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
Science in the Service of Environmental Justice
By David Cañas and Mayela Sánchez* Science—or rather, the sciences—are the systems of knowledge that different social groups have developed over time to describe the phenomena of nature and society. Thanks to these knowledge systems, humanity has been able to find solutions to countless challenges, and today, more than ever, they must respond to global crises such as climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss.Understanding ecosystem processes is essential for protecting the environment and providing verifiable, replicable evidence of natural phenomena and the impacts of human activities. It also enables the development of innovative solutions to protect and restore the environment.For science to contribute meaningfully to environmental justice—a concept centered on ensuring that all people enjoy a healthy environment—scientific work must be grounded in the realities of the people and communities affected by environmental degradation, who live in or rely on ecosystems vulnerable to harm. It must also be built on empathy and respect for other forms of knowledge, while seeking to reduce social inequalities.At AIDA, science is a central part of our work, supporting and complementing the strategic litigation we pursue to protect a healthy environment in Latin America. Through science, we can demonstrate the environmental impacts caused by human activities and hold those responsible accountable. How Do We Do Science at AIDA? The AIDA scientific team is a multidisciplinary group of professionals specializing in diverse fields, including geography, geology, biology, marine biology, oceanography, anthropology, and economics.Among other tasks, they collect and develop scientific evidence to strengthen the legal arguments in the cases we support across our various lines of work—from protecting the ocean and other critical ecosystems to defending human rights, such as the right to health and access to safe drinking water.The strategic use of science has been central to AIDA’s work since the organization was founded more than 25 years ago. One early example is the case of La Oroya in Peru, where a group of residents sued the government for failing to protect them from decades of heavy metal pollution caused by a metallurgical complex.Then we did something that had not been done before: we connected existing studies with the lived reality of La Oroya. This approach allowed us to demonstrate the relevance of the case and establish a clear link between pollution and its impact on the health of the city’s residents. Our analysis, compiled in the report La Oroya Cannot Wait, served to build the legal case and formulate proposals to the Peruvian government for corrective and preventive measures to address the problem. In 2024, in a decision that set a historic precedent for state oversight of industrial pollution, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held the Peruvian state responsible and ordered it to adopt comprehensive reparations measures. Among the scientific team’s more recent contributions is a geospatial analysis of the Salar del Hombre Muerto in the Argentine provinces of Catamarca and Salta. Using maps and satellite imagery, the team documented water loss in this ecosystem caused by lithium mining.Another example is the expert report on solid waste pollution in the tributaries of the Motagua River in Guatemala, in which we recorded and characterized illegal dumps along the banks of the Chinautla River. This work enabled the affected communities to gather the evidence needed for the lawsuit they filed against the municipality of Chinautla for failing to address the contamination of rivers and soil caused by inadequate solid waste management. The Right to Science When science serves social and environmental justice, its benefits extend to everyone. This purpose was recently upheld by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its Advisory Opinion 32, which recognizes the “right to science” as the right of all people to enjoy the benefits of scientific and technological progress, as well as to have opportunities to contribute to scientific activity without discrimination.The Court also recognized indigenous, traditional, and local knowledge as equally valid forms of knowledge. This acknowledges how the deep understanding that indigenous peoples and local communities have of their environment—their worldview based on respect and interdependence, and their spiritual connection to nature—has been fundamental to ecosystem conservation.As an organization that uses science as a tool for environmental protection, we believe in a science that embodies these principles: one built on dialogue between different forms of knowledge, whose benefits reach all people, and which contributes to the socio-ecological transformation the planet urgently needs. *David Cañas is AIDA's Interim Director of Science; Mayela Sánchez is our digital community specialist.
Read more
A Practical Toolkit for Using Advisory Opinion 32/25 in Climate Justice Work
READ AND DOWNLOAD THE TOOLKIT The climate crisis is already affecting people and communities across Latin America and the Caribbean—damaging homes, livelihoods, ecosystems, and the fundamental right to a healthy environment.Advisory Opinion 32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the first of its kind to establish that both States and non-State actors—including companies—have clear and binding legal obligations to confront the causes and consequences of the climate emergency as a human rights issue.The historic interpretation, made public on July 3, 2025, gives human rights and environmental defenders a powerful new tool to demand action and justice.But how can this decision be used in real cases, campaigns, and policies today? A Legal Toolkit for Climate JusticeTo help answer that question, more than 20 experts and organizations—including AIDA—created a new publication analyzing the Court's decision with an emphasis on its practical applications.Climate Justice and Human Rights: Legal Standards and Tools from the Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion 32/25 contains 14 briefs, organized into four key areas:Foundational Rights and Knowledge;State and Corporate Obligations;Rights of Affected Peoples and Groups;Environmental Democracy and Remedies. Each brief contains:Context and background to situate the issue.A clear legal analysis of the Court’s key contributions.A critical look at how these standards can be applied in practice.Identification of opportunities to advance advocacy and litigation, as well as the gaps that remain. All content was rigorously peer-reviewed to ensure clarity and accuracy. Why Does This Matter Now?With OC-32/25, advocates and local communities across the region now have:Stronger grounds for litigation—incorporating human rights standards into climate-related cases.Legal leverage for corporate accountability—clarifying businesses’ duties to prevent and remedy harm.Arguments to expand protections for those most affected: children, women, Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, and environmental defenders.Policy tools to demand national climate actions aligned with human rights. In a region facing disproportionate climate risks, this decision shifts power toward communities and movements seeking justice.What You Can Do With This ToolkitThis publication is a tool to facilitate understanding of the Court's decision and promote concrete legal and political actions to protect communities and ecosystems from the climate emergency.It is addressed to individuals, communities, organizations, and networks working on the climate crisis and human rights issues, providing them with standards and practical recommendations to strengthen their litigation and advocacy strategies and efforts.In short, it's designed to help you incorporate strong legal arguments your work, including:Shaping urgent protection actions for frontline communities.Strengthening advocacy campaigns with legal backing.Informing climate legislation and public policy debates.Supporting community-led demands for adaptation and resilience.Integrating human rights standards into strategic litigation. Whether you are a lawyer, organizer, community leader, or policymaker—this toolkit can help you to turn legal standards into real protection and accountability. A Call to ActionLatin America has contributed least to global emissions but is among the most impacted by climate harms. OC-32/25 opens a new chapter: one where the defense of human rights is also the defense of our climate.Now is the time to use this decision to advance justice across the region.Together, we can transform this legal milestone into tangible protections for the people and places who need them most. READ AND DOWNLOAD THE TOOLKIT
Read more
Climate Justice and Human Rights: Legal Standards and Tools from the Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion 32/25
On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) delivered its Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on Climate Emergency and Human Rights (Advisory Opinion), marking a historic legal and political milestone in the global fight for climate justice. It is the first advisory opinion issued by an international court to find that both States and non-State actors, such as business enterprises, have obligations rooted in international human rights law to address the causes and consequences of the climate emergency.The Court articulates clear and binding obligations to act urgently in protecting the global climate system, preventing human rights violations resulting from its alteration, and securing climate reparations. The Advisory Opinion will guide climate litigation in local, regional, and national courts, and provide a foundation for climate policymaking, grounding local legislation and global negotiations not in voluntary commitments, but in legal duties. It will also serve as a testament to the lived experiences and expertise of those on the frontlines of climate harm and at the forefront of climate justice, affirming the peril that climate change represents for human rights and the promise of human rights-based climate action and remedy.This Advisory Opinion is not an isolated development but rather part of an unprecedented global movement for climate justice. It stands alongside the recent climate advisory opinions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and may be joined by one from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) in the near future. Together, these proceedings mark a decisive moment in consolidating a more comprehensive and human rights-based legal framework to confront the climate emergency— what the IACtHR deems an exceptional threat that endangers life on the planet and severely undermines the enjoyment of human rights. Moreover, these advisory opinions may help cut through the political inertia that has long stalled progress in international climate negotiations and national climate policymaking. This publication compiles fourteen thematic documents developed through the collaborative efforts of a coalition of environmental, human rights, and academic organizations, alongside experts who have actively participated in the advisory proceedings from the outset. The topics reflect the main thematic areas articulated by the Court in the Advisory Opinion and are organized into four sections: (i) Foundational Rights and Knowledge; (ii) State and Corporate Obligations; (iii) The Rights of Affected Peoples and Groups; and (iv) Environmental Democracy and Remedies.Each brief was prepared by a lead organization and subjected to rigorous peer review to ensure accuracy and consistency. Together, they provide an in-depth analysis of the Advisory Opinion’s key contributions, its legal and practical implications, and the gaps and opportunities this landmark decision presents across the selected thematic areas. They also present arguments, standards, and practical recommendations aimed at strengthening climate litigation and advocacy strategies.This series serves as a resource for legal and advocacy networks, enhancing understanding of the scope of the Court’s decision and encouraging legal and political action to advance the structural changes necessary for communities and ecosystems to achieve climate justice.Read and download the publication
Read more