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
Climate initiatives must not include large hydropower projects – NGOs
In a global manifesto released today, a coalition of more than 300 civil society organizations[i] from 53 countries called on governments and financiers at the Paris climate talks to keep large hydropower projects out of climate initiatives such as the Clean Development Mechanism, the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, and green bonds. Large hydropower projects emit massive amounts of methane, make water and energy systems more vulnerable to climate change, and cause severe damage to critical ecosystems and local communities. Including them in climate initiatives crowds out support for true climate solutions such as wind and solar power which have become readily available, can be built more quickly than large dams and have a smaller social and environmental footprint. “Particularly in tropical regions, hydropower reservoirs emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases, comparable to the climate impact of the aviation sector”, said Peter Bosshard, interim Executive Director of International Rivers. “For environmental, social and economic reasons, large hydropower projects are a false solution to climate change.” “Large hydropower projects have serious impacts on local communities and often violate the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, cultural integrity and free, prior informed consent”, said Joan Carling, Secretary General of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP). “The resistance of dam-affected communities has often been met with egregious human rights violations.” “Hydropower dams make water and energy systems more vulnerable to climate change,” said Himanshu Thakkar, the founder of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP). “Dam building has exacerbated flood disasters in fragile mountain areas. At the same time more extreme droughts increase the economic risks of hydropower, and have greatly affected countries that depend on hydropower dams for most of their electricity.” “Wind and solar power have become readily available and financially competitive, and have overtaken large hydropower in the addition of new capacity,” said Astrid Puentes, co-Executive Director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “The countries of the global South should leapfrog obsolete dam projects and promote energy solutions that are gentle to our climate, our environment and the people that depend on it.” Background Large hydropower projects are often propagated as a “clean and green” source of electricity by international financial institutions, national governments and other actors. They greatly benefit from instruments meant to address climate change, including carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), credits from the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, and special financial terms from export credit agencies and green bonds. The dam industry advocates that large hydropower projects be funded by the Green Climate Fund, and many governments boost them as a response to climate change through national initiatives. For example, at least twelve governments with major hydropower sectors have included an expansion of hydropower generation in their reports on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Support from climate initiatives is one of the main reasons why more than 3,700 hydropower dams are currently planned and under construction around the world. Further information The civil society manifesto, Ten Reasons Why Climate Initiatives Should Not Include Large Hydropower Projects, is available here. The new video, A Wrong Climate for Damming Rivers, is available at https://youtu.be/UnG_b6egjFk. The following launch events for the manifesto and video will be held in Paris this week: Saturday, December 5th, 12 pm: Press Conference with indigenous leaders and human rights defenders at the International Rights of Nature Tribunal (Maison des Métallos, 94 Rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud, 75011). December 5th, 6 pm - The manifesto and video will be presented at event hosted by the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation (Galerie Thaddaeus Ropac Paris Pantin, Salzburg, 69, Avenue Du Géneral Lecler, 93500, Pantin). Journalists interested in attending should send a request via e-mail by end-of-day December 3rd to: [email protected]. [i] Sponsors: Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente, Amazon Watch, Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation, Carbon Market Watch, France Liberte, International Rivers, Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement International, Oxfam International, REDLAR, Ríos Vivos, Rivers Without Boundaries; South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People and Urgewald.
