Tag Archives: some

Nicaragua canal – environment fears ignored as construction work begins Updated for 2026





Since it was completed 100 years ago, the Panama Canal has been the only shipping route through the land mass of the Americas.

Controlled by the US for most of its history, it allows ships to navigate between Pacific and Atlantic oceans without having to sail all the way to the tip of South America, through the infamous Magellan Strait. This makes it one of the world’s most important economic arteries.

But on December 22nd, work began on a new canal route in the region, in what is one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects of our time.

The Interoceanic Grand Canal of Nicaragua will take five years to build over some 278 miles, traversing several major rivers and also Lake Nicaragua, the largest freshwater reserve in Central America. Having been discussed for some 200 years, it is expected to cost $50bn (£32bn), nearly five times the country’s annual GDP.

The project resulted from the Nicaraguan national assembly agreeing a 50-year concession with the Chinese company Hong Kong Nicaragua Development (HKND) – with the potential for a 50-year renewal thereafter.

The canal will allow the passage of the world’s largest ships, some of which will be too big for the Panama Canal even after its current expansion project has completed.

Revolutionaries no more

The project is supported by Daniel Ortega, the Nicaraguan president. Ortega is the former commander of the Sandinista revolution and head of state in the 1980s, who returned to the helm after the 2006 election and has had a history of difficult relations with the US.

His party, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), has become an authoritarian political machine that is particularly effective at controlling the population. It is difficult to get a job in government without belonging to the FSLN, and hard to have any power without being close to the Ortega clan.

The president’s son, Laureano Ortega, handled the negotiations with Wang Jing, the chairman/CEO of HKND, on the conditions of the concession. The project is managed directly by the president.

The canal budget does not appear in the draft government budget, and the finance minister himself has complained about the lack of information around project costs.

The China dimension

There are also a number of important questions about the project that have never been answered. We know that HKND is a sprawling Beijing-based operation with 15 subsidiaries, but despite strenuous efforts, the Nicaraguan media has so far failed to find out where its leader’s personal fortune comes from.

Wang Jing has announced that he has gathered enough investors for the project, but despite several public presentations and insistent questions, the details about project finance remain unknown.

There has been speculation about the links between Wang Jing and the Chinese military. It is seen by some as the main provider of canal project funds, even though the project is officially private and China has made no official statement.

The nation’s growing commercial interests in Latin America certainly make it easy to imagine that it might like to have an alternative to the Panama Canal, now run by a Panamanian government agency.

The US has not made any statement about the project either. Different specialists who I have interviewed have variously argued that the US is waiting to see if the project is serious; is too busy elsewhere, notably in the Middle East; and has not taken the measure of the project and its possible consequences. Whatever the case, the silence is surprising.

The enviro-threat

The environmental lobby has been more forthcoming. One of the most active has been the Centro Alexander von Humboldt, which has released the only environmental impact report to date.

It has said that the impact of construction through the lake would be irreversible, affecting the nearly one million people who depend on it for drinking water.

Dredging the lake at a depth of more than 30m, displacing millions of tons of sediment, could also radically alter and potentially destroy the biodiversity of the lake.

Also controversial is the work that is currently starting on two deep-water ports on either side of the country and a highway to transport equipment and concrete-manufacturing plants. The environmental impact study for these parts of the project, by the English company ERM, is not due to complete until April 2015.

Land redistribution – but not as we know it

The Grand Canal Act meanwhile authorises HKND to expropriate any land in Nicaragua for the needs of the project. It will displace thousands of peasants and indigenous peoples.

Yet unlike the Panama project, there was no referendum on whether it should go ahead. In the face of the government’s promises about taking the country out of poverty and providing thousands of jobs, farmers’ property rights seem to weigh little.

The farmers likely to be affected by land expropriation have been holding demonstrations in numerous localities since last September. They have been told nothing about how and under what conditions this will happen.

In El Tule in the western part of the country, farmers have been blocking the Managua-San Carlos highway for several days to prevent the entry of Chinese workers and vehicles of the Nicaraguan army.

With the Chinese beginning to install their first settlements, protesters have been complaining about the increasing militarisation that is accompanying the project.

Neither has anything been said about how the country will manage the future economic impact of the canal. I have heard concerns among Nicaraguan economists that the country could become little more than an enclave economy with little in common with the rest of the region.

In short, it is long overdue that the spotlight be shone properly on this huge project. The environmental, social and geopolitical implications could cast a shadow over the region for decades to come.

 


 

Maya Collombon is Lecturer in Latin-American Politics at Sciences-Po, Lyon.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




388390

In defence of ‘In Defence of Life’ Updated for 2026





I had some incredible feedback from readers about my article ‘In Defence of Life’.

What I wrote really hit the spot. Almost all are feeling what I had put into words.

