Summary
On October 13, 2023, a judge in Ecuador approved a protective action against the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Renewable Energy and Electricity, and the public company Hidroequinoccio EP for violating the rights of nature (among other constitutional rights) – and recognized the Alambí River as a subject of rights. In doing so, the judge annulled the resolution authorizing water use in favor of Hidroequinoccio EP.
The Alambí River is part of an ecosystem high in biodiversity known as Chocó Andino. UNESCO declared Chocó Andino to be a biosphere reserve in 2018. This ecosystem is home to more than 140 species of amphibians, more than 270 species of mammals, 3200 species of plants (76 of which are in danger of extinction), and more than 320 archaeological sites of pre-Columbian cultures.
Colectivo Río Alambí, a civil society organization, filed a protective action lawsuit against the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Renewable Energy and Electricity and the public company Hidroequinoccio EP, claiming they were not informed or consulted in an appropriate and timely manner about the environmental and social impacts of the hydroelectric project La Maravilla. The Ministry of Environment had categorized the hydroelectric plant as having a low environmental impact (despite being located in a biosphere reserve). It also stated that although the Ministry did not implement an environmental consultation, it did comply with the constitutional mandate to inform local communities about the project in 2015. The Ministry of Renewable Energy and Electricity stated they had a 2018 operating authorization enabling them to carry out activities. Similarly, Hidroequinoccio EP claimed that this small hydroelectric plant would not affect the river flow.
Norma Noemí Medrano, the first instance judge, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (Colectivo Río Alambí) and recognized the violation of several constitutional rights, including the rights of nature, the human right to a healthy environment, the right to environmental consultation, and the right to legal certainty. The judge stated that the state must promote and guarantee the rights of people and nature, especially when there is a threat of species extinction, destruction of ecosystems, or permanent alteration of natural cycles. The judge referred to the precautionary principle and explained that preventing harm is better than remediating it.