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
Mexican Supreme Court order to protect the Veracruz reef still unenforced
A port expansion project threatens the reef that hosts the greatest biodiversity of reef species in the western Gulf of Mexico. More than two years after the Supreme Court of Mexico ordered the adoption of several measures to protect the Veracruz Reef System and surrounding ecosystems affected by a port expansion project, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) still refuses to comply with the ruling, putting the largest reef in the Gulf of Mexico and its environmental benefits at risk. The environmental organizations Territorios Diversos para la Vida, A.C. (TerraVida), Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and Earthjustice denounce this failure to comply with the court order. The Veracruz Reef System—a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention since 2004—hosts the greatest biodiversity of reef species in the western Gulf of Mexico and is home to several critically endangered species such as the hawksbill sea turtle. The reefs are of high importance to the Veracruz community because they protect the coast from hurricanes and support local fishing and tourism. On February 9, 2022, residents of Veracruz won a victory before the Supreme Court in an amparo action filed to defend the Veracruz reef and other relevant ecosystems from the impacts of the port expansion. The highest court in Mexico determined that Semarnat violated the people of Veracruz’s right to a healthy environment after finding the project’s approval to be severely deficient. As a result, the Court ordered the revocation of the project’s permits, as well as a complete and holistic reevaluation of the project’s impacts, tasks that Semarnat has not yet complied with. "Today, the right to a healthy environment of the people living in the Veracruz-Boca del Río-Medellín metropolitan area continues to be violated because Semarnat, when re-evaluating the port expansion’s environmental impact after the court order, used outdated scientific information, failed to conduct a new evaluation, and allowed the port to again fragment its project by separating out the rock quarries and breakwaters," said Francisco Xavier Martínez Esponda, co-coordinator of TerraVida, the organization representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "In short, the project was never evaluated in a complete and holistic manner, as ordered by the Court, and therefore we remain unaware of the project’s true environmental risk." The environmental authority had authorized the project in a fragmented manner, dividing it into 15 sections, which it evaluated and approved independently, obscuring its full impact. Far from complying with the court’s order, on December 30, 2022, Semarnat's General Directorate of Environmental Impact and Risk conditionally reauthorized the Veracruz port’s expansion, but once again in a fragmented manner, without adequately assessing the full project using the best available science and without allowing for public participation, as the court required. In its decision, Mexico’s highest court also ruled that Semarnat was obligated, among other things, to seek international technical assistance to preserve the site within the framework of the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection and sustainable use of wetlands and coastal areas. To date, Semarnat has not yet finalized its request for international support. "In the absence of adequate and meaningful government efforts, there is a clear delay in obtaining expert advice from the Ramsar Convention," said Jorge Lu Palencia, an attorney with AIDA. "It is paradoxical that the expansion of the port has been authorized while still awaiting an independent technical evaluation, which, by its nature, should be prior to any decision that puts the ecosystem at risk." In addition, a scientific analysis prepared by independent researchers concluded that the mitigation measures proposed by the project promoter—the Veracruz Port System Administration—are not capable of avoiding the adverse consequences on the Veracruz reef because they were not based on a scientifically valid assessment of the project’s impacts. The scientific analysis shows that the environmental agency has not studied the potential impacts on the entirety of the reefs within the Veracruz Reef System National Park. In addition, dredging activities were carried out without considering the direct impact on the invertebrate species that inhabit the marine sediments. In view of the situation, the analysis recommends an external evaluation provided by a public research center. For these reasons, the organizations, at different times, have requested the Fifth District Court in Veracruz—in charge of supervising compliance with the judgment—to withhold from ruling on compliance with the judgment until these deficiencies are corrected. Press contacts Gabriela Sánchez, TerraVida, [email protected], +52 5511429935 Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107
Read more
Let's talk about NDCs, countries' commitments to the climate crisis
