The SUCRE was not the old Ecuadorian sucre currency. It was the Sistema Unitario de Compensación Regional de Pagos — a regional payment-clearing system created within the ALBA-TCP bloc to settle trade among member countries without using U.S. dollars directly in every transaction. Ecuador joined during the government of Rafael Correa, when regional integration with countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua was a major part of foreign policy. The system is now politically controversial in Ecuador, and President Daniel Noboa has asked the National Assembly to process Ecuador’s formal withdrawal from the treaty. (Gob)
What was the SUCRE supposed to be?
The idea behind the SUCRE was to create a regional mechanism for trade payments among ALBA countries. Instead of companies in one country paying companies in another country directly in dollars, the system used a common accounting unit called the “sucre” to register transactions between central banks. The Banco Central del Ecuador described it as a system designed to encourage reciprocal trade among ALBA countries and gradually reduce dependence on the dollar for international payments. (Banco Central del Ecuador)
In theory, it had several goals. It was supposed to make regional trade easier, reduce payment costs, protect participating economies from external financial shocks, and promote economic integration. A technical presentation of the system described goals such as promoting intraregional commercial development, facilitating international payments, and protecting economies from outside financial shocks. (Banco Central del Ecuador)
For Ecuador, the SUCRE had a special attraction because Ecuador is a dollarized economy. Supporters argued that a regional clearing system could reduce the need to use dollars in every transaction with participating countries. Academic analysis at the time framed the SUCRE as a possible tool for giving a dollarized economy more monetary flexibility in regional trade. (Directory of Open Access Journals)
How did it work in simple terms?
The SUCRE was a clearing system, not a normal currency that people used in shops. A simplified version looks like this:
- An Ecuadorian exporter sold goods to a buyer in another member country, for example Venezuela.
- The transaction was registered through the SUCRE system using the common accounting unit.
- The central banks of the countries involved settled the payment through the system.
- The exporter was paid locally, while the international settlement happened between central banks.
So, the SUCRE was meant to reduce direct dollar transfers by allowing countries to compensate trade payments through a shared regional mechanism. The Assembly’s 2021 explanation described it as a common unit of account used to encourage import and export activity among ALBA countries. (Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador)
What went wrong?
The problem is that the SUCRE later became associated in Ecuador with allegations of irregular trade, fake exports, and money laundering. Ecuadorian prosecutors investigated cases involving companies that allegedly used the system to move large amounts of money through supposed exports to Venezuela. In 2015, Ecuador’s Fiscalía said the company Foglocons had moved millions of dollars in a few months through alleged exports of construction materials to Venezuela and that the operations were being investigated under suspicion of money laundering. (Fiscalía General del Estado)
The issue did not disappear. In 2021, Ecuador’s National Assembly investigated alleged fictitious exports through the SUCRE system, including the case of Alex Saab, Foglocons-Ecuador, and related operations. The Assembly record says the investigation into fictitious exports through the SUCRE system was approved as part of the Commission’s work plan in June 2021. (Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador)
News investigations also linked the SUCRE to suspicious Ecuador-Venezuela trade flows. Primicias reported in 2019 that Ecuadorian authorities had previously alleged the system was used to launder money through false exports, while El Universo later described the SUCRE as leaving a corruption trail connected to the Alex Saab/Foglocons case. (Primicias)
What is the SUCRE today?
Today, the SUCRE is largely a dormant or paused mechanism, not an active major trade tool for Ecuador. In 2021, Ecuador’s National Assembly reported that the Banco Central del Ecuador explained the system was “en pausa” — paused — while Ecuador still remained legally part of it. The countries mentioned in that legislative discussion were Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. (Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador)
That is the key distinction: Ecuador may not be actively using the system in a meaningful way, but it has still remained legally tied to the treaty unless it completes the formal withdrawal process. This is why the current step by President Noboa matters. It is not simply a technical banking update; it is a legal and diplomatic move to end Ecuador’s participation in a regional mechanism created during a very different political period. (Primicias)
Why does President Noboa want Ecuador to leave?
President Daniel Noboa has sent the National Assembly the request to denounce the SUCRE treaty so Ecuador can formally withdraw. Primicias reported that the government frames the system as linked to corruption and to the political legacy of the Correa-Chávez era. El Comercio also reported that Noboa reactivated the process for Ecuador to leave the treaty, which was created within the ALBA framework. (Primicias)
There are three main reasons behind the move.
First, there is a corruption and money-laundering concern. The SUCRE’s name has been repeatedly connected in Ecuadorian public debate with alleged fictitious exports, suspicious transactions, and the Alex Saab/Foglocons investigation. Even if the system was originally designed as a trade tool, its political reputation in Ecuador has been badly damaged. (Fiscalía General del Estado)
Second, there is a political-symbolic reason. The system was created in the context of ALBA and was closely associated with the governments of Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. For Noboa, leaving the SUCRE sends a message that Ecuador is distancing itself from that regional political project. (Primicias)
Third, there is a practical governance reason. If the system is paused and no longer serves a clear economic purpose for Ecuador, the government can argue that remaining in it only preserves legal exposure, political controversy, and institutional baggage. In that sense, withdrawal would be a formal cleanup of an old international commitment that Ecuador no longer wants to maintain.
Is leaving the SUCRE likely to affect ordinary Ecuadorians?
Probably not in a direct day-to-day way. The SUCRE is not the currency people use in Ecuador, and it is not the same as the old sucre that existed before dollarization. Ecuadorians will still use the U.S. dollar as the national currency.
The bigger effect is political and institutional. Leaving would formally close Ecuador’s participation in a regional financial mechanism that once promised integration but later became associated with controversy. It would also give Noboa a public anti-corruption and anti-Correa-era symbol at a time when his government is emphasizing security, institutional control, and separation from Venezuela-linked networks.
Bottom line
The SUCRE began as an ambitious regional payment system meant to promote trade among ALBA countries and reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar in cross-border settlements. In practice, it became controversial in Ecuador because of allegations involving fake exports, suspicious transactions, and money laundering investigations. Today, the system appears largely inactive for Ecuador, but the country has remained legally attached to the treaty. President Noboa’s request to leave is therefore less about changing daily economic life and more about formally cutting Ecuador’s ties to a politically controversial mechanism from the Correa-Chávez era.
