The case concerns 16 plots covering almost 1,000 hectares near Agustín Codazzi, originally allocated to landless farming families under Colombia’s agrarian reform. During the 1990s and early 2000s, paramilitary violence forced families from the area. Their land was subsequently sold, often through intermediaries, and eventually acquired by Drummond around 2010 for incorporation into its El Descanso coal-mining project.
In November 2025, the Tribunal Superior de Cartagena ruled in favour of the displaced families. It did not find that Drummond itself had displaced them, but concluded that the company had failed to exercise the level of diligence required when acquiring their land. The Tribunal was unusually critical, stating that Drummond’s conduct was marked by “extrema incuria” — extreme negligence. The company could have investigated whether previous owners had been forcibly displaced. The Tribunal found that the land registers themselves contained warning signs — in today’s terms, a clear failure of human rights due diligence.
Drummond opposed the victims’ restitution claims for years. After the November ruling, it sought to have the decision overturned, first through a nullity procedure and subsequently through a constitutional action (tutela). Colombia’s Supreme Court has now rejected the latter attempt, leaving the restitution ruling standing.
A broader pattern in Cesar
El Platanal is not an isolated case. Colombia’s Truth Commission documented how the expansion of coal mining in Cesar took place in a region deeply marked by armed conflict and forced displacement, which also profoundly changed patterns of land ownership. Its investigation examined similar histories in the farming communities of El Prado, Mechoacán and El Toco, and described a wider “violent reconfiguration” of mining territories.
Earlier research by Colombia’s National Centre for Historical Memory had reached similar conclusions, documenting how displaced farmers trying to recover their land found that it had meanwhile ended up in the hands of landowners and mining companies. These cases involved not only Drummond but also Prodeco, then owned by Swiss multinational Glencore. The individual cases differ, but together they reveal a broader pattern: mining companies expanded their operations in a region where violence had fundamentally altered who owned and controlled the land.
Who bears responsibility for remedy?
For the El Platanal families, the ruling has a bitter outcome. Returning to their original land is no longer possible because mining activities have transformed the properties and destroyed their agricultural use. The families must instead receive replacement land or financial compensation.
Justice has also taken decades. Some of the original claimants have already died, while others are now elderly and may never personally benefit from the remedy they fought for. José Dolores Álvarez, one of the El Platanal farmers, died aged 80 in January 2026, before the latest confirmation of the ruling.
There is another troubling aspect. Drummond acquired land that became part of a highly profitable mining operation, but under Colombia’s restitution mechanism the company itself does not bear the cost of compensating the displaced families. That responsibility falls on the Colombian state. This raises a broader question: what responsibility do companies have when they have benefited economically from land whose ownership was transformed by conflict and displacement?
Responsibility does not stop at the mine
That question extends beyond Drummond. Under international responsible business conduct standards, companies are expected to identify and address serious human rights impacts connected to their operations, supply chains and business relationships. In conflict-affected areas, the risks — and therefore the need for careful due diligence — are particularly high.
This also matters for European energy companies, traders, ports and other businesses that bought, handled or facilitated Colombian coal. Cases such as El Platanal show why companies cannot simply rely on the assurances of their suppliers. Responsible business conduct requires them to understand the human rights risks connected to their business relationships, use their leverage to address them and, where appropriate, contribute to meaningful remedy for affected communities.
More on Blood Coal
Since 2011, PAX has been campaigning for victims’ rights to redress and accountability for human rights violations linked to coal mining in Cesar
