government were in accordance with Colombian national law and were made with the legitimate aim of protecting the environment. In addition, the Tribunal recognized that the páramos are being threatened by both human intervention and climate change and that the possibility of their recovery from mining activities is very low, which is why it is necessary to protect them. As a result, the Tribunal rejected Eco Oro’s argument that the precautionary principle was not applicable, and pointed out that the Santurbán case was an example where it was, in fact, relevant. This was the grounds for rejecting one of Eco Oro’s claims that its rights had been indirectly expropriated by the State of Colombia. On the contrary, the Tribunal found that the measures adopted by the country were a legitimate exercise in environmental protection. However, when examining a second claim, the Tribunal explained that the inconsistency, hesitation and inaction of the State of Colombia in the delimitation of the Santurbán páramo had thwarted Eco Oro's investment expectations without any “apparent legitimate justification,” and had therefore not granted the investor "fair and equitable treatment" in accordance with the "minimum standard of treatment" for foreigners. This last ruling of the Tribunal is inconsistent. It ignores the socio-environmental complexity of the case and the challenges of materializing the right to environmental participation within the process of delimitation of the páramo. Although the decision recognizes that the delimitation involves managing widely disparate interests throughout the process, in the end — in a ruling far removed from the reality of Santurbán and its communities — the Tribunal took this process lightly, dismissing its complexities, and appears to have not taken it as legitimate and sufficient justification. An unpredictable, limiting and unfair arbitration system. "The Tribunal's decisions are not predictable, since decisions in one case do not bind future rulings on environmental issues. There is no precedent set, as traditionally understood in the system. The breadth of the clauses and the arbitrators' freedom of interpretation are excessive, which is problematic not only for Colombia but for all countries in the region," said Yeny Rodriguez, a lawyer with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). This decision allows mining investment to prevail over the Colombian State's obligation to protect the environment and the water of Colombians. We question the fact that the Tribunal has made its decision but has not judged the lack of due diligence by the Canadian company who knew from the beginning that its mining project overlapped with a páramo zone — a sensitive ecosystem protected by national law. This case demonstrates the arbitrary and overreaching nature of the supranational arbitration system, and the way in which it disciplines and punishes the governments of the Global South. It’s worth remembering that in February 2019, the Tribunal rejected the possible participation of the Santurbán Committee in the process. Uncertainty for Colombia. Carla García Zendejas, Director of the People, Land and Resources Program of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) stated, "The legal uncertainty that the supranational investment arbitration system represents for Colombia is enormous. The high levels of arbitrariness that characterizes the system leads to penalizing States for any circumstance in which expected profits are affected. And this is especially critical for Colombia, as there are other lawsuits against the country resulting from extractive projects linked to Santurbán and other fragile ecosystems. This could mean a domino effect of lawsuits and heavy penalties against Colombians." Two other lawsuits are currently underway before ICSID against the country by Canadian mining companies — Red Eagle Exploration and Galway Gold — for measures taken to protect the Santurbán páramo. There are also other lawsuits filed by Cosigo Resources, South32 Investments Limited, Gran Colombia Gold, Glencore International and Anglo American in connection to other extractive projects. We call on the Colombian State to denounce the free trade agreements and bilateral investment protection agreements to which it is party and to refrain from signing such instruments in the future. It is for these reasons above that today the Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán (Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán) is holding a day of protest in front of the Canadian Embassy in Bogotá, demanding that ICSID respect their legitimate fight for the defense of water, Santurbán and the páramos of Colombia. Likewise, we are also in front of Congress, demanding that the Investment Protection Agreements with the United Arab Emirates-Minesa be rejected. press contacts Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, [email protected], +57 3012080622 Carla García Zendejas, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Yeny Rodríguez Junco, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), [email protected], +57 3107787601 Jamie Kneen, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected], +1(613) 761-2273 Manuel Pérez Rocha, Institute for Policy Studies, [email protected], +1 240 838 6623
Read more