Eco Oro v Colombia: the Santurbán páramo mining claim

The claim

Eco Oro's main asset was the Angostura gold and silver project in Colombia, held under Concession Contract 3452, according to the company ². Colombia's counsel, Latham & Watkins, describes the dispute as arising from a ban on mining in páramo ecosystems, which Eco Oro said destroyed its project ³. Eco Oro alleged breaches of the agreement's expropriation clause and of the minimum standard of treatment ³.

Eco Oro filed a notice of intent on 7 March 2016 and a request for arbitration on 8 December 2016 ¹. ICSID registered it on 29 December 2016, and the tribunal was constituted on 11 September 2017 ¹. Juliet Blanch was appointed President by the Secretary-General, Horacio A. Grigera Naón by Eco Oro and Philippe Sands by Colombia ¹.

The hearing on jurisdiction and merits took place in Washington, D.C. from 20 to 24 January 2020 ¹. Canada filed a non-disputing state party submission on 27 February 2020 ¹.

The 2021 decision on liability

On 9 September 2021 the tribunal issued its Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum, with partial dissents by Grigera Naón and Sands ¹. Eco Oro reports that the tribunal found Colombia breached Article 805 by failing to accord fair and equitable treatment to the Angostura investment ².

According to Latham & Watkins, a majority found the measures were not an expropriation, treating the páramo mining ban as a legitimate exercise of regulatory power to protect the environment ³. A different majority found that aspects of how Colombia implemented the ban breached the minimum standard, preventing Eco Oro from applying for an environmental licence ³. The tribunal said it lacked evidence to fix the loss and opened a further phase ³.

The 2024 award on damages

The parties made supplementary submissions from January to August 2022, and the tribunal closed the proceeding on 29 April 2024 ¹. It issued the award on 15 July 2024, with a dissenting opinion by Grigera Naón and a declaration on costs by Sands ¹. italaw lists the document as the Award on Damages ⁴.

Eco Oro states that it sought US$696 million plus interest at 6.6% a year, compounded semi-annually, and that the 2 to 1 majority awarded no damages ². Latham & Watkins states that the tribunal accepted Colombia's arguments that Eco Oro had not proven it would have obtained the licence absent the breach and that the lost opportunity to apply had no value ³.

Eco Oro called the award deeply flawed and said it contradicted the majority's earlier decision on liability ². The costs allocation is not confirmed in the sources opened for this page ^2,3.

Conflicting claim figures

Latham & Watkins, in a statement of 17 July 2024, describes Eco Oro's claim as US$1.1 billion ³. Eco Oro's own filing of 29 August 2024 gives US$696 million plus interest as the damages sought ². The sources do not explain the difference ^2,3.

Rectification and annulment

Eco Oro asked the tribunal to correct a clerical error on 29 August 2024, and ICSID registered the request on 30 August 2024 ^1,2. The tribunal issued its decision on rectification on 1 April 2025 ¹.

Eco Oro filed an application for annulment dated 30 July 2025, registered on 1 August 2025 ¹. The ad hoc committee, constituted on 4 November 2025, is Joongi Kim (President), Carmen Núñez-Lagos and N. Fernando Piérola Castro ¹. Eco Oro filed its memorial on 23 December 2025, Colombia its counter-memorial on 24 April 2026, and Eco Oro its reply on 14 August 2026 ¹. The proceeding was pending when checked ¹.