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
Litigation to promote (and accelerate) climate action
In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its first assessment report. It was the first time that the international scientific community officially and accurately demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions, produced by human activities, would lead to additional warming of the planet's surface, with global consequences. Over more than two decades of international climate negotiations and agreements to drastically reduce emissions, progress has been slow. And so, climate litigation has become a tool increasingly used by organizations and communities to hold governments and companies accountable for the climate crisis. Legal cases have forced nations to adopt more concrete and ambitious measures to curb emissions and mitigate the human rights impacts of the climate crisis. In May, a Dutch court set a landmark precedent when it ordered multinational oil company Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent over less than 10 years, marking a global environmental victory. "This judgment has been of great significance because Shell is one of the companies that most contributes to climate change," says Verónica Méndez, an attorney with AIDA's Climate Change Program. AIDA's legal and scientific team provides legal support and technical information to organizations and communities initiating climate litigation against governments and companies in Latin America. AIDA also developed a climate litigation platform, which systematizes key information on the cases developed in the region. The mapping of data is being done collaboratively with other organizations and will allow for the strengthening of joint litigation strategies. A brief overview of climate litigation Climate litigation includes cases that raise issues related to the legal obligations that states and companies have in relation to the climate crisis. They are brought before judicial bodies to seek, among other things, the enforcement of existing climate laws; an expansion in the scope of other laws to address climate change; recognition of the relationship between fundamental human rights and the impacts of the climate crisis; and compensation for loss and damage. This, according to a report prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with the Sabine Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University (New York), which assesses the global situation of this type of litigation. According to the report, as of July 1, 2020, at least 1,550 climate litigations have been registered in 38 countries, almost doubling the number of cases registered in 24 countries in 2017. The United States leads the list where the most litigation has been filed (1,200), followed by Australia (97), the United Kingdom (58) and the European Union (55). Climate lawsuits are also booming in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Chile. To date, AIDA has analyzed nearly 50 cases that will form part of the region's climate litigation platform. Challenges and opportunities in climate litigation While climate litigation seeks to achieve justice for communities affected by the impacts of the climate crisis, one of its great challenges lies the implementation of decisions. In 2018, a historic judgement ruled in favor of 25 young Colombians, who sued the government for deforestation in the Amazon and its direct link to the violation of the right to a healthy environment for future generations. This lawsuit is considered a climate litigation due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation. In it, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized the Colombian Amazon as an entity subject to rights and ordered the creation of an action plan to reduce deforestation, and the adoption of an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon. However, the conclusions of follow-up reports on the case indicate that, to date, there has not been full compliance with the ruling. "A judgment does not end with the sentence,” explains Méndez. “It must be followed up with to ensure compliance." Demonstrating that corporations and governments have an enormous responsibility in the fight against the climate crisis not only requires scientific information that proves that the emissions generated or allowed contribute to climate change. It requires linking the facts to human rights to provide more reasons for the courts to act and issue a favorable ruling. "A purely scientific climate change litigation has less chance of success," Méndez emphasizes. "It’s strategic to link a case to direct impacts on the human rights of those people who will be disproportionately affected." According to a report by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the outlook for climate demands in Latin America is encouraging because governments are making more commitments to climate action and, in addition, climate science is establishing direct links between extreme weather events and climate change. The coming together of communities and environmental organizations is crucial in the movement to accelerate strong policies and actions that will ensure a sustainable, just transformation for both people and the environment. Visit the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean
Read moreLitigation to promote (and accelerate) climate action
In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its first assessment report. It was the first time that the international scientific community officially and accurately demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions, produced by human activities, would lead to additional warming of the planet's surface, with global consequences. Over more than two decades of international climate negotiations and agreements to drastically reduce emissions, progress has been slow. And so, climate litigation has become a tool increasingly used by organizations and communities to hold governments and companies accountable for the climate crisis. Legal cases have forced nations to adopt more concrete and ambitious measures to curb emissions and mitigate the human rights impacts of the climate crisis. In May, a Dutch court set a landmark precedent when it ordered multinational oil company Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent over less than 10 years, marking a global environmental victory. "This judgment has been of great significance because Shell is one of the companies that most contributes to climate change," says Verónica Méndez, an attorney with AIDA's Climate Change Program. AIDA's legal and scientific team provides legal support and technical information to organizations and communities initiating climate litigation against governments and companies in Latin America. AIDA also developed a climate litigation platform, which systematizes key information on the cases developed in the region. The mapping of data is being done collaboratively with other organizations and will allow for the strengthening of joint litigation strategies. A brief overview of climate litigation Climate litigation includes cases that raise issues related to the legal obligations that states and companies have in relation to the climate crisis. They are brought before judicial bodies to seek, among other things, the enforcement of existing climate laws; an expansion in the scope of other laws to address climate change; recognition of the relationship between fundamental human rights and the impacts of the climate crisis; and compensation for loss and damage. This, according to a report prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with the Sabine Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University (New York), which assesses the global situation of this type of litigation. According to the report, as of July 1, 2020, at least 1,550 climate litigations have been registered in 38 countries, almost doubling the number of cases registered in 24 countries in 2017. The United States leads the list where the most litigation has been filed (1,200), followed by Australia (97), the United Kingdom (58) and the European Union (55). Climate lawsuits are also booming in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Chile. To date, AIDA has analyzed nearly 50 cases that