The environmental legal framework in Ecuador has its base in the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (“CRE”), for the right to a healthy environment is recognised as a constitutional right within the Rights of Nature and well-being, which guarantees the population the right to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

The constitutional framework extends beyond the human right to a healthy environment; it expressly recognizes the Rights of Nature. This includes the right to the integral respect for its existence and the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, establishing restoration as a legal remedy. From the standpoint of legal design, the constitutional text frames environmental protection with a collective and intergenerational projection. Rights may be exercised individually or collectively, and environmental management must ensure the interests of present and future generations.

At statutory level, the central instrument is the Environmental Organic Code (“CODA”), which structures environmental policy, the single system for environmental management, environmental quality instruments and the regimes of liability, restoration and administrative sanctions.

The CODA is further developed through the Regulation to the Environmental Organic Code (“RCODA”), which details the procedures for environmental management and enforcement, including administrative measures and the operation of the sanctioning system. Complementary legislation includes the Organic Law on Water Resources, Uses and Exploitation (“LORHUAA”) and its regulation, which articulate water governance and expressly require coordination with the national environmental authority for parameters and limits affecting water quality and use.

Secondary regulation is also relevant, particularly the Unified Text of Secondary Environmental Legislation (“TULSMA”), which contains technical and operational standards, (for example environmental quality parameters) that support permitting and control.

Additionally, Ecuador’s framework is integrated with international environmental obligations given that the CRE governs the approval and ratification of international treaties, among others, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention, the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam Convention, the Stockholm Convention, the Montreal Protocol, the Minamata Convention, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, as well as the Escazú Agreement.

Finally, Ecuador also protects the environment and nature through criminal law, for the Organic Criminal Code (“COIP”) criminalizes environmental offences (for example, offences against water resources and offences related to falsification or concealment of environmental information) and assigns the Ministry of Environment and Energy, which acts as the national environmental authority (“National Environmental Authority”) a technical role for defining environmental damage and restoration-related standards for environmental and nature offences.

The primary environmental regulator is the National Environmental Authority. This entity exercises stewardship over environmental policy and leads the institutional articulation of environmental management through the competences assigned in the CODA.

Environmental compliance is enforced through a multi-level system, because the CODA recognises ‘competent environmental authorities’ and assigns administrative powers to supervise, control and sanction within their respective competences, to municipalities, provincial governments, and other state entities, as applicable.

Enforcement includes inspection, the determination of environmental damage, corrective measures and sanctions, with the regulation providing tools such as immediate provisional measures and a public register of offenders and sanctions administered by the National Environmental Authority.

The permitting regime is organised through environmental permitting processed via the Single Environmental Information System (“SUIA”), which operates as the mandatory online tool through which permitting requests are filed and processed. The CODA establishes that SUIA is managed by the National Environmental Authority and is a public, mandatory system for environmental permitting at national level.

For projects, works or activities with non-significant environmental impact, the framework provides for an Environmental Certificate, clarifying that these cases do not trigger a mandatory regularisation process and that the competent environmental authority issues the certificate, while the operator must comply with the good environmental practice guidelines issued by the National Environmental Authority for the relevant sector or activity.
For low-impact projects, works or activities, the Environmental Registration is the environmental authorization granted by the competent environmental authority through SUIA, subject at minimum to registering the project in the system, obtaining the Certificate of Intersection with Protected Areas, submitting the project information through the applicable form, and paying the administrative fees.

For medium- or high-impact projects, works or activities, the regularization instrument is the Environmental License, which the competent environmental authority grants through SUIA and which requires, as a minimum baseline, the Certificate of Intersection with Protected Areas, the environmental impact assessment, the citizen participation process report, payment of administrative fees and an environmental liability insurance policy or guarantee.

The Certificate of Intersection with Protected Areas operates as a cross-cutting requirement as SUIA determines whether the project intersects with the national system of protected areas, national forest heritage and intangible areas the National Environmental Authority is empowered to condition the processing of the environmental authorization. Nonetheless, the extraction of non-renewable resources within protected areas is prohibited, subject to certain exceptions.

Beyond these core instruments, the regime also relies on sector-specific authorisations for environmentally sensitive activities. In hazardous and special waste management, generators and managers must hold an administrative authorisation, and generators must obtain a Generator Registration before the National Environmental Authority. For managing hazardous chemicals, the framework provides enabling instruments integrated into SUIA, including the chemicals registration as an administrative environmental permitting that enables management activities and allows traceability control by the National Environmental Authority.

