"Defending the earth is not a crime: the case of Palo Quemado and Las Pampas in Ecuador"

Collab: Eugenia Novoa Zubir, Lawyer, Master of Laws (LL.M). Lecturer at the Universidad Central del Ecuador in the areas of Cyber Law, Financial Law, and International Law. Founding Coordinator of UNCTAD: “Youth Action Hubs Ecuador, CE.”

In recent years, the criminalization of environmental defenders opposing mining projects in Ecuador has increased. In the case of Palo Quemado, in particular, there has been clear evidence of persecution of defenders through the use of the criminal justice system. This article presents relevant data to understand this situation and the hostile practices of the Ecuadorian State aimed at criminalizing and delegitimizing struggles for the defense of nature.

In Ecuador, defenders—mainly Indigenous peoples and Afro-descendant nationalities—are subjected to systematic attacks intended to deter them from their role in protecting their territories. Although, since the 2008 Constitution, legal mechanisms have been developed to protect nature and safeguard the well-being of peoples and nationalities, the country still does not constitute a safe environment for territorial defense [1].

The 2008 Constitution of Ecuador provided legal tools for the protection of territories and nature. This mandate was built from an Andean neo-constitutional perspective, which establishes Sumak Kawsay (Good Living) as the guiding principle of the State [2]. The Constitution guarantees collective rights of Indigenous peoples and nationalities such as free, prior and informed consultation (Article 57), the right to resistance (Article 98), and the rights of nature (Article 71).

These constitutional provisions have served as legal foundations for communities seeking the protection of their rights by the State, leading to constitutional proceedings that, in many cases, have resulted in favorable rulings by the Constitutional Court. One example is Judgment No. 51-23-IN/23, issued in November 2023, which regulates the right to environmental consultation [3].

The case of the Palo Quemado and Las Pampas communities generated broad national and international debate due to State harassment of environmental defenders. The case concerns the mining concession “La Plata,” granted to the company Minera La Plata S.A., wholly owned by Atico Mining Corporation. This polymetallic concession (gold, silver, copper, and zinc) is located in the parishes of Palo Quemado and Las Pampas (Sigchos Canton, Cotopaxi Province), and Alluriquín Parish (Santo Domingo Canton, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas Province) [4].

The project covers 2,222 hectares, directly affecting several communities. Despite the existence of laws and rulings reaffirming collective and environmental rights, the interests of international mining companies often prevail. Regarding environmental consultation, the Palo Quemado and Las Pampas case is a clear example of non-consulted mining activities in Ecuador. In this instance, the State attempted to “socialize” the environmental consultation process through militarization and repression, which led the Constitutional Court of Ecuador to suspend such consultations following complaints of unconstitutionality of Decree 754 [5]. It is evident that Constitutional Court rulings reaffirming rights are often perceived as inconvenient by successive governments and international mining corporations [6].

The main issue in the Palo Quemado and Las Pampas case concerns the communities’ right to free, prior, and informed consultation.

According to consistent Constitutional Court jurisprudence, this right has two essential components: access to environmental information and the consultation process itself [7]. However, the current government, through a unilateral interpretation of Judgment 51-23-IN, assumed that the Court had given it a green light to continue applying Decree 754, thereby proceeding with the “La Plata” concession process. This took place in a context of social conflict, excluding several communities and repressing peaceful demonstrations through the use of military force [8].

Following the protests and large-scale militarization, Palo Quemado has become the case with the highest number of individuals criminalized for territorial defense in Ecuador.

Table. Criminalization Cases by Jurisdiction and Criminal Charge:

Jurisdiction	Criminal Offense	Number of Defendants
Sigchos	Intimidation I	10
Sigchos	Damage to property I	2
Sigchos	Intimidation II	4
Sigchos	Intimidation III	2
Quito	Terrorism	66
Quito	Organized Crime	72
Sigchos	Sabotage	1
Sigchos	Damage to property II	3

Source: Compiled by the authors based on judicial case reviews (2024).

The table illustrates the number of territorial defenders criminally prosecuted for opposing the La Plata mining project. Although none of the defendants are currently imprisoned, several cases remain in the pre-trial investigation phase (instrucción fiscal) and could result in prison sentences of up to 22 years, pursuant to Article 366 of Ecuador’s Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code (Código Orgánico Integral Penal – COIP) [9]. Therefore, the defenders require specialized criminal defense counsel to ensure adequate legal monitoring of each case.

The social and psychological impact of facing prolonged criminal proceedings must also be considered. Even though they are not deprived of liberty, defendants have experienced a deterioration in their living conditions: many have been stigmatized within their communities, and some families fear sending their children to school due to possible reprisals [10]. In addition, the defendants must frequently travel to Quito to follow up on their cases, which affects their livelihoods, as most depend on agriculture and livestock, losing income on travel days.

The Palo Quemado and Las Pampas case demonstrates that the Ecuadorian State is failing to comply with its international obligations to respect, protect, and guarantee the rights of environmental and territorial defenders [11]. The State must adopt positive measures to ensure the free exercise of territorial defense, promote a culture of peace, and provide a safe environment, ensuring effective compliance with the American Convention on Human Rights and the Escazú Agreement, ratified by Ecuador.

• Regional Perspective: Links with Argentina and Latin America:

The criminalization of environmental defenders in Ecuador reflects a broader issue across much of Latin America, where socio-environmental conflicts intensify due to the expansion of mining, agribusiness, and the energy sector.

In Argentina, community struggles to defend water and territory—such as those in Chubut, Catamarca, and Jujuy—have also faced judicialization and State harassment, particularly against citizen assemblies and Indigenous peoples opposing extractive projects lacking prior consultation.

Both in Ecuador and Argentina, the effective implementation of the Escazú Agreement is crucial to ensuring the protection of those defending land and common goods. This regional agreement—the first to explicitly recognize the rights of environmental defenders—represents a key instrument for building more participatory and sustainable democracies. The defense of Palo Quemado and Las Pampas is thus connected with Argentine resistance movements for water, life, and environmental justice, showing that criminalization is not an isolated phenomenon but rather a regional strategy to silence voices defending the planet. Solidarity among the peoples of Latin America is essential to stop extractivist violence and to defend the right to a healthy future. Now more than ever, the message remains alive: defending nature is not a crime—it is an act of love. #ForABetterWorld

References:

[1] Human Rights Organizations Alliance, Situation of Human Rights, Collective and Nature Defenders in Ecuador: Challenges in Building Comprehensive and Differentiated Protection Systems, 2021.

[2] Concept from the Kichwa language referring to a harmonious and balanced way of living in connection with one’s family and community.

[3] Constitutional Court Judgment No. 51-23-IN/23, November 2023.

[4] Human Rights Organizations Alliance, Report on Violations of Human, Collective and Nature Rights in the Communities of Las Pampas and Palo Quemado Parishes, Sigchos Canton, Cotopaxi Province, Regarding the La Plata Mining Concession, 2024.[5] Judgment 51-3-IN, paras. 200.9–200.19.

[6] See also reports on harassment of Ecuador’s Constitutional Court judges (2025).[7–10] Human Rights Organizations Alliance, ibid.[9] In Ecuador, the maximum penalty for terrorism is 22 years, pursuant to Article 366 of the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code (COIP).[11] Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, Judgment of August 28, 2014 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs).