“In this regard, the majority of the tribunal accepts that Colombia may be benefiting from its failure to issue a final delimitation of the Santurbán Páramo,” the tribunal wrote. “However, Eco Oro accepts that the destruction to the value of the concession was caused by the challenged measures, which the majority found to be a lawful exercise of Colombia’s police powers.”
Colombia Dodges $700M Mining Claim : Dissent and Costs
Eco Oro’s appointed arbitrator, Horacio A. Grigera Naón, dissented, stating he would have awarded damages. Philippe Sands, Colombia’s appointed arbitrator, appended a declaration on costs, highlighting that Eco Oro incurred over $33 million in fees and costs, significantly higher than average for investor-state disputes. Sands criticized third-party funding, which he argued poses a risk of subverting the purpose of investor-state arbitration.
“Third-party funding is said by some to have an important role in ensuring that parties of limited means can pursue claims and vindicate their rights,” Sands wrote. “That may be true in some cases, but in my view, that justification cannot be invoked in this one.”
Eco Oro’s Response
Eco Oro expressed its dissatisfaction with the award in a statement, calling it “deeply flawed” and inconsistent with an objective assessment of the evidence. The company is reviewing the award with its legal advisors and evaluating its options.
Background and Legal Representation
Eco Oro’s case stemmed from Colombia’s revocation of the company’s rights for more than half of its concession area running through the páramo in 2016, rendering the Angostura project economically unfeasible. The company alleged Colombia’s actions were arbitrary and destroyed the value of its investments.