The legislation allows transfer through a change of titleholder of the administrative environmental permitting (for example, an environmental registration or an environmental license), which must be processed before the competent environmental authority through SUIA and is not automatic.

The process requires the new titleholder to file a request and supporting documentation evidencing the transfer and to assume the obligations linked to the existing environmental permitting, after which the competent environmental authority verifies the requirements and issues the corresponding reasoned administrative decision.

A change of titleholder does not extinguish liabilities, because the regulation expressly provides that the transfer does not eliminate administrative, civil or criminal liabilities of either the transferor or the transferee, so the authorisation continues but responsibility for compliance and potential environmental liabilities remains legally relevant for both depending on the facts.

Where the change occurs during the processing stage, the regulation also recognises a change of operator during the regularisation procedure, upon a written request supported by the relevant technical and legal justification, without altering processing time limits.

Permitting decisions are administrative acts adopted in procedures that determine rights and obligations. As per the legislation, there is a constitutional right to challenge such resolutions before the administration and judicially.

Where the decision or omission of a public authority in a permitting matter amount to a violation of constitutional rights, the constitutional framework also provides for the protection action a judicial remedy.

Environmental Impact Assessments (“EIAs”) are required in Ecuador for projects, works or activities classified as having medium or high environmental impact, because the Environmental License is issued based on minimum procedural requirements that include the Certificate of Intersection with Protected Areas, the EIA and the report from the citizen participation process.

The EIA is conceived as the core technical instrument for identifying, assessing and managing impacts and risks across the project lifecycle, and it must contain the key components that allow the competent environmental authority to evaluate the baseline conditions, the significance of impacts and the management measures to be implemented.

As a matter of substantive content, the EIA is expected to include, at minimum, an environmental baseline, the identification and evaluation of impacts and risks, and an environmental management plan with monitoring commitments and measures for prevention, mitigation, correction and, where applicable, compensation, consistent with the obligations attached to the Environmental License and the management instruments required by the CODA.

The EIA is prepared under a framework of technical responsibility and regulatory oversight, because the CODA links the EIA to the operator’s duty to ensure the consistency and sufficiency of the information submitted and to the competent environmental authority’s technical review in the permitting procedure.

Public participation (environmental consultation) is an integral element of the EIA and licensing process, because the legal framework requires a citizen participation process for medium and high impact projects prior to the granting of environmental permitting, and the CRE requires consultation where a state decision or authorisation may affect the environment, providing that majority opposition must be addressed through a duly reasoned resolution.

EIAs can be challenged by contesting the administrative decision that approves (or refuses) the Environmental License and its supporting technical file. Usually, constitutional challenge is also available where the permitting decision is alleged to violate constitutional rights.

The framework for liability for contamination of soil and groundwater in Ecuador is anchored in the CRE, which establishes strict liability for environmental damage and provides that any environmental damage triggers an obligation to fully restore affected ecosystems and compensate affected persons and communities. Actions to pursue and sanction environmental damage are not subject to statute of limitations.

Liability is allocated primarily to the operator (i.e. the person or entity that manages or carries out the activity that causes the contamination), for the CRE places the duty to prevent, mitigate and repair harm on the relevant economic actor and, for purposes of effective protection, shifts the burden of proof to the activity operator or defendant to demonstrate the absence of actual or potential environmental harm.

The CODA reinforces that allocation by making clear that compliance with environmental permitting does not exempt an operator from duties to prevent, avoid and repair environmental damage.

The RCODA provides the core administrative regime for determining environmental damage and operationalising remediation, as it empowers the competent environmental authority to order the submission and implementation of a comprehensive repair plan once environmental damage is established through an administrative decision, and contains the minimum content of that plan (including diagnosis, remediation and restoration measures, timetable, costs and monitoring) and the authority’s approval and follow-up powers.

The applicable technical regimes for ‘contaminated land’ and groundwater are complemented by secondary standards. The TULSMA contains operational concepts and environmental quality criteria used to identify contamination and trigger remediation duties, while the LORHUAA establishes a preventive and control regime over discharges and substances that can contaminate the public water domain, including risks to soil, subsoil and groundwater. Additional regulations set forth in other norms enacted by the National Environmental Authority may also be applicable.

The framework is not limited to administrative liability, because Ecuador also provides a criminal layer of protection for environmental and nature-related harm through the COIP, which criminalizes environmental offences that can include contamination affecting water resources (including groundwater) and allows the criminal justice system to intervene in serious cases alongside administrative remediation and restoration mechanisms.

A positive obligation to investigate land (soil and, where relevant, the associated physical environment) arises primarily within the permitting pathway for medium and high impact projects, given that the EIA must contain, at a minimum, the project description, the geographical area, compatibility with nearby land uses, the methodology and analytical tools, and the environmental management plan, which in practice requires adequate technical characterisation of soil where it is relevant to identifying and interpreting risks and impacts.

A further trigger applies during operation and ongoing enforcement, since monitoring must be managed by the operator through reports that assess environmental aspects and compliance with environmental rules, the environmental management plan, and authorisation obligations, while the competent environmental authority may order additional monitoring at any time at the operator’s cost. Those reports must include observations, sampling records, laboratory analyses and evaluation of results, and monitoring outcomes must be reported periodically.

In addition, under the applicable administrative framework, where a potential environmental damage event is identified, the operator may be required to carry out and submit a technical investigation to the environmental authority.

There is a duty to report contamination events within 24 hours to the competent environmental authority, in addition to submitting an incident report under the terms set by the competent environmental authority.

The duty to report also operates when contamination is identified during environmental control and follow-up, since the soil quality standard provides that, once the competent environmental authority determines that a soil is contaminated, the responsible must submit the ‘reporting procedures’ documentation within the timeframe established by that authority, starting with characterisation of the affected area.

The duty is not limited to single incidents, because the soil quality standard additionally imposes periodic reporting by requiring any person carrying out activities with potential to affect soil to submit to the competent environmental authority a soil quality monitoring report at the frequency set in the environmental management plan or as otherwise ordered by the competent environmental authority.

Where land is affected by historical contamination, the owner (as an affected person) may have a basis to bring a claim against the previous owner if the latter caused the contamination.

This private right of action operates without prejudice to any parallel administrative enforcement, remediation or restoration measures that may be pursued by the competent environmental authorities in relation to the same contamination event. The constitutional regime treats environmental damages under strict liability and expressly links environmental damage to the duty to fully restore ecosystems and compensate affected communities.

It should be noted that environmental action seeking compensation for damages cannot be equated with a civil action for damages. Actions for environmental damages and for damages caused to individuals or to their property as a consequence thereof shall be brought separately and independently.

Ecuador’s waste regime is built on a constitutional foundation that requires the state to prevent and control environmental pollution and to promote cleaner technologies, and that constitutional baseline informs the whole structure of waste regulation and enforcement.

The core statute is the CODA, which establishes the framework for integrated waste and waste-stream management, including allocation of responsibilities across generators and operators, mandatory environmental controls, and the requirement that regulated waste activities be carried out under the relevant administrative environmental permitting.

The RCODA provides the main operational controls, setting out how permitting, registration, traceability, storage, transport, treatment, recovery and final disposal are to be handled, and how competent authorities supervise compliance and apply sanctions where breaches occur, including in the hazardous and special waste context.

Technical control is further developed through the TULSMA and related technical instruments issued by the national environmental authority, which set standards and procedures for environmentally sound handling and for preventing cross-media pollution impacts on soil, water and air.

Institutionally, the Ministry of Environment and Energy acts as the National Environmental Authority, while implementation and day-to-day control are exercised through the broader system of competent environmental authorities, including municipalities and provincial governments.

Enforcement combines preventive, corrective and punitive tools: authorities may inspect, impose immediate administrative measures, require remediation and restoration, and apply administrative sanctions under the environmental regime, while serious conduct may also trigger criminal exposure under the COIP where environmental offences are carried out.

In Ecuador, transferring waste to a third party for off-site treatment or disposal does not extinguish the producer’s environmental exposure. On the one hand, liability covers all phases of management from generation to final disposal and there may be joint and several liability.

The CODA also supports continuity of responsibility: even where an operator holds permits or has complied with authorisation formalities, that does not exempt the duty to prevent, avoid and repair environmental damages.

