Correspondence | Published:


Nicaragua Canal may not benefit shipping

Nature volume 533, page 321 (19 May 2016) | Download Citation

We contend that the benefits of the proposed Nicaragua Canal cannot justify the irreversible damage that it would cause to the environment (see A. Meyer and J. A. Huete-Pérez Nature 506, 287–289; 2014).

With the Panama Canal's widening due to be completed in the next month or so, the argument that the Nicaragua Canal could better accommodate large container ships is no longer valid. Such vessels are of marginal significance to trans-Pacific shipping anyway, owing to insufficient freight demand and port limitations. And as manufacturing bases shift from China to south and southeast Asia, more of Asia's outbound container ships use the Suez Canal to reach eastern US ports.

The Nicaragua Canal would be much longer than the Panama Canal, and so would probably incur higher fees for bulk carriers, tankers and other vessels. On routes that link North America with Asia, large vessels already tend to sail around South Africa's Cape of Good Hope to avoid canal fees.

The Nicaraguan government has also underestimated the safety risks. The country experiences frequent earthquakes, hurricanes and volcanic eruptions — which led the United States to select Panama over Nicaragua for a transoceanic canal in the first place.

Author information


  1. Shanghai Maritime University, China.

    • Jihong Chen
  2. Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA.

    • Xiang Liu


  1. Search for Jihong Chen in:

  2. Search for Xiang Liu in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jihong Chen.

About this article

Publication history




By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Newsletter Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing