The saturation of the Port of Los Cristianos, an infrastructure that has become too small for 1.7 million passengers that move on average per year, It has led politicians, businessmen, environmentalists and citizens to propose various solutions. The Port of Fonsalía is the alternative with the most consensus among politicians and businessmen, although it is also the one that generates the most rejection among conservationists due to the threat it poses to cetacean sanctuaries in the waters between the south of Tenerife and La Gomera. When did the idea of a port in Fonsalía, in Guía de Isora, come up? What journey have you had?
The first movements to promote the construction of a port in Fonsalía They date from 1995. Pedro Martín, current president of the Tenerife Council, became the Mayor of Guía de Isora that month of June, after winning the elections held on May 28. His first supramunicipal management was linked to this matter. But the formal opening of the file for construction occurs in 2001, with the approval of the Canary Islands Ports and Port Facilities Plan by the regional government. Despite the fact that the Islands do not have the competence in ports, the construction of one requires in Spain the authorization of the General Directorate of Sustainability of the Coast and the Sea, dependent on the Ministry for Ecological Transition, as it is the administration in charge of the space. maritime-terrestrial public domain. The Government of the Canary Islands requested the secondment of that area to build the port on January 30, 2015. The response was unfavorable on October 16, 2018.
In 1999 the approval of the Punta de Teno-Rasca special conservation area, in the West. In this framework, it was the central government, through the General Directorate of Coasts, which de facto proposed that the port be in Fonsalía by indicating that space as free of protection. In 2000, Puertos del Estado ceded to the Canarian executive the Fonsalía draft, which is included in the Ports Plan; the Cabildo does the same in the Insular Plan for Land Management (PIOT) in 2002, the central government disqualifies it as infrastructure of general interest in 2005 and in 2006 the regional government classifies it as “exceptional public interest”, which gives it approval automatic with the unanimous endorsement of the autonomic Parliament.
On December 22, 2014, the Canary Islands Regional Planning and Environment Commission (Cotmac) approved the Environmental Impact Statement (DIA). During the process, the Port Authority of Santa Cruz de Tenerife presents (02-15-2011) an allegation warning that “it is necessary for the new port of Fonsalía to host and replace the inter-island transshipment activity that takes place in Los Cristianos, due to capacity, accessibility and security problems ”. One month after the approval of the environmental impact statement, the Canarian Government requests Costas to assign the maritime-terrestrial public domain to the new port of Fonsalía.
It remains to be known the definitive answer to this request from the central Executive, through the Ministry of Ecological Transition, after the Canary Islands amended the ten objections that led to its rejection. Among them, it is cited that there is no study of alternatives, it has not been considered to occupy a smaller maritime strip locating the service areas on land, in addition to the fact that the forecasts on demand are not updated. It should be clarified that the Spanish Government took four years to respond to the request of the Canary Islands that, without the maritime-terrestrial public domain, cannot do the port in Guía de Isora.
This statement was issued by the last Executive of the Canary Coalition (CC), which comes to put on the table an exchange of ownership so that the port of Los Cristianos becomes attached to Canary Islands and that Fonsalía is assumed by Madrid. The purpose: for the central government to build the Isorano port on suspicion that the current situation is one of the causes of rejection. Decided on its construction and where, the next step was to define the design. For this, they took into account four alternatives: the zero, consisting of doing nothing; the one, based on the concept of a port island; the second, which would project the port completely attached to the coast; and third, a port with a traditional concept, which would be equipped with a dike that is larger and more invasive from the sea. The choice on which the construction is formulated was the one, that option by which it would be built entirely in the sea connecting it to land by a newly created road.
Among the arguments that lead to promote this port is the need to unlock the chaos that Los Cristianos is experiencing Due to the activity of its port – the second with the highest rate of passenger traffic in Spain (the one with the highest rate during certain times of the year) -, guarantee connectivity between the Western Islands and do so on a sustainable basis.
The opposition to the port of Fonsalía is as old as its approach. Ecological movements and ecosocialist political formations, fundamentally, have spoken at all times for the zero option, that of doing nothing. This year, in addition, that rejection is increased after, on January 27, the World Cetacean Alliance declared the Teno-Rasca marine strip as the first Whale Heritage Site in Europe. A decision endorsed by the Cetacean Sighting Sustainability Charter and which promoted an initiative of the Tenerife Cetacean Association (Acest), with the support of the Cabildo, as recognized at the time by the area councilor, José Gregorio Martín Plata.
The affected area is a 22-kilometer marine strip between the point of El Fraile (Teno, Buenavista del Norte) and Punta Salema or Rasca (Las Galletas, Arona municipality), which previously had the Special Conservation Zone (ZEC) and Marine Hope Point cataloging. In these waters stands out the stable colony of pilot whales –also known as pilot whales–, made up of about 250 specimens, as well as sperm whales, fin whales, dolphins and killer whales.
The main and great problem of the construction of this macroport is that “it is an environmental attack with all its letters,” say environmental groups. They say it because of its location in this protected area of 69,489. They recall that the ZEC is a «figure contained in the Natura 2000 Network whose purpose is to ensure the long-term survival of species and natural habitats most threatened in Europe, helping to stop the loss of biodiversity caused by the adverse impact of human activities. They admit that “this macroport” would be located in a “conservation hole” that was left in the ZEC declaration to enable its construction, but they argue that this space “does not have a lower environmental value than the extensive area ZEC that surrounds her. Therefore, the pier “would produce serious direct and indirect impacts on marine life and habitats protected by this figure.”
The yes of the Canarian Parliament
On the other side, the Canary Islands Parliament, with the only vote against Sí Podemos, approved last June 9 a non-law proposal (NLP) to urge the regional Executive to definitively promote the construction of the port of Fonsalía. The proposal, presented by the Popular Group, also urges the Government of the Canary Islands to request the State to provide a financial record for the development of this infrastructure. This agreement includes an amendment by the Socialist Group by which the Canary Islands ask Madrid to rule on the assignment of the maritime domain to the Archipelago, an essential preliminary step to initiate the bidding of the project and its subsequent execution.
Meanwhile, this August, the Ministry of Ecological Transition of the Canary Government made public the expiration of the environmental impact statement since December 22, 2020. The area councilor, José Antonio Valbuena, had already proclaimed in September 2019 that the Cotmac authorization established 25 conditions, even stating that some of them were “difficult to solve.” “If it depended on me, the port of Fonsalía would not have environmental authorization,” he came to assure. In his latest pronouncements, he warns that the future goes through the zero option and considering the Port of Granadilla.
Line of argument that some more defend, others raise doubts about the veracity of the expiration of the study of environmental impact, some (José Julián Mena, mayor of Arona, for example) say that the solution is to bury a new road from Avenida Chayofita to the highway and continue with the Port of Los Cristianos and others continue to bet on the Port of Fonsalía.