Within the waste-specific regime, generators and managers are subject to administrative control through registration/authorisation and must operate within the integrated waste management framework established by the CODA, which reinforces that waste handover is regulated but does not operate as a blanket discharge of legal duties.

In Ecuador, producers do have take-back-type obligations for priority product streams, and the regime operates through extended producer responsibility within the integrated waste management framework.

The constitutional baseline is that environmental harm prevention and pollution control are public duties, which supports regulatory obligations imposed on market actors whose products become waste.

At statutory level, the CODA establishes integrated waste management and allocates obligations across the value chain, including producers, importers, distributors, marketers, users and waste managers, under a model of shared and differentiated responsibility that enables producer take-back and postconsumption management duties for regulated streams.

For product categories such as packaging and electrical/electronic equipment, the practical extent of producer obligations is defined in secondary and technical regulation issued by the national environmental authority, which typically requires producers/importers to organise or finance collection and environmentally sound management schemes, meet recovery/valorisation targets where set, register and report results, and ensure traceability of post-consumption flows.

In the specific case of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE/RAEE), the Ministry of Environment and Energy has issued policy and technical instruments that frame producer-side post-consumption responsibilities through take-back or equivalent management systems, with compliance monitored through environmental reporting and control tools.

In Ecuador, the duties of owners and occupiers in relation to asbestos and other deleterious materials operate in two complementary spheres: the environmental sphere and the occupational/labour sphere.

In the environmental sphere, owners/occupiers must prevent, avoid and control environmental risk from hazardous materials present on land or in buildings, and if contamination occurs, they are subject to strict environmental liability.

In that same environmental sphere, handling of hazardous materials (including asbestos-containing materials where they become hazardous waste) must be channelled through the integrated hazardous/special waste regime, which requires authorised management, traceability and compliance with environmental control obligations rather than informal removal or disposal.

Also, within the environmental sphere, where works on premises trigger environmental permitting, owners/operators must comply with the applicable permitting and follow-up duties, including management plans, monitoring and periodic reporting before the competent environmental authority.

In the occupational/labour sphere, Ecuador’s ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No 162) imposes specific workplace duties aimed at worker protection and exposure control, including prevention and control measures, technical safeguards, and compliance with legal controls established by the competent authority.

The labour sphere duties become particularly strict for demolition and removal activities, because work involving friable asbestos materials or operations likely to release asbestos dust must be carried out under recognised/authorised conditions and based on a prior work plan with protective measures, dust control and safe waste handling.

Finally, in both spheres, there is a clear duty to ensure safe waste handling and disposal so that neither workers nor neighbouring populations are exposed to asbestos-related risk, which means owners/occupiers must organise compliant removal, containment, transport and final disposal through lawful channels and maintain evidence of compliance where required.

In Ecuador, PFAS regulation operates through two complementary channels: international obligations under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Stockholm Convention) and domestic controls under the hazardous chemical’s regime. In practice, PFAS should not be read only through treaty commitments, but also through national administrative control tools.

Under the international channel, Ecuador is required to apply elimination/prohibition or restriction measures depending on the annex in which each substance is listed. The PFAS expressly regulated in that framework are: PFOS, its salts and PFOSF, PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related compounds and PFHxS, its salts and PFHxS-related compounds.

Under the domestic channel, several obligations are implemented through the hazardous chemicals registration and control system, which requires environmental administrative authorisation, traceability, and compliance with reporting and handling duties for controlled substances.

Where these substances generate hazardous wastes, Ecuador’s environmentally sound waste-management rules may also apply, including controls on handling, transport, disposal and enforcement.

In Ecuador, REACH, CLP and TSCA do not apply as foreign regimes, but there is a functionally equivalent domestic framework made up of the CRE, the CODA, the RCODA, and technical secondary rules that specifically govern hazardous chemical substances.

At constitutional level, product and substance regulation is anchored in the right to live in a healthy environment, the policy mandate to promote cleaner technologies, and the state duty to prevent and control pollution, which together provide the legal basis for lifecycle control of substances and products that pose environmental risk.

At statutory level, the CODA establishes the risk-management and liability architecture under which hazardous-substance activities are subject to environmental administrative control, prevention and monitoring duties, remediation obligations, and sanctioning powers, while clarifying that formal compliance with permits does not in itself exempt liability for environmental harm.