But it didn’t please one reader who posted an extended critique on The Ecologist‘s Facebook page: “Lesley Docksey’s simplistic attack on shooting and angling does both pastimes and The Ecologist a great disservice.”

For the sake of brevity the article had to be “simplistic”, but the cases highlighted were from a long list of news items in the national and local media collected over months. Targeting of wildlife by culling is an ongoing nationwide activity. But calling the shooting of birds and animals a ‘pastime’ makes it clear that this is done for enjoyment, not necessity.

I have no problem with hunting for food – humans are omnivores. I personally eat little meat, and for preference that is locally-sourced and organic. I have no problem with shooting an animal that is terminally ill or too injured to save.

I also have no problem with occasional and necessary culling. For instance, rabbits pose a real problem for some farmers, and in many places there are no natural predators to exercise control over rabbit populations – mostly, one has to add, because the gamekeepers have killed the foxes, buzzards, stoats …

Shooting and fishing

” … the fact that there are rich and stupid people who take the law into their own hands, and governments which would rather appease the rich than follow the science, does not excuse Lesley for maligning everyone else who shoots and fishes. I shoot and fish, as do many of my friends. Some of us belong to the RSPB and RSPCA … “

Here is the RSPCA policy on shooting:

“The RSPCA believes that ‘sport’ does not justify the causing of suffering to birds and other animals, and therefore the RSPCA is opposed to shooting for sport.”

My critic continued:

“Nor are any of my friends rich. Many are estate workers on minimum wage whose £50 shotgun licence buys them a crop of rabbits for the pot or some fun at a clay pigeon club, and who have a £150 shotgun and cannot afford the £60,000 guns Lesley describes nor the £196 licence fee she proposes.”

Rural wages being what they are, estate workers also turn out as beaters for pheasant shoots, to help boost their income. And shooting clay pigeons may be fun, but not for those who have to listen to the incessant bang-bang-bang.

Nor did I suggest that such people could afford top-of-the-range shotguns, or ‘propose’ a £196 licence fee. Had my critic taken more care when reading the article, he might have taken on board that £196 is what it now costs the police, and therefore the taxpayer, to issue each gun licence.

Why should the general public subsidise the pastime of shooting?

‘Anglers need beavers like we need a hole in the head’

“How can she say ‘Anglers like killing too’ and then imply all anglers want to shoot otters? I don’t, and nor do most anglers I know; there are a few fishery owners who want to protect their livelihood, which includes protecting big carp, as Lesley says. But there are many, many more who accept that otters are a natural part of the river ecology and fish alongside them.”

But when the discovery of wild-living beavers on Devon’s River Otter hit the media, it was followed with a knee-jerk and, dare I say it, simplistic reaction by the Anglers Trust. “Anglers need beavers like we need a hole in the head”, it stated, presumably speaking on behalf of its members.

A bit more digging reveals that in March 2012 the Angling Trust wrote to Fisheries and Natural Environment Minister Richard Benyon “urging him to authorise the trapping and lethal control of beavers to halt their spread into England from Scotland.”

But surely the natural ecology of a river surely should not include lead weights, lures, hooks, nylon fishing lines and other detritus left behind by anglers that can so damage wildlife? [Editor’s note: only lead weights lighter than .06 grams or heavier than 28.35 grams are now permitted in the UK.]

I have never understood the sport of fishing, where an angler catches a fish by hooking it in the mouth, and following a fight with the fish, lands it, pulls the hook out of the fish (with what regard for the wound it has made?), then blithely tosses it back into the water to be caught again another day.

That is cruelty. And it’s not just me that thinks so. Here is what the RSPCA has to say about angling:

“The RSPCA believes that current practices in angling involve the infliction of pain and suffering on fish. The Medway Report has proved to the satisfaction of the RSPCA that fish are capable of experiencing pain and suffering.”

My critic should study it. The damage done to fish by the ‘sport’ of angling as detailed by the report in my opinion makes angling a blood sport.

How do you put a spin on this?

“Human beings are NOT easily divisible, as Lesley says, into those who see wildlife as ‘something to be controlled or something to be killed for sport’ and those who see wildlife as ‘something to be protected and left alone.’ This may come as a surprise to Lesley, but it is possible to be both … “

I don’t see how it is possible to be both. It certainly isn’t possible to shoot and fish as a pastime while claiming to be members of the RSPCA, at least not without indulging in a great deal of self-deception.

Unless, of course, you’re a PR man whose company specialises in “the transport and tourism industries, country sports and associated technologies”.

I do not know if my critic’s Facebook comments were made in a private or professional capacity, or in some blurry in-between zone. But a PR man is what he turned out to be.

 


 

Lesley Docksey is a freelance writer who writes for The Ecologist on the badger cull and other environmental subjects.

See her other articles for The Ecologist.

 

 




384305