Skip to main content

The Nicaragua Canal: potential impact on international shipping and its attendant challenges

Abstract

The construction of an interoceanic canal in Nicaragua, a longstanding controversy, has once again become a source of concern in recent years, in both the global shipping industry and the world at large. Since the canal was green-lighted by the Nicaraguan government, scientists and specialists have sharply criticized its potential to inflict lasting environmental and societal damage. The vocal doubts raised by many experts regarding the canal’s feasibility have resulted in several recent postponements of construction. Studies of the project’s challenges and its potential impact on international shipping suggest that the canal will potentially have wide-ranging implications on vessel sizes, the global routing of maritime freight flows and port development along the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines. Many problems now hinder the project, from its economic and engineering viability to its environmental and safety hazards. This research provides a systematic analysis of the potential impact of the Nicaragua Canal on international shipping, as well as the various challenges the project faces.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Source Gross (2014)

Fig. 2

References

  • ACP. 2014. Annual report. The authority of Panama canal.

  • Andersen, T. 2015. Nicaragua’s big dig. World Policy Journal 32 (2): 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aruga, K. 2016. The US shale gas revolution and its effect on international gas markets. Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources 14: 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, T.A. 1936. Interest in a Nicaragua canal, 1903–1931. The Hispanic American Historical Review 16 (1): 2–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BP. 2015. BP statistical review of world energy. UK: BP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., and X. Liu. 2016. Transport: Nicaragua canal may not benefit shipping. Nature 533 (7603): 321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., X. Zeng, and Y. Deng. 2016. Environmental pollution and shipping feasibility of the Nicaragua Canal. Marine Pollution Bulletin 113 (1): 87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, L.A. 1987. The Nicaragua canal in the nineteenth century: Prelude to American Empire in the Caribbean. Journal of Latin American Studies 19 (2): 323–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condit, R. 2015. Extracting environmental benefits from a new canal in Nicaragua: Lessons from Panama. PLoS Biology 13: e1002208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DNV. 2012. Shipping 2020. Norway: Det Norse Veritas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drewry, S.C. 2015. Container forecaster. London, UK: Drewry Shipping Consultants Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, L., W.W. Wilson, and D. Tolliver. 2009. Logistical rivalries and port competition for container flows to US Markets: Impacts of changes in Canada’s logistics system and expansion of the Panama canal. Maritime Economics & Logistics 11 (4): 327–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furuichi, M., and N. Otsuka. 2015. Proposing a common platform of shipping cost analysis of the Northern sea route and the Suez canal route. Maritime Economics & Logistics 17 (1): 9–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, M. 2014. Will the Nicaragua canal connect or divide? Current Biology 24: 1023–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene J. (2009). The Canal Builders: Making America’s Empire at the Panama Canal. Penguin.

  • Huete-Perez, J.A., J.G. Tundisi, and P.J. Alvarez. 2013. Will Nicaragua’s interoceanic canal result in an environmental catastrophe for Central America? Environmental Science and Technology 47 (23): 13217–13219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huete-Perez, J.A., A. Meyer, and P.J. Alvarez. 2015. Rethink the Nicaragua canal. Science 347 (6220): 355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huete-Pérez, J.A., M. Ortega-Hegg, G.R. Urquhart, A.P. Covich, K. Vammen, B.E. Rittmann, J.C. Miranda, S. Espinoza-Corriols, A. Acevedo, M.L. Acosta, J.P. Gómez, M.T. Brett, M. Hanemann, A. Härer, J. Incer-Barquero, F.J. Joyce, F.J. Joyce, J.W. Lauer, J.M. Maes, M.B. Tomson, A. Meyer, S. Montenegro-Guillén, W.L. Whitlow, J.L. Schnoor, and J.P. Gómez. 2016. Critical uncertainties and gaps in the environmental-and social-impact assessment of the proposed interoceanic canal through Nicaragua. BioScience 66 (8): 632–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., J. Yang, S. Msangi, S. Rozelle, and A. Weersink. 2012. Biofuels and the poor: Global impact pathways of biofuels on agricultural markets. Food Policy 37 (4): 439–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, R., R. Condit, G. Angehr, S. Aguilar, T. GarcÍa, R. MartÍnez, A. Sanjur, R. Stallard, S.J. Wright, A.S. Rand, and S. Heckadon. 2002. An ecosystem report on the Panama canal: Monitoring the status of the forest communities and the watershed. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 80 (1): 65–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ji, Q., H.Y. Zhang, and Y. Fan. 2014. Identification of global oil trade patterns: An empirical research based on complex network theory. Energy Conversion and Management 85: 856–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenawy, E.M. 2015. The expected economic effects of the new Suez Canal project in Egypt. European Journal of Academic Essays 1 (12): 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiiski, T. 2017. Feasibility of commercial cargo shipping along the Northern Sea route. Turku: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, University of Turku.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., and J. Kronbak. 2010. The potential economic viability of using the Northern sea route (NSR) as an alternative route between Asia and Europe. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (3): 434–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, L. 2015. Nicaragua defies canal protests: Scientists call for independent environmental assessment. Nature 517 (7532): 7–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A., and J.A. Huete-Pérez. 2014. Nicaragua canal could wreak environmental ruin. Nature 506 (7488): 287–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrary, J.K. 2015. Nicaragua: Biodiversity on canal route already at risk. Nature 525 (7567): 33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A.W., and G.M. Ruiz. 2014. Arctic shipping and marine invaders. Nature Climate Change 4 (6): 413–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MOFCOM. 2012. Risk warning on the construction project of the Nicaragua canal. Ministry of Commerce of People’s Republic of China (in Chinese), http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/ztxx/xmlh/xmi/201211/20121108437765.shtml. Accessed Dec 15 2016.

  • Notteboom, T.E. 2012. Towards a new intermediate hub region in container shipping? Relay and interlining via the cape route versus the Suez route. Journal of Transport Geography 22: 164–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. 2016. The adaptive capacity of container ports in an era of mega vessels: The case of upstream seaports Antwerp and Hamburg. Journal of Transport Geography 54: 295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obieta, J.A. 2012. The international status of the Suez canal. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagano, A.M., M.K. Light, O.V. Sánchez, R. Ungo, and E. Tapiero. 2012. Impact of the Panama canal expansion on the Panamanian economy. Maritime Policy & Management 39 (7): 705–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, M. 2009. Panama fever: The epic story of the building of the Panama canal. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, B.E., and M. Hemmes. 2015. Containerization of grain: Emergence of a new supply chain market. Journal of Transportation Technologies 5 (2): 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Probst, J.O. 2016. Pump up the volume. Container ship update 2016, DNV GL, Hamburg, 4–7 Reeves, J.S. (1923). Clearing the way for the Nicaragua canal. The American Journal of International Law 17 (2): 309–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue, J.P., C. Comtois, and B. Slack. 2013. The geography of transport systems. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue J.P. 2010. Factors impacting North American Freight distribution in view of the Panama canal expansion. Van Horne Institute.

  • Rodrigue, J.-P., and T. Notteboom. 2015. Looking inside the box: Evidence from the containerization of commodities and the cold chain. Maritime Policy and Management 42 (3): 207–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, C. 2016. Australia, Brazil boost China iron ore import share. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com. Accessed 27 Jan 2016.

  • Schøyen, H., and S. Bråthen. 2011. The Northern sea route versus the Suez canal: Cases from bulk shipping. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (4): 977–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shefer, S., A. Abelson, O. Mokady, and E.L.I. Geffen. 2004. Red to Mediterranean sea bioinvasion: Natural drift through the Suez canal, or anthropogenic transport? Molecular Ecology 13 (8): 2333–2343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somanathan, S., P.C. Flynn, and J.K. Szymanski. 2007. Feasibility of a sea route through the Canadian arctic. Maritime Economics & Logistics 9 (4): 324–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. 2017. Review of maritime transport. United Nations Conference on trade and development (UNCTAD). Geneva.

  • Ungo, R., and R. Sabonge. 2012. A competitive analysis of Panama canal routes. Maritime Policy & Management 39 (6): 555–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verny, J., and C. Grigentin. 2009. Container shipping on the Northern sea route. International Journal of Production Economics 122 (1): 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yip, T.L., and M.C. Wong. 2015. The Nicaragua canal: Scenarios of its future roles. Journal of Transport Geography 43: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51409157), Shanghai Pujiang Program (17PJC053), Program of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education of China (14YJC630008) and Shanghai Science & Technology Committee Research Project (15590501700). At the time of writing, Xiang Liu was partially funded by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the School of Engineering both at Rutgers University. The authors are solely responsible for the views in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theo Notteboom.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, J., Notteboom, T., Liu, X. et al. The Nicaragua Canal: potential impact on international shipping and its attendant challenges. Marit Econ Logist 21, 79–98 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0095-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0095-3

Keywords

  • Nicaragua Canal
  • Panama Canal
  • International shipping
  • Impact analysis