At regulatory level, the RCODA contains specific provisions on hazardous chemical control, including the rule that chemical registration functions as an environmental administrative authorisation through the SUIA with traceability, reporting and supervisory obligations under the national environmental authority.

At secondary technical level, the TULSMA further develops the chemicals framework through specific administrative and technical provisions on hazardous substances management and control, including the provisions beginning in that block for hazardous chemicals.

Finally, Ecuador’s domestic framework is integrated with binding international obligations, particularly the Stockholm Convention, which imposes elimination/prohibition or restriction measures for listed substances and has direct implications for product composition, use, import/export and waste management where listed chemicals are present.

Ecuador has a dedicated energy-efficiency legal regime built on the Organic Law on Energy Efficiency (“LOEE”) and its general regulation (“RLOEE”), and the system is led by the ministry acting as the national energy policy authority, which under the current institutional structure is the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

At framework level, the LOEE sets the legal object and scope of energy-efficiency policy, creates the National Energy Efficiency System (“SNEE”), and establishes governance mechanisms for cross-sector implementation.

At planning level, the key instrument is the National Energy Efficiency Plan (“PLANEE”), with a ten-year horizon and biennial updates. PLANEE is mandatory for public-sector entities and indicative for private-sector actors, while sector regulators must align their technical rules with the efficiency policy framework.

On audits and compliance controls, the regime expressly recognises energy audits and regulated energy-service actors (including energy auditors and energy managers), and imposes concrete duties on large consumers, including annual energy-use reporting and implementation/certification obligations under NTE-INEN-ISO 50001.

The framework also includes sectoral efficiency measures in areas such as construction and transport, supported by reporting, monitoring and coordination duties across competent public authorities.

In Ecuador, greenhouse gas emissions reduction and renewable energy expansion are grounded in an integrated legal framework built on the CRE and reinforced through environmental, energy, and public policy instruments. The CRE establishes the right to a healthy environment, requires the State to prevent and control pollution, and mandates the promotion of clean technologies and low-impact energy sources.

At the statutory level, the CODA expressly regulates climate-change governance under the leadership of the National Environmental Authority and embeds both mitigation and adaptation into state action, while the LOEE and RLOEE provide concrete tools to promote rational and efficient energy use and support a cleaner energy matrix.

At the policy level, the key instruments are the National Adaptation Plan to Climate Change 2023–2027 (Ministerial Agreement No MAATE-2023-029 dated May 3, 2023), which sets implementation guidelines, sector priorities, and governance structures.

Ecuador has an overarching low-carbon policy framework, but it does not establish a single, economy-wide statutory ‘net zero’ target in one standalone law. The legal basis comes from the CRE (environmental protection and climate duties), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, and domestic environmental legislation.

Implementation is carried out through ordinary legal and regulatory instruments rather than through one exclusive carbon-neutrality statute. The CODA provides the climate-governance framework, the LOEE and the RLOEE provide energy-efficiency measures that support emissions reduction, and the State Policy for Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change (Executive Decree No 1815 dated July 1, 2009), National Climate Change Strategy (Ministerial Agreement No 095, dated July 19, 2012), National Adaptation Plan to Climate Change 2023–2027 (Ministerial Agreement No MAATE-2023-029 dated May 3, 2023) define sector priorities and institutional coordination.

At operational level, Ecuador has adopted technical instruments such as the Ecuador Carbon Zero Program, the technical standard for organisational scope, the technical standard for product scope, the standard on greenhouse gas emissions compensation, and the technical standard for the National Climate Change Registry, which together structure measurement, reporting, verification, reduction and compensation processes for participating entities.

In Ecuador, the ability of a company or product to be presented as ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ is operationalised through the carbon footprint reduction certification framework. This is a voluntary mechanism, but once used it requires verifiable compliance with measurement, reduction, verification and registry rules, and provides companies with formal recognition and traceability of their environmental performance.

In practical terms, a company may position itself through carbon-footprint-related environmental claims only after obtaining the relevant certification under the official programme, and the same logic applies to products that comply with the product-scope technical standard. In other words, environmental certification claims are not open-ended: they must match the actual certified scope and level and remain supported by technical evidence.

Misleading environmental claims can also be sanctioned under the general unfair-competition framework, as the Organic Law on Regulation Against Unfair Competition prohibits deceptive acts based on false information or on presentations capable of misleading the public, and provides for sanctions and judicial remedies, including cessation, rectification, removal of effects and damages.

