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
Changing the way we approach large dams
Cigarettes once served to cure cough; lead-based makeup was fashionable; and DDT, a highly toxic insecticide, was used in gardens where children played. At the time, little was known of their grave impacts on health and the environment. These facts may shock us now, but once they were normal. Cigarettes, lead, and DDT were widely believed to be more beneficial than harmful to humanity. Thanks to science, we learned of their serious health and environmental impacts. We’re learning the same now about large dams. A photograph of a dam surrounded by trees is as misleading as the doctor-approved cigarette ads once were. In the last decade, we’ve seen that the damage dams do to communities and ecosystems is far greater than the benefits they provide. Recently, an academic study confirmed something even more worrying: large dams aggravate climate change. At the end of 2016, researchers from Washington State University (WSU) concluded that reservoirs around the world, not just those in tropical areas, generate 1.3 percent of the total greenhouse gases produced by mankind. Dams, they found, are an “underestimated” source of contaminating emissions, particularly methane, a pollutant 34 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. These findings have not yet been properly absorbed. Large dams continue to be funded and promoted as clean energy. Some countries boast nearly 100 percent renewable energy, yet reports show that at least half of that is hydroelectric energy, produced primarily by large dams. Violating human rights Even before WSU’s study was made public, the damage large dams do to communities and the environment was well documented. Dams disrupt traditional lifestyles, and affected communities are forced to adapt to new environmental conditions, such as altered river flow and species migration. Many communities have also been victims of forced displacement and fall into poverty as a result. In the Brazilian Amazon, the Belo Monte Dam provides a prime example of the ways dams cause negative impacts on both people and the environment. At AIDA, we’ve worked hand-in-hand with the indigenous and river communities of the Xingu River Basin, who have seen the trees fall around them, the red earth spread like a stain across their forest, the fish disappear from their rivers, and their small islands submerged. For those living in Altamira, the city nearest the dam, living conditions also worsened significantly, with increased violence, substance abuse, and prostitution. This story has been repeated thousands of times around the world. According to International Rivers, 57 thousand large dams had been built by 2015, disrupting more than half of the world’s rivers and causing the displacement of at least 40 million people. What can we do? Although the WSU study may surprise governments and corporations that promote the construction of large dams, for the health of the planet the trend must be stopped. Environmentally friendly alternatives exist, which do not imply the same social, economic and climatic impacts as dams. Hope can be found in the Brazilian Amazon with the Munduruku tribe. Last year, their long fight paid off with the cancellation of a large dam project on the Tapajós River, the sacred waterway on which their lifestyle depends. The decision to cancel the dam was backed with evidence of the impacts dams have on communities and ecosystems, exemplified by the case of Belo Monte. Recently, the Munduruku gathered to discuss and find solutions for the threats they continue to face as development rages in the Amazon. Solutions include the decentralization of energy sources, the promotion of small-scale projects, and solar and geothermal energy, all of which must be accompanied by adequate community-consultation processes. But they must be studied on a case-by-case basis and according to available resources, as what’s best for one community may not be best for another. Funding must carefully evaluate which projects to support, analyzing in detail the potential socio-environmental impacts. It may sound like people are making all the wrong decisions, but now is no time to be discouraged. We have the scientific information we need to care for our planet. Societal changes prove that we can change our actions to prioritize our health. Why can’t we do the same for the health of our planet? In the last several decades, the number of smokers has drastically decreased, we’ve stopped lacing makeup and other products with lead, and DDT has been regulated. In terms of large dams, the solution lies in re-thinking the way we produce energy and prioritizing the preservation of our free-flowing rivers.
Read more
Letter to Green Climate Fund Board and Advisors: Concern regarding the use of GCF resources to support large hydropower
We write to express our concern regarding the use of GCF resources to support large hydropower in general, and in particular the following proposals in the GCF pipeline: Qairokkum Hydropower Rehabilitation, Tajikistan Upper Trishuli-1, Nepal Tina River Hydro Project, Solomon Islands Large hydropower is a non-innovative, last-century technology with dubious climate mitigation benefits and a long track record of exceedingly high financial, environmental, and social costs. Supporting such proposals would not be consistent with the Fund’s goal, to promote a paradigm shift toward lowemission, climate resilient development, in the context of sustainable development. Further, large hydropower projects would not meet the GCF’s selection criteria related to impact, paradigm shift potential, sustainable development, and efficiency and effectiveness. The reasons why the GCF should not support large hydropower are described in the annex, and briefly summarized here: Large dams are vulnerable to climate change: more frequent droughts make them inefficient and increased rainfall reduces their lifespan. Large dams exacerbate climate change: considerable amounts of greenhouse gasses, notably methane (30 times more potent than CO2), are emitted from reservoirs; and their construction damages carbon sinks, including forests and rivers. Large dams harm biodiversity, which in turn impairs communities’ capacity to adapt to a changing climate. Large dams can negatively affect local communities by impoverishing them, breaking social networks, and negatively affecting livelihoods and cultures. Large dams can become dangerous: climate change-related extreme weather events and earthquakes can cause dams to fail, jeopardizing lives and property downstream. Large dams are not economical and are ill suited to address urgent energy needs: recent studies clearly demonstrate that large dams typically suffer significant cost and time overruns. Better energy options are widely available and the GCF should play a fundamental role in promoting them.
Read moreLetter to Green Climate Fund Board and Advisors: Concern regarding the use of GCF resources to support large hydropower
We write to express our concern regarding the use of GCF resources to support large hydropower in general, and in particular the following proposals in the GCF pipeline: Qairokkum Hydropower Rehabilitation, Tajikistan Upper Trishuli-1, Nepal Tina River Hydro Project, Solomon Islands Large hydropower is a non-innovative, last-century technology with dubious climate mitigation benefits and a long track record of exceedingly high financial, environmental, and social costs. Supporting such proposals would not be consistent with the Fund’s goal, to promote a paradigm shift toward lowemission, climate resilient development, in the context of sustainable development. Further, large hydropower projects would not meet the GCF’s selection criteria related to impact, paradigm shift potential, sustainable development, and efficiency and effectiveness. The reasons why the GCF should not support large hydropower are described in the annex, and briefly summarized here: Large dams are vulnerable to climate change: more frequent droughts make them inefficient and increased rainfall reduces their lifespan. Large dams exacerbate climate change: considerable amounts of greenhouse gasses, notably methane (30 times more potent than CO2), are emitted from reservoirs; and their construction damages carbon sinks, including forests and rivers. Large dams harm biodiversity, which in turn impairs communities’ capacity to adapt to a changing climate. Large dams can negatively affect local communities by impoverishing them, breaking social networks, and negatively affecting livelihoods and cultures. Large dams can become dangerous: climate change-related extreme weather events and earthquakes can cause dams to fail, jeopardizing lives and property downstream. Large dams are not economical and are ill suited to address urgent energy needs: recent studies clearly demonstrate that large dams typically suffer significant cost and time overruns. Better energy options are widely available and the GCF should play a fundamental role in promoting them.
Read more