Peru-Ecuador Conflict and Tourism Peace Park (PERECUAD)

          CASE NUMBER:         144  
          CASE MNEMONIC:      PERECUAD
          CASE NAME:          Peru and Ecuador Conflict

A.        IDENTIFICATION
1.   The Issue
     A conservation organization located in Washington, D.C. has
proposed that the disputed 78 kilometer region of the Cordillera
del Condor, the border between Ecuador and Peru, be developed as a
bi-national ecological park administered by both countries.  The
Cordillera del Condor has been the site of armed disputes between
the two countries for over one hundred and fifty years.  Despite
Ecuadoran claims to the contrary, the area of confrontation is
"recognized as Peruvian by the 1942 Rio Protocol, the 1945
arbitration decision, the 1947 U.S. Air Force aerial survey, and
the documents issued after the 1981 border conflict."
2.        Description
     The disputes between Peru and Ecuador began during the time of
the Incas when the Incas from Cuzco (Peru) conquered the kingdom of
Quito (Ecuador).  In 1535, a mission was sent from Quito which had
now been settled by Spaniards, to "mark the border with Peru."
     Ecuador claims that the "first expeditions were dispatched
from Quito and that Jesuits from there set up the first missions. 
Peru argues that an expedition from Lima discovered the
Amazon....In 1802, the Spanish crown gave title over the region to
the viceroyalty of Lima, taking it from that of New Granada, which
included modern-day Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela.  Ecuadoran
historians have interpreted a subsequent ruling in 1819 as
reversing that decision."  The dispute has lasted for hundreds of
years.
     The disagreement intensified in 1830 when Ecuador left the
Great Colombian federation and claimed independence.  However, Peru
had gained independence in 1821.  Ecuador claimed it had "legal
rights based on colonial titles over three Peruvian provinces:
Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas...However, with time, Ecuador's pretensions
were reduced to the Amazonian province called Maynas in the Spanish
colonial documents."  However, throughout the Spanish colonial
domination period, Maynas belonged to the Viceroyalty of Peru and
in 1821 "Peru gained its freedom from Spain and was constituted as
an independent nation, Maynas formed part of its territory and its
people pledged allegiance to the Peruvian republic."  Maynas was
not a part of Ecuador then and would not be a part in the future.
     In 1832, after Ecuador's independence, the governments of Peru
and Ecuador signed, approved, and ratified a treaty "that
established that while a bilateral agreement was reached on the
specific boundaries, both countries would respect the existing ones
at the time.  This basically set the border on the basis of the
1810 "uti possidetis" which meant that the nations would follow the
administrative limits existing during Spanish colonial rule. 
Basically, the two countries agreed that the boundaries of 1810
would remain to be the boundaries. 
     Ecuador "laid claim to 125,000 square miles of Peruvian
territory in 1941 and fought a brief war against Peru to enforce
its demands."  As a result of this war, Ecuador lost more than 50
percent of its territory and the Rio Protocol was signed to end the
war.  Both countries ratified the Protocol which should have
settled the border dispute.  
     Although the 1942 Protocol of Rio de Janeiro defines the
border between Peru and Ecuador, Ecuador "which has denounced the
Rio treaty, claims large portions of Peruvian territory in the
border zone...and has refused to mark a 78 kilometer section of the
border."  
     Ecuador challenged the Rio Protocol in 1960 on the grounds
that the "topography of the mountainous region was unknown when the
border was set.  As a result of Ecuador's objection, 50 miles of
the 200-mile border were not marked, and both sides have moved in
and out of the area since then, sometimes violently."  Peru claims
the eastern slopes of the range while the western slopes belong to
Ecuador.  The problem remains that "there is nothing in writing."
     The region is actually "unmapped jungle on the slopes of a
remote mountain range--something not usually worth battling
over."  It is filled with "virgin forests, deep ravines and 4,000
foot mountains...shrouded in fog, and said to be virtually
impossible to know where one side's stated border begins or
ends."