Regarding regulatory oversight, claims linked to official climate certifications fall within the competence of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, whereas issues concerning misleading advertising or unfair competition are subject to the jurisdiction of the Superintendence of Economic Competition.

In Ecuador the linkage is mostly indirect and framework-based, not a standalone ‘climate antitrust code’.

At a general level, Ecuador’s competition regime does not create a separate antitrust exemption exclusively for climate cooperation agreements. Instead, climate-related business conduct is assessed under the ordinary competition rules (including prohibitions on anticompetitive agreements and abuses), while climate policy obligations are implemented through environmental and energy frameworks.

In practice, this means climate-oriented collaboration between competitors (for example, joint decarbonisation initiatives or sector transition arrangements) is not automatically unlawful and must be analysed case-by-case, but it must still be structured to avoid hard-core restrictions and unjustified market foreclosure under competition law. The legal test remains the same: no cartel conduct, no abusive exclusionary behaviour, and no deceptive market practices, even where the stated objective is environmental.

Although not directly linked to climate change litigation, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador has strengthened environmental enforcement by treating environmental legality as a constitutional condition for authorising projects and activities with significant ecological risk, including mining and other extractive uses of natural resources. That line of case law applies the rights of nature and the right to a healthy environment as operative standards that can invalidate administrative authorisations and require restoration where ecosystems are affected.

In Los Cedros case (Decision No 1149-19-JP/21), the Constitutional Court of Ecuador reviewed the permitting pathway for mining-related activity in a protected forest context and held that constitutional environmental guarantees were breached, reinforcing that decisions enabling high-risk extractive activity must comply with heightened standards of environmental protection and effective community consultation where applicable. The case is widely treated as a leading precedent because it links the validity of environmental permitting to the protection of biodiversity, water, and the rights of nature in ecologically sensitive areas.

Beyond mining, the Court has also set structural environmental safeguards for fragile ecosystems. In the Mangroves case (Decision No 22-18-IN/21), the Constitutional Court of Ecuador declared the unconstitutionality of provisions that enabled the affectation of mangrove ecosystems and expressly recognised mangroves as holders of the rights of nature, thereby tightening the legal threshold for any regulatory or administrative scheme that would permit interventions in such ecosystems.

The Court has reinforced enforceability through remedies that go beyond declarations of rights. In Río Monjas case (Decision No 2167-21-EP/22), the Constitutional Court of Ecuador recognised the river as a subject of the rights of nature and ordered restoration-oriented measures, illustrating that constitutional environmental protection can translate into concrete remediation duties and governance measures aimed at preventing recurrence.

Taken together, these precedents show a consistent enforcement pattern: the Constitutional Court of Ecuador uses the rights of nature and the right to a healthy environment to (i) constrain extractive and other high-impact authorisations through heightened legality and consultation standards (Los Cedros), (ii) invalidate permissive rules affecting fragile ecosystems (Mangroves), and (iii) impose practical restoration obligations when ecological harm is established (Río Monjas).

We do not expect a substantial legislative change to occur, although the country has formally updated its climate commitments under the Paris Agreement through the Second Nationally Determined Contribution of Ecuador 2026–2035, which sets mitigation parameters and an implementation pathway that typically requires strengthening domestic implementation tools, especially on transparency, measurement, reporting and verification.

Secondary regulation issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy (the Technical Standard for the National Climate Change Registry by Ministerial Agreement MAATE-MAATE-2025-0051-A, published in the Official Registry on 19 August 2025) has established binding operational rules for the registry as a national transparency and climate information tool.

In Ecuador, environmental liability can be of civil, administrative and, even, criminal nature. The extent of this varies depending on the specific circumstances of each case.

In this context, the CRE and the CODA determine that environmental damage gives rise to strict liability, which means that the producer of the damage is liable regardless of diligence, fault or negligence. Furthermore, the CRE and CODA also determine that legal actions due to environmental damage are not subject to a statute of limitation.

If a company causes the damage, said company would be primarily held liable for any environmental law- or regulation- breach -especially if such a company is the titleholder of an environmental permit. However, there are some exceptions that extend environmental liability to third-related parties, such as the group controlling company, the management or legal representatives, and in certain cases the shareholders.

