• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
Eco Jurisprudence Monitor

Eco Jurisprudence Monitor

  • Monitor
  • Data
    • Initiative Index
    • Report Initiative
    • Data Request
    • Codebook
    • Data Ethics
  • About
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • English
    • Español

Ecuador court case: constitutionality of the Environmental Code and mangroves

Ecuador
Approved in 2021
National
Court Case
Rights Of Nature
Mangrove
Forest, Marine Ecosystem
Ecuadorian Coordinator of Organizations for the Defense of Nature and Environment; the Asociación Animalista LiberaEcuador; Acción Ecológica
Civil Society, NGO

Summary

In 2018, the Ecuadorian Coordinator of Organizations for the Defense of Nature and Environment, the Asociación Animalista Libera Ecuador and Acción Ecológica presented a public action of unconstitutionality against several norms in the Organic Environmental Code related to mangroves, monocultures, the rights of nature, the right to prior consultation, and environmental consultation. The State advocated for the ratification of the mangroves provision. One of the norms allowed productive activities on mangrove areas, such as shrimp farming.

In 2021, The Constitutional Court of Ecuador ruled in favor of the mangroves, declaring the provision unconstitutional and not in accordance with the rights of nature. The Court declared the partial unconstitutionality on the grounds that they could endanger the vital cycles of mangroves, as well as their existence and maintenance, regeneration, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes. Mangroves are recognized as holders of the rights of nature.

It also establishes constitutional jurisprudence on the matter by establishing that public infrastructure may only be carried out if it is demonstrated that it does not interrupt the vital cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes of the ecosystems, as well as the importance of the right to prior consultation and environmental consultation. The Court declared “that article 184 of the Organic Code of the Environment does not apply or replace the right to prior, free and informed consultation of indigenous communes, communities, peoples, and nationalities.” The Court also declared that monocultures that are reasonably justified are not the common practice in degraded areas or in the process of desertification determined in the land use plan, thus making article 121 constitutional. Finally, the court declared that the phrase “other productive activities” affects legal security. The language will be changed to “Public infrastructure that has express authorization from the National Environmental Authority and that offers reforestation programs.”

Suggested Citation:
Kauffman, Craig, Catherine Haas, Alex Putzer, Shrishtee Bajpai, Kelsey Leonard, Elizabeth Macpherson, Pamela Martin, Alessandro Pelizzon & Linda Sheehan. Eco Jurisprudence Monitor. V2. 2025. Distributed by the Eco Jurisprudence Monitor.https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/unconstitutionality-environmental-code-mangroves/.

When using our data, please follow the FAIR and CARE Principles for data governance outlined in our Ethics Statement. We are doing our best to be correct in the information we provide, but if you notice any omission or inaccuracy, please report this to us immediately at info@ecojurisprudence.org so we can correct it.

Eco Jurisprudence Tracker is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Legal Document

[Original Spanish] Ecuadorian Constitutional Court Judgment on Unconstitutionality of Environmental Code Provision Regarding Mangroves
Access PDF
[Original Spanish] Case Claim on Mangrove Areas
Access PDF

Additional Resources

More court documents
Visit Resource

Footer

  • Monitor
  • Data
  • About
  • Contact
Instagram Linkedin Privacy Policy
© 2025 Eco Jurisprudence
Monitor – all rights reserved

Track ecological jurisprudence worldwide with our newsletter

Subscribe