If realized, the Transcontinental Railway project would form the central Brazil-Peru axis through the Sierra del Divisor within the Initiative for the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of South America (IIRSA), a continent-wide infrastructure offensive to stimulate trade and economic integration, and one of three terrestrial connections between the Brazil and Peru. The proposed railway corridor would lead from the Peruvian port of Bayóvar, where the Brazilian company Vale operates a phosphate mine, to Pucallpa in the Peruvian Amazon, thereby passing the Andes. From there is would have to pass through the geologically, ecologically and culturally vulnerable region of the Sierra del Divisor National Park (which extends over both countries) and a number of indigenous territories to then continue to Cruzeiro do Sul in Acre, and from there all the way to the Atlantic coast (via Rondônia and Mato Grosso). The Amazon border region is currently only accessible via a poorly passable road from Cruzeiro do Sul to the locality of Boqueirão da Esperança in Serra do Divisor, while the rest of the area can only be reached via fluvial transport and trails. Thus, the opening of the central IIRSA axis would inevitably penetrate the Amazon rainforest and affect indigenous communities such as the Shipibo-Conibo, Ashaninka, Nukini, Puyanawa, Yaminawá, and Nawá. First, the connection was particularly propelled by the regional governments of Acre and Ucuyali as a highway project, which would add the missing link between the Brazilian highway BR-384 (which at the moment ends just after the city of Cruzeiro do Sul) and a recently built Peruvian highway that leads until Pucallpa. These plans, however, aroused criticism about their environmental impact and the probable advancing of the deforestation frontier, as also experienced after the opening of the BR-364 in Acre and Rondônia where cattle farming and agricultural development were massively boosted. As a consequence, in the early 2010s the railway option was more and more identified as a less destructive option and plans became suddenly concrete in 2014 when China declared its will to invest in a transcontinental railway along the Amazon corridor. China has a high interest in importing agricultural products and mineral ores from Latin America, and trade with Brazil has significantly augmented over the last years, but shipping time remains long. Thus, during the 2015 visit of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang in Peru, the three countries signed a memorandum of understanding about the Transcontinental Railway project and the Brazilian railway operator started an assessment of the project details, costs and socio-ecological impact, based on previous feasibility studies of the Chinese railway company CREEGC, which had proposed the route through Sierra del Divisor as the preferred option but without elaborating on environmental impacts. In a statement, Li defended the project and highlighted that it would benefit both the economy and the protection of the environment as a railway would avoid some of the problems associated with road construction. The construction start was planned for 2017 and the inauguration for 2025. [1] [2] [3] [4][5][6][7][8][9]

The Transcontinental Railway project through this corridor encountered criticism particularly from environmentalists and civil society organizations. While proponents argued that the connection would benefit rural development and facilitate transport between Brazil and Peru and cheapen trade between China and Brazil, responding to the demands of the global market, opponents feared a waste of public resources, a chaotic wave of colonization of the Amazon basin and an environmental and social tragedy. Already before, organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, the Instituto del Bien Común and GRMMRU had conducted a model study that reveals the extremely fragile biodiversity in the border area and high vulnerability of indigenous communities, making especially the highway proposal socio-ecologically unsustainable. They point to the high correlation between road construction and deforestation, as for example analyses in Brazil have shown that 80 percent of deforestation happens in proximity of a road, which has recently manifested along the Interoceánica highway. This would also increase agriculture in the area, trigger water pollution and soil erosion, and after all exacerbate global warming. It was assumed that the railway would have similar impacts as the highway as it also required the construction of roads and further facilities and therefore trigger logging and and environmental degradation. Logging invasions are already a problem in the area (which is still rich in mahagony and other noble trees that can be sold on international markets for thousands of dollars) and road access to Pucallpa, an important hub for the timber industry, would amplify this. This would also affect isolated indigenous communities in the area and confront them with disease, displacement and socio-cultural impacts on their traditional way of life. Similar concerns over the railway’s negative impact on the ecosystem and indigenous community was uttered by NGOs such as Greenpeace, SOS Amazonia, Friends of the Earth Peru, Derecho Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR), Conservación Internacional and Survival International which moreover pointed out the the plans were being made without involving the public or the affected communities. Conservation expert Marc Dourojeanni noted that improvements in fluvial transport would be the most sustainable solution and avoid negative impacts such as migration of landless people or invasions by illegal loggers and miners into the area. A Kaxinawá leader called the railway project a death threat to the communities in the region; a leader of the Nawa, a group still fighting for land demarcation in an area affected by the corridor, noted that over the last years rumors over the project have increased among the communities and Chinese companies have already inspected the area but no one has ever spoken to them. The Acrean indigenous organization OPIN additionally warned about indirect effects also on communities outside the corridor and the anthropological association SALSA sent out an appeal to the then-president Dilma Rousseff to reconsider the route, expressing severe concerns about the project on the numerous communities in the Brazil-Peru border region. [1] [2]][3][5][10][11][12] [13] [14]

In 2016, the plans to start construction along the Amazon route seemed to have slowed down after changed political situation and environmental concerns. The environment ministries of Brazil and Peru declared that they still did not have access to the Chinese feasibility study while a CREEGC representative stated that also possible geological obstacles could be overcome. Brazil’s transport ministry, which originally prioritized the project within its economic growth acceleration program, communicated in the same year that due to the government change (impeachment of president Roussef) public policy priorities were being reconsidered and that also the financing was still unclear, but nevertheless the project is being planned. The DAR research group, composed by Peruvian civil society organizations, in the meantime reaffirmed the skepticism concerning the Amazon route and proposed an alternative Southern route as the only feasible option. In the same year, Peru’s position became more hesitant after the assessment by Valec confirmed the already assumed drastic socio-ecological impacts of the project, especially the problematic choice of the route, with possible damages to sensitive ecosystems, the crossing of an indigenous reserve, and the needed infrastructure for the construction process itself, but also the enormous costs and technical complications of building the railway. Moreover, also Peru had a change in government and the new president Kuczynski (who however had to step back because of corruption in 2018) publicly expressed doubts about the project’s environmental and budgetary dimensions and the dominance of the Chinese involvement and then contemplated about rather searching for a route further south to avoid crossing the Amazon. At the same time, Bolivia, which was initially expecting to be part of the railway corridor, had lobbied for an alternative route and started to negotiate with German, Swiss and Spanish companies and politicians. A main argument for the Bolivian route - which would in the east lead to the Peruvian port of Ilo and in the west towards Santos - is that costs are expected to be significantly cheaper and that the proposed route would cause less geological and ecological problems than in the Serra do Divisor area. In 2018, Bolivia declared that it now enjoyed Brazil’s support for its alternative proposal, the Central Bi-Oceanic Railway Corridor which could even make use of electric-powered trains and also involve European partners. Brazil confirmed this, stating that the Transcontinental Railway Brazil-Peru project through the Amazon is currently too expensive and unrealistic due to Peru’s environmental concerns. A memorandum of understanding was to be expected soon. However, also for this project the financing is not yet clarified and environmentalist have warned about a number of risks. First, because corridor bears similarities with the recently opened Interoceánica highway and could therefore cause a number of indirect effects, including deforestation, land use change and an increase in mining. Second, four of the five suggested routes would cross natural or indigenous reserves. Experts also noted a lack of transparency about the economic and geopolitical implications of the project and because the full assessment of the commercial, social and environmental impacts have not yet been released. [6] [7][15][16][17] [18][19][20]

(See less)