will form part of the region's climate litigation platform. Challenges and opportunities in climate litigation While climate litigation seeks to achieve justice for communities affected by the impacts of the climate crisis, one of its great challenges lies the implementation of decisions. In 2018, a historic judgement ruled in favor of 25 young Colombians, who sued the government for deforestation in the Amazon and its direct link to the violation of the right to a healthy environment for future generations. This lawsuit is considered a climate litigation due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation. In it, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized the Colombian Amazon as an entity subject to rights and ordered the creation of an action plan to reduce deforestation, and the adoption of an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon. However, the conclusions of follow-up reports on the case indicate that, to date, there has not been full compliance with the ruling. "A judgment does not end with the sentence,” explains Méndez. “It must be followed up with to ensure compliance." Demonstrating that corporations and governments have an enormous responsibility in the fight against the climate crisis not only requires scientific information that proves that the emissions generated or allowed contribute to climate change. It requires linking the facts to human rights to provide more reasons for the courts to act and issue a favorable ruling. "A purely scientific climate change litigation has less chance of success," Méndez emphasizes. "It’s strategic to link a case to direct impacts on the human rights of those people who will be disproportionately affected." According to a report by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the outlook for climate demands in Latin America is encouraging because governments are making more commitments to climate action and, in addition, climate science is establishing direct links between extreme weather events and climate change. The coming together of communities and environmental organizations is crucial in the movement to accelerate strong policies and actions that will ensure a sustainable, just transformation for both people and the environment. Visit the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean
Read more
Reflections for a Bolivia free of fracking
Text written as part of the series #TRANSFORMAR LA CRISIS, Tomo II. Crisis Ecológica, extractivismo y poblaciones vulnerables by the foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in Bolivia, to be published soon. It all began with a study, published in 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, reporting the existence of large quantities of unconventional hydrocarbons in Bolivia. The study created considerable expectations in the Andean Nation. Given the gradual depletion of conventional oil and gas deposits, fracking has since become a latent threat. Fracking is a risky, costly and highly polluting technique. As a region, Latin America is home to roughly seven thousand fracking wells. The technique’s advance—as well as related public policies, regulations and social opposition—has commonalities across the region, including its affects on protected areas and on urban, rural and indigenous populations. So far, Bolivia remains free from fracking. But without an intentional political decision to avoid it, and without a population better informed about its effects, fracking could soon become a reality here as well. The risks of fracking in Bolivia The implementation of fracking is a latent threat in Bolivia because of the nation’s significant dependence on fossil fuels. In 2013, the state-owned company YPFB signed a cooperative agreement with YPF Argentina to study the potential of unconventional hydrocarbons. It also asked the operating companies to extract samples from the Los Monos geological formation in the Chaco region. That same year, YPFB Chaco (a subsidiary of YPFB), with the support of Halliburton, carried out a "mini-fracture" in the Ingre X-2 well, part of the Tupambi formation, in Chuquisaca. This operation would have allowed for the discovery of tight sand oil. Based on this discovery, YPFB Chaco had proposed to perform a complete fracture of the reservoir in 2014. It is unknown if this occurred because, in the years following, YPFB stopped generating public information on the project. In 2018, Canadian company CanCambria Energy Corp. signed a study agreement with YPFB, the prelude to an exploration/exploitation contract, to determine the unconventional gas potential at Miraflores, also in Chuquisaca. CanCambria's preliminary data points to the possible existence of a mega-field in the area, whose potential gas resources would be comparable to those of Argentina’s Vaca Muerta. The Canadian firm has prepared a proposal to extract gas by drilling 800 wells over 202 square kilometers in the Miraflores area, in the municipality of Macharetí. Miraflores is located in the Heroes del Chaco Municipal Protected Area and is part of the Yrenda Toba Tarijeño Aquifer System, which Bolivia shares with Paraguay and Argentina. The people living in Macharetí, including Guaraní indigenous communities, were shocked to receive news of the project. The alarm raised by the possibility of fracking in this territory led those who live there to learn about the consequences of the technique, particularly in relation to the use and contamination of immense quantities of water. As a direct result, Macharetí included in its autonomous statute the prohibition of fracking in its territory, intensifying the controversy over the technique’s development in the area. Between extreme energy and an energy transition In the face of this controversy over fracking, two paths lay before us: on the first, is the deepening of the extractivist model and the generation of highly polluting energy, with serious and irreversible negative impacts on Mother Earth and local populations; on the second, is a just and democratic energy transition, which implies the decommodification of energy, a change in the energy matrix, and a shift in the development paradigm. Bolivia, and Latin America as a region, need to profoundly transform the way energy is produced; the new system should be formed with a long-term vision and based on the respect for human rights and the protection of nature. The development of fracking, far from initiating any transition, goes against this trend because it continues to promote a polluting, risky and costly energy system. It is based on dependence on non-renewable energy sources with negative impacts on the territories, inequity and lack of citizen participation in the construction of energy policies. Instead, Bolivia must bet on a socially just, economically viable and ecologically sustainable energy transition. "Bolivia should not move towards the implementation of fracking in its territory because it represents one of the greatest risks to its ecosystems, resources and populations," says Jorge Campanini, researcher at the Center for Documentation and Information Bolivia (CEDIB). "It is urgent to generate solid policies that declare a moratorium or indefinite ban on this technique throughout the country". The experience of Latin American countries that have bet on fracking clearly demonstrates the economic, environmental and social impacts of this technique. In this context, many organizations, communities and peoples have organized to confront the threat. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic forces us to reflect on the future of fossil fuels, and the need for a just energy transition. Instead of considering fracking as an easy way to create jobs in difficult times, we must confront the health, economic and climate crises together. It’s time to think of resilient recovery, and thus an energy system that is not based on fracking. One idea usually associated with transition is the change of the energy matrix, yet, while necessary, the rapid and effective de-fossilization of that matrix is not enough. The energy transition must be comprehensive and incorporate environmental, economic and social dimensions so that it is also just and democratic. That’s why it’s so important that governments address the issue with a systemic approach.
Read more