A year after stopping the mining project, water defenders say the underlying concessions remain and want them canceled permanently.

A victory that did not end the dispute

One year after a massive Cuenca protest helped stop the Loma Larga mining project, the fight over the Kimsacocha páramo has shifted to a more complicated question: whether the mining rights themselves will ever be extinguished.

The national government revoked the project’s environmental license in October 2025 after opposition in Azuay culminated in the September 16th “Quinto Río” march, when an estimated 100,000 people filled Cuenca’s streets in defense of water sources.

Revoking the environmental license prevented Loma Larga from moving ahead with the authorized exploitation phase. But it did not automatically cancel the underlying mining concessions.

That distinction is now at the center of demands from environmental groups, rural communities and local officials who say stopping one license does not guarantee that mining can never return.

The concessions remain

Loma Larga encompasses three mining concessions covering approximately 7,960 hectares around the Kimsacocha area.

The concessions remain legally significant even though the environmental authorization for exploitation was revoked.

Opponents fear that as long as those rights continue to exist, the project or some version of it could eventually return through a new environmental process, administrative decision or legal challenge.

The mining company has maintained that the project can operate without damaging the protected Kimsacocha recreation area or Cuenca’s water supplies. It has argued that geological conditions and the project’s engineering design prevent contaminated water from reaching the protected lagoons.

Water defenders, local governments and university researchers have disputed those assurances and have raised concerns about the effect mining could have on fragile páramo ecosystems and water-recharge areas.

Cuenca voted on water in 2021

The current dispute is inseparable from Cuenca’s February 7th, 2021 popular consultation.

More than 80 percent of voters supported prohibiting large-scale mining in water-recharge zones associated with the Tarqui, Yanuncay, Tomebamba and Machángara rivers.

Environmental organizations argue that the result created a binding public mandate that should guide decisions involving mining rights in the canton.

Mining law and the legal effect of local referendums on concessions granted by the national government have nevertheless produced years of administrative and judicial conflict.

The project’s opponents also point to a 2019 consultation in Girón, where voters rejected mining activities connected with the Loma Larga project.

The Quinto Río returns with a broader demand

On September 16th, 2026, organizations returned to Cuenca’s streets to mark the first anniversary of the Quinto Río mobilization.

This year’s march was smaller than the extraordinary 2025 demonstration, but its demands were broader.

Participants called not only for protection of Kimsacocha but for the elimination of mining concessions in páramos and water-recharge areas across Cuenca. Organizers say approximately 46,000 hectares in areas of concern remain under mining concessions.

The groups delivered a manifesto to Azuay’s governor for President Daniel Noboa. Among their demands were cancellation of mining concessions, enforcement of the Cuenca and Girón referendum results, permanent controls against illegal mining and environmental remediation in areas where mining activity has already caused damage.

The movement argues that the fight is no longer solely about one project.

The company remains present

Another source of tension is the continued presence of the mining company in the Kimsacocha area.

Community leaders say access controls and company security remain in portions of the páramo and question why that presence continues after the environmental license was revoked.

The company’s continued legal rights under the concessions are part of the explanation. Revocation of an environmental permit does not by itself transfer land, eliminate every contractual or property interest or extinguish a mining title.

That is precisely why opponents are now focusing on the concessions rather than celebrating the license decision as the end of the conflict.

Cuenca government backs permanent cancellation

Cuenca’s municipal government has formally taken a position supporting permanent termination of the mining rights.

The Cantonal Council has called on the national government to annul environmental permits and definitively extinguish mining rights granted for Loma Larga.

The municipality has also instructed ETAPA to explore mechanisms, including a trust or fund, that could help acquire concession areas located in water-protection zones and páramos.

Acting Mayor Marisol Peñaloza joined the September 16th march and said Cuenca’s voters had already made their position clear.

Azuay’s provincial government has likewise opposed mining activity that it says threatens water sources.

The mining question remains unresolved

The environmental-license revocation was a major setback for Loma Larga, but it did not produce the clean legal ending many Cuenca residents assumed had occurred.

The project cannot simply begin exploitation without the required environmental authorization and other legal steps. At the same time, the continued existence of the concessions means the underlying mining rights have not disappeared.

That leaves several possible arenas for the dispute: administrative decisions by the national government, constitutional and other court proceedings, future environmental applications and political pressure from Azuay.

For Cuenca, the distinction between a license and a concession is more than legal terminology. The license determined whether the project could proceed at that moment. The concession affects whether the possibility of mining remains alive.

A year after Cuenca celebrated the suspension of Loma Larga, opponents are making clear that their definition of victory has changed. They no longer want the project merely stopped. They want the legal path for it to return closed permanently.