Technological innovations can solve some of the world’s biggest problems right? That’s what a firm of Chilean architects would like us to believe. They’ve come up with a creative idea for how land-locked Bolivia could regain access to the ocean. It was not too long ago, in 1883 to be exact, that Bolivia lost the little coastline it had in a war with Chile. Since it’s only be gone for a short time, now’s the perfect time to get it back!
The Chilean architects’ plan involves building a long underground tunnel from Bolivia through desert lands in Chile and Peru. It would be big enough for a train, cars, and a natural gas pipeline (click here for illustration). Land removed from the tunnel excavation would be used to make an island in the ocean for Bolivia to build a port. Never mind that the ownership of this ocean area is currently disputed by Peru and Chile. Under the plan, those waters would be made international, jump-roping any messy politics.
The benefits for Bolivia? The possibility to export and import goods via a port (including it’s abundant and controversy-free natural gas and rare, precious electric car-necessary lithium), the possibility to develop a fishing industry (jobs, anybody?), and of course, a new tourism destination! Woohoo! Oh, wait. I forgot that Bolivia could also perhaps move their 170 ship navy from Lake Titicaca to the ocean! Hello military relevance!
And guess what? Chile’s Foreign Minister has said that Chile is open to the possibility of the “avant-garde proposal” and would like to hear more. Bolivia has yet to comment, saying Chile needs to agree first (but isn’t that kind of an endorsement?)
But Seriously…
By my tone, you can probably tell I’m not a huge fan of the idea. While I’m all for improving quality of life for the people of Bolivia through creative means, I don’t think this is the way to do it. If you like, call me a “goofy, shrieking, wild-eyed tree-hugger” as one reader did on another post I recently wrote about the almost-certain environmental impact of a crazy tunnel being built under a mountain in Peru. I’m not afraid to stand up for the environment when the cost is too high, even if it comes as an annoyance to those who would rather stimulate economies.
There are a myriad of reasons why the idea to build a tunnel to the ocean for Bolivia’s exploit is faulty (despite its creativity) and might lead to environmental disaster. I’m just going to focus on the basics:
- Added fishing pressure in the Pacific, right where the crucial Humboldt Current serves as a worldwide fish population incubator (20% of the fish caught in the world originate from the ecosystem it creates).
- Pollution: Exporting natural gas through a tunnel and then via ship– sounds fool-proof right? Plus, all of those additional boats and people on the ocean are sure to add some waste and carbon emissions.
- Habitat loss: This island’s going to have a port, right? I don’t think we’re talking something very small. Too bad for ocean creatures. Of course they could plant trees on the island, in effect, creating habitat! But would that be good necessarily? Who knows.
Those are plenty of reasons for me to protest the creative idea. What about you?
Photo Credit: Don Fulano on Flickr under a Creative Commons license
Although it’s been a since Bolivia lost its coastline it is still a big issue within the bolivian society. You coul even say the country was traumatised by beeing locked to the continent. I’m sure any idea, as avant-guard it can be, will have widespreat support of nearly all Bolivians.
On the other hand you can be sure that Bolivian gas and lithium resources will be expoloited in the next decades. Most of the natural gas is currently exported to Brazil via pipelines through tropic forrests and savannahs.
The worlds biggest natural resource of lithium in the Salar de Uyuni in the south-west of the country is still more or less untouched. As the Salar is one of the most beautiful landscapes in the world. But, with all the support for hybrid and electric cars there will be no way to not exploit this resource. It will be a tragedy. But if all the lithium would be brought to Chilean or Peruvian harbors by trucks much bigger parts of the andes would suffer.
I’m not sure if the tunnel is a good idea. But still it might have its merrits. Wiping it away like this article does is not very wise.
Bolivians do not want anything to do with Chile. Instead of a tunnel, how about a bridge?
A more ecological alternative would be to build a port on the Chilean shore and give Bolivia access to it from a rail line.
I do remember hearing talk about granting access to a port (Iquique) years ago but like all things political, it was lost in the shuffle, dismissed and never to come back again.
I have never visited South America and I am trying to understand why it is so important for Bolivia to touch the ocean, and why the country is considered to be “land-locked”. What about Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary? They are also “land-locked” but this have never caused any problem for them and they have not tried to find a way through the sea.
In addition, I examined the illustration and the map. It seems that the tunnel will be quite long, which can bring many risks (terror, accidents, etc.)
Hi there! LeviNovey and the people who wrothe those coments…
Well first of all I’m Bolivian and the article and this project/sugestion itself looks to me very Interesting but I’m afraid that I may have almost the same point of view of Levi.