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are the plans developed by each country to address the climate crisis under the Paris Agreement. In them, countries commit to meeting targets for reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and making progress in adapting to the climate crisis, including - ideally - how they will finance these actions. The Paris Agreement, from which NDCs are derived, is a legally binding international agreement to combat climate change that entered into force in 2016 after being signed by 195 countries. As such, NDCs are the pathway to achieving the Agreement's goals, which are to: Ensure that the global average temperature increase is well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, above pre-industrial levels. Strengthen the capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Align financing with the needs of countries to achieve these goals. Each country is free to decide and commit in its NDCs how it will adjust to and alleviate the impacts of the crisis, based on its unique abilities and circumstances. In this sense, NDCs reinforce the agreed-upon global goals to address the climate crisis and contain specific commitments by countries to achieve them. They also provide short- and medium-term plans, with political backing, in key areas not only to stabilize the climate, but also to promote sustainable development and address other global crises such as pollution and biodiversity loss. Countries that have signed the Paris Agreement must submit their NDCs to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and update them every five years with increasingly ambitious targets based on their own capabilities. The Conferences of the Parties (COPs), the decision-making body of the Convention, will provide guidance to countries on how to meet these commitments. The first NDCs were presented in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was adopted, and their first update occurred in 2020. Next year, countries must update them again with targets for 2030 and 2035. Given their relevance for global climate action and the proximity of the second update, we will dig deeper into relevant aspects of the NDCs. The content of the NDCs In their NDCs, countries present a projected analysis of climate risks and impacts, as well as specific commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts. This results in quantitative or qualitative targets, deadlines and actions in priority sectors such as agriculture, water, biodiversity, forests, energy, risk management, industry, infrastructure, fisheries, health, transport, tourism and coastal zones, among others. Most countries include indicative budgets for achieving their targets, and many developing countries indicate the support they will need—financial, technology transfer, and/or capacity-building—to implement some or all their actions. In an NDC, targets that can be achieved without external support are called "unconditional" and those that depend on such support are called "conditional." Examples of NDC commitments include: Reduce 22 percent of its GHG emissions with its own resources by 2030 (unconditional mitigation target). Increase GHG reduction to 36 percent, but subject to a global agreement that includes technical cooperation and technology transfer, as well as access to low-cost financial resources (conditional mitigation target). Increase, by 2030, the adaptive capacity of the population to climate change and reduce the high vulnerability of 160 municipalities (unconditional adaptation goal). Progress on NDCs According to the World Resource Institute, current NDC emission reduction commitments submitted by countries fall far short of the ambition needed to meet the Paris Agreement's goals, as they would result in a temperature increase of between 2.5 and 2.9°C even if fully implemented. On a more optimistic note, data from the United Nations Development Program's Climate Promise initiative, which is supporting 85 percent of countries in the preparation of their NDCs, shows that the most vulnerable countries are making tangible progress in terms of ambition. For example, African countries are more committed than the global average to their climate resilience goals, increasing transparency efforts, and incorporating just transition, while the NDCs of Latin American and Caribbean countries show high levels of stakeholder engagement and accountability compared to the global average. Although most Latin American countries have plans to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to climate change and promote renewable energy in their NDCs, they remain dependent on oil, gas and coal, making their current climate commitments insufficient. Human rights and gender approach in NDCs While the global crisis is a threat to humanity, its impact is disproportionately felt by vulnerable populations who are less able to cope. This is the case for indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, as well as peasant and rural populations. Furthermore, according to the UN Human Rights Council, "women are particularly vulnerable to the risks associated with climate change due to gender discrimination, inequalities and gender roles that constrain them. One of the main negative impacts of the climate crisis on women is that it exacerbates the burden of unpaid domestic and care work, thereby deepening existing structural inequalities. Considering the above, it is essential that States incorporate the human rights framework and the gender perspective in the formulation of their climate policies, as recognized by various international instruments and treaties. This implies that States - in the elaboration, implementation and monitoring of NDCs - comply with their obligations