abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeblueskyburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfilterflaggenderglobeglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptriangletwitteruniversalitywebwhatsappxIcons / Social / YouTube

Cette page n’est pas disponible en Français et est affichée en English

Procès

Synohydro arbitration case (re Coca Codo Sinclair hydroelectric project, Ecuador)

Statut : ONGOING

Date de dépôt de la plainte
17 Mai 2021
Exactitude de la date
Tout est correct
Non applicable
Public entity
Lieu de dépôt de la plainte: Équateur
Lieu de l'incident: Équateur
Type de litige: Organisme international

Entreprises

Power Construction Corporation (PowerChina) Chine Energie, Énergie renouvelable, Construction
PowerChina (Power Construction Corporation of China) Chine Energie, Transports: Généralités, Construction, Exploitation minière

Sources

Snapshot: On 17 May 2021, Ecuador filed an arbitration claim against Sinohydro before the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. They argued that Sinohydro hid information about significant defects, specifically over 8,000 cracks in the turbine distributors of the Coca Codo Sinclair hydroelectric plant, since 2012. This concealment led to ongoing operational issues and financial losses, prompting Ecuador to seek arbitration for damages. It has been reported that the dam led to regressive erosion of the Coca river.

In June 2025, Ecuador ended the arbitration after reaching a $400m compensation agreement with PowerChina, Sinohydro's state-owned parent company. In exchange, PowerChina will assume operations. The deal was questioned by critics over the appropriateness of granting operation to the company that built the defective dam, while long-term reliability of the dam remained in doubt.