Read moreClimate initiatives must not include large hydropower projects – NGOs
In a global manifesto released today, a coalition of more than 300 civil society organizations[i] from 53 countries called on governments and financiers at the Paris climate talks to keep large hydropower projects out of climate initiatives such as the Clean Development Mechanism, the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, and green bonds. Large hydropower projects emit massive amounts of methane, make water and energy systems more vulnerable to climate change, and cause severe damage to critical ecosystems and local communities. Including them in climate initiatives crowds out support for true climate solutions such as wind and solar power which have become readily available, can be built more quickly than large dams and have a smaller social and environmental footprint. “Particularly in tropical regions, hydropower reservoirs emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases, comparable to the climate impact of the aviation sector”, said Peter Bosshard, interim Executive Director of International Rivers. “For environmental, social and economic reasons, large hydropower projects are a false solution to climate change.” “Large hydropower projects have serious impacts on local communities and often violate the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, cultural integrity and free, prior informed consent”, said Joan Carling, Secretary General of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP). “The resistance of dam-affected communities has often been met with egregious human rights violations.” “Hydropower dams make water and energy systems more vulnerable to climate change,” said Himanshu Thakkar, the founder of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP). “Dam building has exacerbated flood disasters in fragile mountain areas. At the same time more extreme droughts increase the economic risks of hydropower, and have greatly affected countries that depend on hydropower dams for most of their electricity.” “Wind and solar power have become readily available and financially competitive, and have overtaken large hydropower in the addition of new capacity,” said Astrid Puentes, co-Executive Director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “The countries of the global South should leapfrog obsolete dam projects and promote energy solutions that are gentle to our climate, our environment and the people that depend on it.” Background Large hydropower projects are often propagated as a “clean and green” source of electricity by international financial institutions, national governments and other actors. They greatly benefit from instruments meant to address climate change, including carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), credits from the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, and special financial terms from export credit agencies and green bonds. The dam industry advocates that large hydropower projects be funded by the Green Climate Fund, and many governments boost them as a response to climate change through national initiatives. For example, at least twelve governments with major hydropower sectors have included an expansion of hydropower generation in their reports on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Support from climate initiatives is one of the main reasons why more than 3,700 hydropower dams are currently planned and under construction around the world. Further information The civil society manifesto, Ten Reasons Why Climate Initiatives Should Not Include Large Hydropower Projects, is available here. The new video, A Wrong Climate for Damming Rivers, is available at https://youtu.be/UnG_b6egjFk. The following launch events for the manifesto and video will be held in Paris this week: Saturday, December 5th, 12 pm: Press Conference with indigenous leaders and human rights defenders at the International Rights of Nature Tribunal (Maison des Métallos, 94 Rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud, 75011). December 5th, 6 pm - The manifesto and video will be presented at event hosted by the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation (Galerie Thaddaeus Ropac Paris Pantin, Salzburg, 69, Avenue Du Géneral Lecler, 93500, Pantin). Journalists interested in attending should send a request via e-mail by end-of-day December 3rd to: [email protected]. [i] Sponsors: Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente, Amazon Watch, Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation, Carbon Market Watch, France Liberte, International Rivers, Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement International, Oxfam International, REDLAR, Ríos Vivos, Rivers Without Boundaries; South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People and Urgewald.
Read moreIf we want to cool the planet, fracking must be banned
Statement from the Latin American Alliance On Fracking at COP21: The goal of the 21st Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is to reach an effective agreement that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level consistent with both the rights and opportunities of present and future generations, and the conservation of the environment. This requires national policies and actions consistent with international commitments on climate change and human rights, and which respect the Sustainable Development Goals. Fracking to extract unconventional hydrocarbons is contrary to all of the above commitments, and will actually increase the impacts of climate change – which is why the controversial practice must be banned. During the cycle of extracting, processing, storing, transferring and distributing unconventional hydrocarbons, methane gas – 87 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as an agent of global warming – is released in the atmosphere. The release of methane contributes to global warming at a time when we should be taking any measures necessary to stop it: “within a period of 20 years, the footprint of natural gas released from shale deposits is worse than that of carbon or oil.”