to promote, respect, protect and fulfil human rights without discrimination and with a gender and intersectional approach, thereby strengthening the capacity of people and communities to act effectively in the face of the climate crisis, particularly those who have been historically marginalized. NDCs must also ensure the rights of future generations and the long-term integrity of ecosystems. What's next Next year's round of NDCs should focus on delivering on the commitments made at the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) to phase out fossil fuels in energy systems, set specific methane emission reduction targets, triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency. Given that this new round will cover targets up to 2035 - the midpoint between 2020, when countries began implementing their NDCs, and 2050, the year agreed for achieving the global goal of zero net emissions - the commitments presented are critical to aligning near-term actions with long-term goals. In the face of accelerating climate impacts with increasingly severe consequences, there is an urgent need for NDCs with sufficient ambition to contribute to deep emission cuts, enhanced adaptation, adequate attention to loss and damage already caused, and a significant increase in climate finance. Learn more To learn more about the progress of each country's climate commitments, you can: Consult the UNFCCC database, which contains the list of countries that have submitted their NDCs and the date they did so. Consult the information generated by the Climate Action Tracker, which tracks governments' climate actions and compares them to the Paris Agreement targets. Learn about NDC LAC, a digital tool that provides information on progress in implementing and updating NDCs in Latin America and the Caribbean. sources - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "Nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The Paris Agreement and nationally determined contributions". - United Nations, "All about NDCs." -World Resources Institute, "Next Generation NDCs. Accelerating climate action under the Paris Agreement". - United Nations Development Programme, “What are NDCs and how do they drive climate action?”. - Verónica Méndez Villa and Daniela García Aguirre, "Human Rights and Gender Perspective in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in Latin America," Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). - Inter Press Service, "Latin America arrives at COP28 with insufficient ambitions for its goals".
Read more
The Amazon: The complexities and challenges of its protection
By Vania Albarracín and José David Castilla* Protecting the Amazon is one of the region's greatest challenges. Facing it requires coordination and cooperation between states, peoples and organizations. In this context, the Pan-Amazonian Social Forum (FOSPA) was born out of the need to think about the Pan-Amazonian region - a region made up of the countries that have jurisdiction or territory in the Amazon basin, and/or have jungle coverage, and/or are part of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty (TCA) - in all its complexity. FOSPA is a regional space for articulation, reflection and exchange between indigenous peoples, social movements and civil society from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, French Guiana, Peru, Venezuela and Suriname. The reason why so many actors have come together around the Amazon is that it is a mega-diverse ecosystem and a global climate stabilizer, containing more than 13% of all known plant and animal species and releasing 6,600 km³ of freshwater annually into the Atlantic Ocean, representing between 16 and 20% of global runoff. It is therefore essential to consider the interconnections and interdependencies between the Amazon and other ecosystems in the region. Marine-coastal ecosystems, Andean wetlands, mountain ranges and forests are interconnected throughout the continent and should be recognized as part of a comprehensive conservation strategy. The Amazon region is facing serious problems of deforestation and ecosystem degradation, which have led to warnings of reaching the so-called point of no return. This refers to the loss of the ecological balance and climatic functions of the Amazon, which would have incalculable negative global repercussions. FOSPA holds biannual meetings in different cities and sub-regions of the Amazon to discuss the violations of human, environmental, territorial and natural rights that afflict the region, as well as to propose alternatives that come from the local communities and indigenous peoples that inhabit the region. The eleventh version of FOSPA was held from June 12 to 15 in the cities of Rurrenabaque and San Buenaventura, in the Amazon region of Bolivia. The meeting resulted in a joint declaration in defense of life, peoples and nature. AIDA participated in the meeting and we share below our assessment of the main agreements, the gaps in their implementation and what is missing to ensure the protection of the Amazon. The agreements 1. Mining threats The threats posed by mining to the Amazon region can be seen in two key issues: the promotion and impact of new extractivism (such as copper mining) and mercury contamination from gold mining. The meeting highlighted the need to ban the global trade of mercury and to develop multinational strategies to combat its use in gold mining, in accordance with the Minamata Convention. In addition, a biocultural approach to assessing the impacts of mining was advocated, recognizing the interrelationship between biodiversity and indigenous cultures, the fundamental role of women in preserving and reproducing life, and the participation of civil society in decision-making spaces, ensuring transparency and full disclosure. 