{"id":50002607,"date":"2015-06-15T10:50:33","date_gmt":"2015-06-15T09:50:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stage.dialogochino.net\/?p=2607"},"modified":"2023-07-18T17:07:51","modified_gmt":"2023-07-18T16:07:51","slug":"2607-nicaragua-canal-environmental-impact-assessment-criticised-as-scientifically-weak","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/water\/2607-nicaragua-canal-environmental-impact-assessment-criticised-as-scientifically-weak\/","title":{"rendered":"Nicaragua Canal Environmental Impact Assessment Criticised As Scientifically Weak"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Sunday evening, May 31, executives of Environmental Resources Management<\/a> (ERM), a British research consultancy, joined the principals of the HKND Group<\/a>, a Hong Kong-based development group set on building a canal across Nicaragua, in a private ceremony in Managua. The event was held to formally submit a 14-volume study to Nicaraguan authorities on the environmental and social consequences of constructing a new and mammoth shipping corridor across Central America.<\/p>\n

The following day, in a made-for-television press event, a copy of the 14-volume Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of the proposed Nicaragua Canal was displayed on a small table for news photographers. Though the study is not available for public review, ERM and HKND executives joined government authorities in asserting that the canal construction is safe and feasible, and they defended the quality of the environmental assessment, which the government and HKND say is central to the case for starting excavation, perhaps before the end of the year.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe purpose of the study is to provide an objective, current assessment based on science,\u201d Manuel Coronel Kautz, the president of Nicaragua\u2019s Grand Canal Authority, told reporters.<\/p>\n

Edwin Castro, a senior Sandanista official, added that \u201cthis is the work of more than two years by ERM, with all the scientific means and serious business of ERM.\u201d<\/p>\n

The quality of ERM\u2019s data, though, and the accuracy of its conclusions about the potential harms from canal construction and operation, are not nearly as airtight as Nicaraguan authorities and HKND affirm. In March, ERM invited 15 environmental scientists and project experts to Miami to spend two days reviewing four chapters of the environmental assessment. In an 11-page evaluation<\/span><\/a> obtained by Circle of Blue<\/a>, the panel\u2019s members concluded this spring that ERM\u2019s environmental study is rife with significant flaws.<\/p>\n

Panel members expressed frustration at what they said was insufficient data collection on water quality, geology, sediments, species, erosion, and fisheries. They complained about the pedestrian quality of ERM\u2019s analysis of the data that it did collect. At various points in their report, the panel castigated ERM for what they called \u201cindefensible,\u201d \u201cimplausible,\u201d \u201cwrong,\u201d and \u201cnot realistic\u201d scientific conclusions.<\/p>\n

The special panel\u2019s members, most from US universities, also raised penetrating questions about whether building and operating the proposed $US 50 billion, 278-kilometre (173-mile) canal is even feasible. The gravest areas of concern, said panel members, involved understanding the geology beneath Lake Nicaragua, the disposal of 1.1 billion metric tons of silt that would be dredged from the lake for shipping channels nearly 28 meters (91 feet) deep and up to 520 meters (1,700 feet) wide, and whether there would be sufficient supplies of water to operate two sets of locks in the event of deep and prolonged droughts that are anticipated in the region due to climate change.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt seemed to me that the environmental impact assessment process was to create the illusion of science,\u201d said Michael T. Brett, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Washington in Seattle, during an interview with Circle of Blue. \u201cI had the impression that most of the sections presented to us were of the quality of a weak Master\u2019s thesis at any major research university. We kept asking, \u2018Couldn\u2019t this have been done better?\u2019 It\u2019s not very good work.\u201d<\/p>\n

Panel members also said in interviews that they wondered if the study\u2019s weaknesses would jeopardise ERM\u2019s global reputation for thorough and first-rate work.<\/p>\n

When asked about that concern, David Blaha, a principal partner at London-based ERM, emailed this response to Circle of Blue:<\/p>\n

\u201cAs you may know, ERM sponsored the expert panel. We did not need to do this but we believed a project of this magnitude deserved this level of review. ERM was very appreciative of the comments we received from the panel and we responded to all of their comments in the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA). We believe the ESIA is a robust document and objectively evaluates the effects of the project. I encourage you to review the ESIA (or at least the executive summary), once it is available, before reaching any conclusions about the document.\u201d<\/p>\n

ERM Responds<\/strong><\/p>\n

Circle of Blue also obtained a copy of ERM\u2019s 16-page response<\/span><\/a> to the special panel, which is the only portion of the 14-volume study that has been made public. In its response, ERM generally agreed with the weaknesses in the work that the panel illustrated and said that some analysis had been reworked.<\/p>\n

In most cases, said ERM, the tight two-year deadline for completing the assessment for HKND meant its researchers often did not have sufficient time to conduct more thorough data gathering. ERM recommended that HKND and Nicaragua authorities pursue research that responds to the concerns raised by the special panel and by several other science and environmental organizations, which have produced evaluations that are critical of the potentially grave consequences to water, forests, coastal regions, wildlife, and human communities from building the canal.<\/p>\n

As proposed by HKND, the Nicaragua Canal would be more than three times longer than the Panama Canal; include two sets of monumental locks, larger than those currently under construction at the Panama Canal; require the construction of a 395 square kilometre (152 square mile) artificial lake; and force thousands of people from their homes.<\/p>\n

As noted in the special panel\u2019s report, the entire corridor proposed for construction \u2014 and the coastal marine environments in close proximity to the canal\u2019s Pacific and Caribbean entrances \u2014 supports strong fisheries, is a storehouse of exotic tropical plant and animal species, and is home to dozens of indigenous human communities.<\/p>\n

Learn more about the proposed route of the Nicaragua Canal below.  To view full screen click here<\/a><\/p>\n