1st as we know between countries there is no friendship just ”interests and I think that the three countries involved may hace their own interest First as we know there is an actual conflict between Peru and Chile for their ocean limits… even peru decided to demand chile in the AYA council… for that reason chile may have this interest: they could be free of this demand and “solve” this issue by aproving this project so the ocean can be International… and doing Bolivia a “favor”.
Bolivia could have again its Maritime quality and could export/import its production over this port and ave acces to the pacific ocean once for all! like a Bolivian it was a very hard and sad war when we lost the coastal line… by recuperating it Bolivia would not just have back a piece of land but the national honor uf you ask me…
Peru in the other hand maybe could oposse to the idiea as they did before… because of a treaty signed after the war by the 3 countries that participated… there is a article that says: none of Bolivia and peru will gain territory that was exBolivian or Peruvian without the agreement of the 3 parts.
I’m not shure when exactly but in the 70′s chile ofered to Bolivia a coastal line(in actual chilean territory) just between chile and peru frontier limit.
Peru that has the same belief that they should get back their territories lost in the same war one day oposed saying that thos territories and in fact they were peruvian.
So the thing its complicated… as a Bolivian there is nothing that I would desire more than my country get back its maritime quaity but this project is a litle far away from the SouthAmerican reality…
1st I think that the tunnel would cost too much and Bolivia even if could aford and financiate this… there are a lot of other priorities in the country still to fix…
2nd UNASUR(UNION DE NACIONES SUDAMERICANAS) will create a multinacional country in the future like the european union… and with the borderlines desapearing in that future maybe Bolivia wont need to have an own territory to export and import its products with high costs like today.
3rd a tunnel may be a litle problematic for the region and too vulnerable to be a whole country acces to a coastline.
I hope that I could give (aportar) something to the article and this topic in fact… please excuse me because of the english writen mistakes I’m out of practice but I spect that at least I was understandable.
Sincerioslly
A Bolivian
I live in Peru, I am peruvian. You are not considering the political backgorund.
1. Chile has always been expansionist, historically. This is one of the reasons why I don’t want this happening.
2. Chile and Peru just had sea frontier issues, solved peacefully, but still an issue. This is another reason for me to think there’s more than just giving bolivia an exit to the ocean behind this.
3. Bolivia an Peru just had an issue because of Peru giving Political asylum to certain character.
For all this, I hope this doesn’t happen and I think it’s very tough that it does.
So far, vapid would have to describe the points against this proposal. First off, go live there for a few years, then give an opinion. The only concern I see that even comes close to probable would be the fishing. That would be something that needed to be addressed. Currently we rape this world for oil, and all over I would add. Yet the worlds largest lithium supply should be out of bounds? Yeah, to hell with electic cars, let’s drive some yank tank instead. Sometimes I wish people would make considered points, rather than black and white never never never statements.
You are placing an insignificant number of fish, an even more insignificant loss of habitat, and the supply of a more environmentally friendly fuel source above the people of Bolivia. It’s probably easy to do that sitting behind your iMac than if you were sitting anywhere in Bolivia. You also fail to mention the possibly environmentally beneficial results
1. increased lithium supply could reduce costs of electrically powered cars, further promoting use of them.
2. some fishermen would simply relocate from lake titticaca or other areas, resulting in no net negative impact on the environment as a whole
3. financial prosperity may lead to more funding for environmental protection such as in their rainforest national parks, and environmentally sustainable infrastructure for the country such as better waste disposal.
You are blinded by your sheep like following of the “green movement” into being against anything that involves a shovel or a brick. I’m all for protecting the environment, but you should pick your battles more thoughtfully.
This seems like one of those proposals which happen when a bunch of artists get a cool idea without much knowledge of the real world. Mind you, I have nothing against artists or crazy ideas, I just don’t think this one really makes sense. I mean, why build a tunnel? If peru wants to provide some sort of duty-free transport corridor to the coast, that might make sense. A tunnel would be expensive and pretty pointless. Its not like you would be avoiding Peru’s territory by going under it.
On the other hand, I don’t think this would have a particularly terrible environmental impact…fishing, cargo movements, ect are all going to happen whether or not this tunnel exists-the locations will just be different. And a tunnel would probably impact the environment less than a road (seeing as how it doesn’t actually take up any space on the surface) The island is more iffy, ports do impact the environment greatly. On the other hand, most sea life lives on coastlines, and an island means more coastline. So whatever.
***
Quote:
* Added fishing pressure in the Pacific, right where the crucial Humboldt Current serves as a worldwide fish population incubator (20% of the fish caught in the world originate from the ecosystem it creates).
* Pollution: Exporting natural gas through a tunnel and then via ship– sounds fool-proof right? Plus, all of those additional boats and people on the ocean are sure to add some waste and carbon emissions.
* Habitat loss: This island’s going to have a port, right? I don’t think we’re talking something very small. Too bad for ocean creatures. Of course they could plant trees on the island, in effect, creating habitat! But would that be good necessarily? Who knows.
