Opinion: Priorities for governing large-scale infrastructure in the tropics.

The G-20 predict that, at current rates, investment in new infrastructure will amount to $78.8 trillion by 2040 (1). As large as this number appears, the G-20 argue that this leaves an “infrastructure gap” of almost $15 trillion over the same period, hampering possibilities for economic growth. National, intergovernmental, and international bodies have prioritized investment in large-scale infrastructure as a central development strategy (2). The Chinese government’s Belt and Road Initiative, the South American Council for Infrastructure and Planning (COSIPLAN, formerly the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure of South America, IIRSA: Figure 1), and the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank illustrate this commitment. Fig. 1. The map shows the spatial relations among infrastructure, mining and hydrocarbon concessions, and indigenous territories in the Amazon. Access to infrastructure can enhance human well-being—indeed, an egregious lack of sanitation and health infrastructure contributed greatly to the explosion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Amazonian > The current political context challenges any effort to strengthen the socio-ecological governance of large-scale infrastructure, but it also presents opportunities. cities such as Iquitos, Manaus, and Belem. But the large-scale, “mega”-infrastructure approach to development has enabled projects that have had adverse socio-ecological effects, run over budget, and facilitated corruption made possible by the immense sums of money involved, opaque contracting practices, and land speculation. The “infrastructure as development” model has not always had felicitous outcomes in temperate climates either: Consider, for instance, impacts on forest loss, salmon runs, soil salinization, and land subsidence in the United States. Transferred to humid tropical forest environments in times of accelerating climate change, these approaches to development appear questionable: They are largely irreversible in the medium term; they risk aggravating forest loss, freshwater/river fragmentation, anthropogenic climate change, and biodiversity loss; they fuel land conflicts and unproductive land speculation; and they trigger chaotic … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: abebbington{at}clarku.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1