2. An Amazon free of extractivism One of the main concerns of the communities, peoples and organizations that participated in the meeting is the presence of different types of extractivism in the Amazon region. They recognized that their rights are violated and threatened by hydrocarbon extraction and transportation projects, by the exploitation of transition minerals such as gold and copper, and by the implementation of public policies related to the energy transition. One of the most relevant proposals in this regard was to generate a multifactorial and plurinational declaration of the Amazon as a zone free of fossil fuels and mining, not only as a slogan, but as a political, social and environmental horizon for the protection of life in all its forms. This proposal must be evaluated in the context of the different tensions and social realities of the region. 3. Guarantees for a just and popular energy transition A just and popular energy transition was another relevant point of the meeting. Indigenous communities and peoples raised the need to decolonize the concept of energy transition and propose a process that comes from them, who have historically suffered the impacts of extractivism. The call was for an energy transition that remediates these impacts and restores affected ecosystems. Achieving this goal requires responsible project closure and exit processes, as well as transition processes that incorporate the highest human rights standards and the perspectives of affected communities. Practical gaps 1. Insufficient commitment to regional cooperation The eleventh version of the FOSPA revealed a lack of political commitment on the part of the member governments of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO), reflected in the absence of firm agreements and mechanisms for effective participation. This favors extractivist policies and weakens the protection of indigenous and environmental rights. It is essential that ACTO review and strengthen its structures to ensure that international commitments are implemented and that pan-Amazonian communities play an active and decisive role in policy formulation. 2. Exclusion of indigenous peoples and communities from the decision-making process The exclusion of indigenous peoples and indigenous Amazonian communities from decision-making processes is evident. This results in policies and agreements that do not reflect their needs and realities. A clear example of this is the Conferences of the Parties (COP) on climate change and biodiversity, where indigenous representation is not real or substantive, resulting in a failure to value their ancestral knowledge and fundamental role in biodiversity and climate protection. 3. Absence of a binding mechanism The implementation of agreements reached in forums such as FOSPA has been inadequate and, in many cases, non-existent. This has been one of the main demands of indigenous peoples and communities. Due to the non-binding nature of FOSPA and its lack of relevance to the state perspective, many of the demands remain in the realm of declarations. Although the FOSPA is essential for pan-Amazonian integration and the construction of alternatives from the territories, a joint effort is needed to strengthen its link with decision-makers, to promote the active participation of communities and to turn the forum into a platform for mobilization and action. The road ahead The next FOSPA meeting will take place in two years, but the effective protection of the Pan-Amazon region cannot wait. In the short term, it is necessary to take concrete actions to mitigate the impacts on the ecosystem and to adopt regional cooperation measures to ensure its integral and transboundary protection. Among other things, it is necessary and urgent: Achieve a regional consensus and design a plan to guarantee the declaration of the Amazon as a zone free of fossil fuels and all forms of extractivism. Coordinate an Andean-Amazonian and coastal articulation for the integral defense of territories, demanding concrete actions against mining with a biocultural approach. Demand regulatory frameworks for environmental and human rights due diligence in the Amazonian countries and in the countries of origin of the companies, in order to oblige them to comply with international standards in these two areas. Urge states to apply the principles of prevention and precaution and to raise their standards for projects that may affect the Amazon. Develop a mechanism for the closure and phasing out of fossil fuel extraction projects in the Amazon. Guarantee the active, representative and binding participation of Pan-Amazonian communities and peoples in international forums where decisions are made about nature, such as the next UN Conference on Biodiversity (COP16 in Colombia) and the next UN Conferences on Climate Change (COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP30 in Brazil). *Vania Albarracín Silva is an attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program and José David Castilla Parra is an attorney with Human Rights and Environment Program.
Read more