***
I have a few problems with your arguments.
1. Fishing pressure would not increase any faster than it already is. Sure, bolivia would become a new entrant to the industry, but it also means that they would be importing fewer fish products. There would be an initial rise as bolivia started fishing, but it would decline to normal levels as market forces take hold. Cheaper fish prices would also reduce the demand for more environmentally damaging products, such as cattle.
2. What’s worse? Efficiently pumping NG to the shore by underground pipe/tunnel, then shipping it via sea, or driving it hundreds of miles by truck to the shore then shipping it via sea? I vote for the one that reduces traffic. Because the demand/production/shipping of NG is the same whether there’s a tunnel or not, the idea that it would significantly increase shipping traffic is a moot point.
3.South America has about 13,500 miles of coastline. Limiting the radius to about 10 miles off shore (conservative value), that leaves about 135,000 square miles of coastal waters around that continent alone. Even if said port/supporting island was a massive 4 square miles, that still works out to only 0.003% of coastal water lost, not to mention a minimum of about 1.2 miles of new coast created.
I’m tired.
I am Chilean and I am proud they are working towards a solution. The truth is Chile will never give back the land to Bolivia or Peru. Chile won the war by defeating both Bolivia and Peru at the same time. This issue will not be solved for another 100 years.
A cocaine delivery tunnel!
So disappointed, publishing this stupid article? are you serious?
Build a tunnel under the Andes, what?
You should visit Bolivia, have a look how those people live ( and die), we are talking here of the poorest country in south America.
Very important regions of that country do not even have a paved road nor electricity, etc…
Poor fish!!!!, let people starve.
The whole idea is silly – not to mention the three points given against it by the author being beyond silly.
There is no chance in the near future.
This is the most stupid idea possible.
The cost would be more than Bolivia would be able to pay back in the next 100 plus years.
This stinks of Chileans trying to divide and conquer what fragile diplomatic harmony still exists between Bolivia and Peru (which is little with the present Bolivian government).
The only solution would be for Chile to give a small plot of land for a port. 2 to 4 square kilometres in a viable location for a deep port. This would have to be in the area that Chile took from Bolivia, and with road and rail access on former Bolivian land.
Anything else will always (and rightly) be blocked by Peru.
Chile owes a lot of it’s present wealth to the area stolen from Bolivia, and although such a move would be against current Chilean mentality, it would certainly help to mend the hatred between the two countries.
As long as this is not done Chile has to expect that as soon as the tables are turned that Bolivia will and must take any means possible to regain this land.
There is huge potential in South America, and only when the countries start acting like friend will some of this potential come out (a united Europe has shown that it is greater than the sums of the parts).
Ramiro
HI looks very interesting! bookmarked your blog. john brightman
What ever happened to a good old fashioned bloody war???
boivia doesnt have to be nice about it besides wasting money just waste live so the ones left behind have more money and a better quality of life! i heard one of the largest copper mines is there….
GET YOUR GUNS AND GO TO WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Leaving aside the environmental arguments, i believe that if this tunnel is built (which i very much doubt it will be) it will have only a negative impact on Bolivia.
I dont know where the funding would come from, but i’m presuming most it would come from Bolivia itself. Bolivia is poor, most people live in ‘poverty’, many lack access to basic services and running water. spending millions of dollars on a tunnel would be a tragic waste of money which could be better spent improving basic infrastructure for the people.
I realise that there would be some long term benefits after the initial money was spent, but i cant help but think this idea is appealing more to Bolivias historical frustration, than its economic interests.
are your only reasons for disaggreeing with this solution enviromentally based?
cuz there are alot more issues to be discussed, i believe this world isnt going to be here much longer anyways so build the tunnel(fish have hundreds of eggs at one time)let the people sell the NG so they can get moneyto boost the GNP and help bolivian economy.
i think that this is gay i hate water and i never had wanted the water resources so suck it…..siceriouslly ROBERTO!!!!!!!!
HI AGAIN I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY FREE BOYS OUT THERE BECAUSE I AM VERY LONELY MAN I LIVE IN LA PAZ IN BOLIVIA SO PLEASE CAN SOMEONE DO ME UP DA AA… BUTT? PLEASE I AM VERY LONELY!!!!!
SINCRLEY,
ROBERTO
Wow. That would be a long tunnel through several earthquake zones, right? You’d need to be pretty brave to drive down that tunnel.
Chile should give back at least some of the territory it conquered in the nineteenth century in the interest of regional prosperity and solidarity. Even a 20 mile wide corridor to the sea would work. I’m not holding my breath for this to happen. It’s probably more likely that Chile would invade Bolivia again for the lithium and methane reserves.