Abstract
The resolution in 1998 of the armed conflict between Peru and Ecuador through environmental peace-building negotiations, creating a transboundary conservation area, have been heralded as an exemplar of how ecological factors can foster collaboration between adversaries (Ali SH, Peace parks: conservation and conflict resolution. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007; Simmons B, Territorial disputes and their resolution: the case of Ecuador and Peru. United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC, 1999; Herz M, Nogueira JP, Ecuador vs. Peru: Peacemaking amid rivalry, International Peace Academy, occasional paper series. Rienner Publishers, Boulder: L, 2002). This was also a rare case of US mediation resolving a territorial conflict alongside Brazilian diplomacy. However, 20 years later the peace between the two countries has not reaped the conservation dividends expected as other extractive industry interests and drug gangs have found their way into this region. Some of the lessons from earlier peace settlements that went awry need to be considered (Hampson FO, Nurturing peace: why peace settlements succeed or fail. United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington, DC, 1996). This chapter explores the lessons of public-private partnerships for conservation in a post-conflict demilitarized hinterland. It argues that “collateral values” of natural conservation that may be generated through conflict are vulnerable when peace is achieved without proper monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in place. The importance of finding better ways of not just attaining peace but sustaining conservation after peace is addressed through interviews with key stakeholders in a detailed retrospective of this extraordinary case.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The “Rio Protocol” refers The Protocol of Peace, Friendship, and Boundaries between Peru and Ecuador, an international agreement signed in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on January 29, 1942, by the foreign ministers of Peru and Ecuador, with the participation of the United States, Brazil, Chile and Argentina as guarantors. The Protocol was intended resolve the long-running territorial dispute between the two countries, and brought about the official end of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War of 1941–1942.
- 2.
Refer to the ITTO web site for further details www.itto.int
- 3.
USAID has funded numerous efforts for collaborative development along the Peru-Ecuador border. See for example, Assessment of the USAID Peru– Ecuador Border Region Development Program.
- 4.
The Canadian program is managed by the Artisanal Gold Council: http://www.artisanalgold.org/our-projects/peru/
- 5.
Respondent: Santiago Kingman, Coordinador del Proyecto ITTO PD 238/03 Respondiendo al cuestionario desde el punto de vista de las comunidades Macas, Ecuador. August 3, 2010.
- 6.
Respondent Ángel Nantip: Coordinador de Gestión Externa Comunicador del Pueblo Resident of Pueblo Shuar Arutan Fecha: 15 de julio de 2010.
- 7.
Kefren Graña, Presidente de FECOHRSA, Ruyer Chimpokat, Vice Presidente de FECOHRSA; Eliseo Chimshami, Tesorero de FECOHRSA, Comunidad de Kukuasa, Distrito del RSA FECOHRSA – Federación de las Comunidades Wampisas del Río Santiago.
- 8.
Respondent: Bráulio Andrade Conservación Internacional Perú.
- 9.
Santiago Kingman, Coordinador del Proyecto ITTO PD 238/03 Macas, Ecuador, August 3, 2010.
- 10.
For example, a study of the peace agreement conducted by the U.S. Institute of peace bare mentions the central role of establishing the national parks as means of conflict resolution. Instead the focus is on the process of mediation. See Simmons 1999.
- 11.
Respondent: Luis Espinel, Director Ejecutivo, Conservación Internacional Perú.
- 12.
Respondent: Ruth Elena Ruiz, Fundacio Natura.
- 13.
Two of the key groups that have been in contact with the Shuar are Accion Ecologica and The Indigenous Peoples and Community Conserved Territories and Areas Consortium www.iccaconsortium.org
References
Aguilar, D., & Castagnino, R. (2017, March 17). Shuar people ask for president’s freedom amid mining dispute. Mongabay. https://news.mongabay.com/2017/03/shuar-people-ask-for-their-presidents-freedom-amid-mining-dispute/. Accessed 31 Mar 2017.
Ali, S. H. (Ed.). (2007). Peace parks: Conservation and conflict resolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bennett, B. C., Baker, M. A., & Andrade, P. G. (2002). Ethnobotany of the Shuar of eastern Ecuador. Bronx: New York Botanical Garden.
Busch, J. (2008). Gains from configuration: The transboundary protected area as a conservation tool. Ecological Economics, 67, 394–404.
Chapin, M. (2004, November/December). A challenge to conservationists. WorldWatch. http://watha.org/in-depth/EP176A.pdf
Chester, C. C. (2006). Conservation across borders: Biodiversity in an interdependent world. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Conca, K., & Dabelko, G. D. (Eds.). (2002). Environmental peacemaking. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
DeLeon, C. P. (2011). Citizenship rights and articulations of indigenous resistance in the Ecuadorian extractive frontier. Masters thesis, York University, Toronto, Canada.
Dowie, M. (2011). Conservation refugees: The hundred-year conflict between global conservation and native peoples. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press.
Duncan, P. (2003). Changing landscapes: The development of the International Timber Organization and its influence on tropical forest management. London: Earthscan Publications.
Fall, J. J. (2005). Drawing the line: Nature, hybridity and politics in transboundary spaces. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
Hampson, F. O. (1996). Nurturing peace: Why peace settlements succeed or fail. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Herz, M., & Nogueira, J. P. (2002). Ecuador vs. Peru: Peacemaking amid rivalry (International Peace Academy, Occasional Paper Series). Boulder: L. Rienner Publishers.
Lopez-Hoffman, L., Varady, R. G., Flessa, K. W., & Balvanera, P. (2010). Ecosystem services across borders: A framework for transboundary conservation policy. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 8, 84–91.
Mittermeier, R. A., Kormos, C. F., Mittermeier, C. G., Gil, P. R., Sandwith, T., & Besancon, C. (2005). Transboundary conservation: A new vision for protected areas. Washington, DC: CEMEX/Conservation International.
National Research Council. (1996). Biodiversity conservation in transboundary protected areas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Perkins, J., & Chumpi, S. M. S. I. (2001). Spirit of the Shuar: Wisdom from the last unconquered people of the Amazon. Rochester: Destiny Books.
Simmons, B. (1999). Territorial disputes and their resolution: The case of Ecuador and Peru. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
Wald, B. (2016). Inside the struggle for Ecuador’s Cordillera del Condor. https://www.greengrants.org/2016/03/10/inside-the-struggle-for-ecuadors-cordillera-del-condor/. Accessed 31 Mar 2017.
Watts, J. (2017, March 19). Amazon land battle pits indigenous villagers against might of Ecuador state. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/19/ecuador-indigenous-shuar-el-tink-mining-land-dispute. Accessed 31 Mar 2017.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Taylor Holden and the Spatial Analysis Lab at the University of Richmond for preparing the map in Fig. 8.1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ali, S.H. (2019). A Casualty of Peace? Lessons on De-militarizing Conservation in the Cordillera del Condor Corridor. In: Lookingbill, T., Smallwood, P. (eds) Collateral Values. Landscape Series, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18991-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18991-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18990-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18991-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)