Cases / Wind, hydro and other renewables · Ecuador · date not stated
Model finds 42% erosion rise after Coca Codo Sinclair; state firm disputes it
Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.
Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
- The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
An Ecuadorian model reports erosion rates rose 42% after the Coca Codo Sinclair hydropower plant, a finding the state company rejects. The river bed and banks are the nature at stake.
What?
An EPN model reports erosion rates rose 42% after the Coca Codo Sinclair hydropower plant; the state company rejects the model. Primicias
Where?
Ecuador, at the Coca Codo Sinclair hydropower plant. Primicias
When?
Reported by Primicias in 2025; the plant's start and end dates are not in the sources reviewed. Primicias
Who?
Gained
None on recordLost
None on recordHarmed
None on recordWhy?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
How?
A model estimates erosion after the plant; the state company contests the model. Primicias
5 of 6 questions answered from the record · open: who
What happened
The record, in order.
A model by Ecuador's EPN (Escuela Politécnica Nacional) found erosion rates rose 42% after the Coca Codo Sinclair hydropower plant, according to Primicias in 2025.
Primicias also reports that the state company disputes the model's finding.
In court and with insurers
Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.
Lawsuits and rulings
No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.
Insurers
No insurer decision on record.
What we don't know
Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
Nature
- Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.
Record
- Disputed Disputed: the state company rejects the 42% model result; no independent measurement is given in the sources reviewed.
- None on record The sources reviewed do not say who gained, lost or was harmed by the erosion.
- None on record The model's time period and the plant's start and end dates are not stated in the sources reviewed.
Did the harm stop?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
Who paid?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
Sources
Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers
Press and investigations
- EPN model: erosion +42%; state company disputes it (summary)Primicias · 2025