     The two countries went to war again in 1981 and most recently
in January and February 1995.  A peace accord was signed by the two
countries on February 28 and was to be enforced by the four
guarantors of the Protocol -- Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the
United States.  The terms of the agreement provide for "forty
observes to be stationed in both countries to supervise the cease-
fire, the separation of forces and the eventual demilitarization of
the conflict zone."
3.        Related Cases
     Keyword Clusters    
     (1): Trade Product            = TOURism
     (2): Bio-geography            = TROPical
     (3): Domain                   = South America [SAMER]
4.        Author:  Keri Cooper
II.       Legal Filters
5.        Discourse and Status:  DISagreement and INPROGress
     The two countries continue to disagree over the boundary
despite repeated mediation by the guarantors of the Rio Protocol.
6.        Forum and Scope:  ECUADor and BILATeral
7.        Decision Breadth:   2 (Peru and Ecuador)
     There seem to be other reasons behind the war which began in
January, 1995 in addition to the anniversary of the Protocol.  Some
speculate that the "Ecuadoran army started the fighting as a part
of a campaign against military budget cuts."  On the other hand,
political instability in Peru is also cited as a possible reason
for the renewed fighting.  There are those who say the President
Fujimori "was tempted to start the fighting in order to win more
support in the presidential election scheduled for April, 1995." 
Another theory stated that the "Peruvian army chiefs started the
trouble because, having virtually wiped out the feared Shining Path
terrorists, they needed to create a new bogeyman" in order to avoid
elimination of their positions and military budget cuts (similar to
the problem in Ecuador).
8.        Legal Standing:  TREATY
     The 1942 Rio de Janeiro Protocol, signed by the United States
and Latin American countries was designed to solve the border
dispute as well as "present a unified hemisphere against the Axis
powers in World War II."
III.      Geographic Filters
9.   Geographic Locations
     a.  Geographic domain:        South America [SAMER]
     b.  Geographic site:          AMAZON
     c.  Geographic impact:        ECUADor and Peru
10.       Sub-National Factors:    NO
11.       Type of Habitat:    TROPical 
IV.       Trade Filters
12.       Type of Measure:  TREATY
     Representatives of Conservation International (CI) have
proposed the creation of a "binational demilitarized zone dedicated
to conservation in the northern Amazon region."  CI has conducted
comprehensive studies throughout the Cordillera del Condor region. 
The studies, "conducted in 1993 and 1994 by multinational
scientific teams, uncovered previously unknown plant, insect, and
animal species and revealed for the first time the high level of
bio-diversity in the region."      
     Walter Wust, a Peruvian forestry engineer and ornithologist
who participated in the research, said that the region is "an
isolated chain of the Andes which lends it special scientific
importance.  The area has a singular biological diversity and an
elevated number of endemic species."  Wust also indicated that
the binational demilitarized park would provide the "opportunity
for greater scientific discover, prevent erosion, and provide water
table protection for downstream users as the Cordillera del Condor
is a tract of entirely virgin rain forest."
     Jose Bosa, an Peruvian embassy staff member in the public
relations department, said that the countries are examining the
feasibility of an environmental protection zone but are in "very
preliminary" stages.  He went on to explain that in 1981, after the
last confrontation, several non-governmental organizations created
the idea of a transnational border park.  The idea died due to a
lack of financing and disagreement over park management.  In order
for the park to be created, the border line would have to be
demarcated which is highly unlikely due to the fact that neither
country wants to be termed the loser.  Monitoring the park would be
another area of disagreement as it is unlikely that either country
would agree to joint administration.  Off the record, Bosa, who has
participated in many of the feasibility studies as well as the
border dispute negotiations, said that it is highly improbable that
the park would be created in the future.
13.       Direct vs. Indirect Impacts:  Not applicable
14.       Relation of Trade Measure to Resource Impact
     a.  Directly Related:         NO
     b.  Indirectly Related:       YES  TOURism
     c.  Not Related:              NO
     d.  Process Related:          NO
15.  Trade Product Identification: TOURism
     If the binational park were created it would create a market
for eco-tourism for both countries.  There is no information
available on the amount of revenue which would be generated by the
proposed park.