[1] If we continue with the concept of development based on the exploitation of fossil fuels, without first taking into account the rights and needs of communities, it will be impossible to conserve a planet that upholds the well being of present and future generations. The unconventional hydrocarbons extracted from the earth by fracking should not be considered transition or clean energies, since both greenhouse gas emissions, and the risks and damages posed to the environment and public health, are very high.[2] Fracking in Latin America We believe that the experience of fracking in Latin America should stimulate global discussion. Despite the particularities with which fracking has advanced on the continent, many similarities have emerged between cases in Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia and Argentina. Fracking is advancing blindly in Latin America. The basic human rights of affected communities are being ignored, including: the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent; the right to participation and social control; and the right to information.[3] Governments of the region have failed to apply the precautionary principle, which should be applied considering the serious risks fracking creates for the health of people and the environment, and the uncertainty surrounding the scope and extent of damage it can cause. National laws have been modified based on corporate demands to open the door to the exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking. The Mexican energy reform (2013) and the new law on hydrocarbons in Argentina (2014) are clear examples of this. Fracking in the region has developed without any comprehensive, long-term studies on the risks and damages it causes to the health of people and the environment. With the exception of Mexico, the countries of the region lack their own studies of unconventional hydrocarbon reserves that could verify the figures estimated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Across the continent, fracking has advanced on indigenous and rural communities, urban neighborhoods and even Natural Protected Areas. It has resulted in the displacement of people and productive activities such a livestock and agriculture, whose coexistence with the technique is impossible.[4] In parallel, complaints and damages have multiplied in response to fires, spills, and explosions; the toxic pollution of water, air and soil; the loss of radioactive substances into wells; and the mismanagement of water.[5] Throughout Latin America, the rejection of fracking has grown. Proof lies in the national and international networks of opposition; the more than 50 communities and municipalities that have banned fracking within their territories in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Uruguay;[6] and the suspension of fracking operations through judicial actions in Brazil and Argentina. States should make commitments against fracking In the framework of the Paris Climate Talks, we urge Member States of the Convention to: Sign a binding agreement that efficiently and effectively reduces greenhouse gases to levels compatible with the rights and opportunities of present and future generations, and conservation of the environment. Apply the precautionary principle as a legal and ethical imperative of action to address high-risk situations in a context of scientific uncertainty, in this case banning fracking in countries where it has been initiated or interest in it shown. Conduct objective and independent scientific studies about the risks and impacts of fracking on health, the environment and productive processes, with a long-term goal of ensuring the rights of present and future generations. Where impacts have been confirmed, States should guarantee that companies take responsibility for the damages done and, primarily, for the restoration of the affected environment, even in cases where their contract has ended. Strengthen a policy of energy diversification and the reduced rationalization of energy consumption, which includes the promotion of renewable energies and discourages the extraction of fossil fuels, consistent with principles and rights related to transparency, participation and free, prior and informed consent. On behalf of the Latin American Alliance On Fracking, we warn of the risks and severe damage that the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons can cause to the people and environment of our countries. Fracking is an experimental technique and neither governments nor companies should conduct experiments at such a high risk to the life and health of people and the environment. [1] Food and Water Watch, “The Urgent Case for a Ban on Fracking,” February 2015, http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/urgent_case_for_ban_on_fracking.pdf and Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea, “Should fracking stop?” in: Nature, September 15, 2011, vol. 477, p. 272. http://www2.cce.cornell.edu/naturalgasdev/documents/pdfs/howarth%20nature.pdf [2] Robert Howarth “A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas,” April 2014, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.35/pdf [3]Alianza Latinoamericana frente al Fracking, “Avance ciego del fracking en América Latina” (infographic), September 2015, http://www.opsur.org.ar/blog/2015/09/04/mapa-del-fracking-en-america-latina-2/ [4] OPSur “Alto Valle Perforado” (Ed. Jinete Insomne, 2015) [5] Pablo Bertinat et al; “20 Mitos y Realidades del Fracking,” 2014, http://www.rosalux.org.ec/attachments/article/819/20_Mitos_LIBRO_FRL_PRINT.pdf [6] Alianza Latinoamericana frente al Fracking, “Avance ciego del fracking en América Latina” (infographic), September 2015, http://www.opsur.org.ar/blog/2015/09/04/mapa-del-fracking-en-america-latina-2/
Read more