If the State subsidiarily proceeds with the restoration and/or indemnification of the damage, it can, then, file a claim against the entity that caused said damage.

It should be noted that environmental action seeking compensation for damages cannot, be equated with a civil action for damages. Actions for environmental damages and for damages caused to individuals or to their property as a consequence thereof shall be brought separately and independently. The latter is subject to a statute of limitations.

As per general rule, environmental liability is set on the entity who caused the environmental damage. Therefore, environmental liability will primarily be held by the company that has the environmental authorization to operate.

However, a buyer can assume any pre-acquisition environmental liabilities in an asset sale/share sale vis-à-vis the seller. Notwithstanding, before the State, the seller may retain environmental liability after the sale to the extent that it has caused the environmental damage.

In an asset sale, the analysis would also depend on whether the buyer becomes the operator and/or the titleholder of the relevant environmental administrative authorisation, in which case the buyer assumes ongoing compliance duties attached to that authorisation following the change-of-titleholder procedure. It should be noted that the change of titleholder does not imply the extinction of administrative, civil, or criminal responsibilities of the transferor and transferee.

It is a common practice for the negotiation of an asset or share sale. In fact, it would give ground for the drafting of some of the indemnities within the respective sale agreement. Environmental due diligence plays a key role in transactions regarding energy, infrastructure, and natural resources industries due to the highly complex environmental and social risks that these kinds of projects involve.

In Ecuador, environmental insurance/financial backing is expressly required in the environmental licensing regime, because the issuance of an Environmental license for medium- or high-impact projects requires, as a minimum, the submission of a ‘policy or guarantee for environmental liability’.

In the Ecuadorian practice, insurance policies commonly used for these purposes are liability and performance bonds. In the liability insurance, environmental risks to third parties and others’ properties are covered in the form of the so-called ‘pollution liability’ coverage. Performance bonds, on the other hand, are requested to provide guarantee for the faithful compliance of the obligations undertaken in the environmental management plans, for which operators are liable regarding environmental license.

Environmental information is primary kept under custody of the National Environmental Authority. This entity manages information about forestry and national protected areas, administrative environmental authorisations and compliance with their related obligations, industry-differentiated environmental reports, and sanctions. In regulatory terms, environmental information is organised and managed through the SUIA as the official platform for environmental information and decision-making support.

Any third party may request this information under the general transparency and access-to-public-information framework.

Regarding the hydric aspects, the LORHUAA establishes the existence of the Public Registry of Water where authorisation related to use of water are registered. Access to this information is granted upon written request.

State entities’ disclosure and data-handling duties are structured through the governance of the SUIA, which links environmental information to the transparency/access framework and assigns institutional obligations for managing and providing environmental information through the official system. Separately, the Public Sanctions Registry must be public and of free access, which creates an express disclosure route for enforcement information without the need for discretionary release.

This disclosure duty is also reinforced by Ecuador’s international commitments under the Escazú Agreement (Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean), which requires States to guarantee access to environmental information held by competent authorities, subject only to legally defined exceptions, and to ensure timely and effective response mechanisms.

In July 2025, it was enacted the Organic Law for the Strengthening of Protected Areas which further details the constitutional prohibition to perform extracting activities of non-renewable resources within protected areas. In this sense, said law specifies that ‘in no case shall the implementation of plans and/or programs for prospecting, exploitation and commercialisation of non-renewable resources found in the territories of protected areas be allowed’. In addition, the legal body creates the National Service of Protected Areas which is in charge of the regulation, control and sanction of protected areas.

The Constitutional Court, in decision No 38-13-IS/19, dated December 13, 2019, ordered the National Assembly (parliamentary organism in Ecuador) to issue an organic law regulating the right to Prior, Free and Informed Consultation, applicable to peoples and indigenous communities in relation to plans and programs for the exploration, exploitation, and commercialization of non-renewable resources located on their lands that may affect them environmentally or culturally. Such law has not yet been enacted.

Additionally, the Constitutional Court, in decision No. 51-23-IN/23, has also mandated the National Assembly to regulate through an organic law (statute), the environmental consultation (which is part of the citizen participation process to enact environmental authorizations).

More recently, the Ecuadorian government submitted a bill to reform the Mining Law and the Organic Law of the Public Service of Electric Energy. Among the proposed reforms, the government intends to amend the requirements to conduct mining activities.