16.       Economic Data
     Commerce between Ecuador and Peru is the "economic engine of
the region."  As the region is hundreds of miles from the capital
cities, it is crucial to trade with the "enemy" in order to
maintain the appropriate standard of living.  The "enemy" is only
that during the sporadic disputes which usually occur yearly around
the anniversary of the signing of the Protocol.
17.       Impact of Trade Restriction:  LOW
18.       Industry Sector:    TOURism
     In Peru, the initiative is attracting a great deal of support
from both businesses and politicians.  Even President Fujimori
"claims to have been the first to propose joint eco-tourism and
conservation ventures in the disputed zone as far back as 1992...In
mid-February, as the conflict raged on the border, Arturo Woodman,
president of the private business lobby Confiep, organized a summit
of Peruvian and Ecuadoran business leaders during which the ideal
of a demilitarized park was widely supported."
     However, the business group's proposal "does not envision the
area remaining in a virgin state, but rather developed with both
tourism infrastructure and jointly managed industrial projects such
as mining or petroleum products extraction facilities."
19.       Exporters and Importers: MANY and ECUADor
V.        Environment Filters
20.       Environmental Problem Type
     The region is believed to be "rich in gold and uranium which
has made it even more important as a point of national honor." 
Unfortunately, this claim is most likely incorrect.  However, the
area is important for Ecuador because "the headwaters of the Cenepa
river are there.  The Cenepa is one of the rivers that gives
Ecuador access to the Amazon."  Ecuador calls itself a "country
of the Amazon."
21.  Number of Species
          Name:          Many
          Type:          Many
          Diversity:     
22.       Impact and Effect:  LOW and REGULatory
23.       Urgency and Lifetime:    LOW and 100s of years
     The border dispute has not been resolved as both nations
continue to claim the territory.  An agreement must be reached in
order to avoid another conflict on the anniversary of the Protocol
in January, 1996.
24.       Substitutes:  Conflict Resolution [CONRES]
VI.       Other Factors
25.       Culture:  YES
     The area in dispute is a source of great national pride for
both countries.  Residents wrapped themselves in the flags of their
countries.  The "conflict has produced an outpouring of
nationalism, especially in Ecuador, which in the past has emerged
from these encounters smaller than it entered them."
     In Chacras, on the Ecuadoran side of the border, the site of
the famous 1941 stand by Ecuadoran soldiers, one veteran of the
1941 war claimed that his people were not "going to give up" the
land they had occupied for many years.  On the other side of the
border, in Tumbes, Faustino Leon, a student at the regional
university claimed that Ecuador "has always been the aggressor...A
war is not good for either side.  But if we have to, we will
support the army.  We will go to the front."  Both sides were
very willing to fight for what they deemed to be their own.
26.       Human Rights:  NO
27.       Trans-Boundary Issues:   YES
     The dispute is clearly a trans-boundary issue as the area in
dispute is claimed by both Ecuador and Peru.
28.  Relevant Literature
Bosa, Jose.  Phone interview by author, June 7, 1995, Washington,
     D.C.
"Creation of Binational Park Seen as Way to Resolve Peru-Ecuador
     Border Dispute," International Environment Reporter, 22
     (March, 1995).
Ecuador-Peruvian Border Conflict World-Wide Web Page, part of
     EC-CHARLA@MIA.LAC.NET.
Escobar, Gabriel, "Andean Conflict Dates to Spanish Conquest," 
     The Washington Post, February 5, 1995, A29-A30.
Escobar, Gabriel, "Cease-Fire Attempted in Andes," 
     The Washington Post, February 1, 1995, A14.
Escobar, Gabriel. "Ecuadorans Vow to Give Up No More Land."
     The Washington Post, January 31, 1995, A21.
"Head of Observer Mission to Arrive in Peru Sunday," Reuters News
     Service, March 19, 1995.
"Peru and Ecuador: Another Football War,"  The Economist 4
     February 1995, 40.
Smith, Michael.  "A Risky Borderline Dispute."  Maclean's
     September 30, 1984, 29.