The president of the Cabildo de Tenerife, Pedro Martín, assured yesterday that no proposal “comes out with an advantage” in the study on the viability of the Fonsalía port project and its possible alternatives, commissioned by the Canarian Executive, after the regional councilor for Transition Ecológica and Fight Against Climate Change, José Antonio Valbuena, and government groups such as Podemos and Nueva Canarias warned of the impossibility of executing this port infrastructure in Guía de Isora, due to its environmental conditions.
During his appearance in an extraordinary plenary session, held at his own request, Martín recalled that, once the Declaration of Environmental Impact of the Port of Fonsalía project expired, the Island has entered “a new situation”, which requires a “deep study ”To determine which is the most effective and sustainable alternative.
The objective, he pointed out, is to reach the greatest possible social and political consensus, and that the decision, regardless of what it is, is made after a technical debate, “and not opportunistic”, and based on documents, data and reports. “We have already lost enough time,” he said.
The spokesperson for Ciudadanos (Cs), Enrique Arriaga, showed his support for the macro-study, as it will not only put an end to a “sterile and contaminated” debate, but will also allow a decision to be made “well-founded and well-founded” after “twenty years lost by the inaction and lack of agreement ”, he asserted.
Despite the above, Arriaga also emphasized that it is “very late”, and that “no matter how much you try to do something now”, users of the Port of Los Cristianos will have to continue “suffering” from “deficiencies” of this infrastructure for years, “because the solutions will not be put on the table for three or four years.”
The proposals
Regarding the study of alternatives, Martín recalled that it will include a deep socio-environmental, financial and economic evaluation of all possible options.
On this basis, five alternatives have been established: the “zero” alternative, not executing the project; alternative 1, current port-island layout; alternative 2.A, the expansion of the current Port of Los Cristianos and the adaptation of the access roads and the port-city environment; and alternatives 2.B and 2.C, corresponding to the adaptation of the Port of Granadilla or Santa Cruz de Tenerife for the reception of commercial traffic of people and goods, reserving a tourist-sports use for the Port of Los Cristianos.
The spokesperson for Sí Podemos Canarias, María José Belda, recalled that the port of Fonsalía puts at risk a Special Conservation Zone (ZEC) that has important and broad ecological and biodiversity values.
The spokeswoman also criticized that the government group “continues to be determined” to carry out projects from twenty years ago, “that did not take into account the state of climate emergency”, and has asked that it be abandoned, “once and for all “, The concept of” outdated developmentalism “of 50 years ago.
“Do you want projects to invest in? Solve discharges with decentralized natural treatment plants, increase energy self-consumption in the Cabildo, invest in city councils or create a real agricultural and livestock plan to increase food sovereignty ”, he declared.
Contradictions
For her part, the spokesperson for the popular party, Zaida González, said that it was “surprising” that the Government had commissioned this macro-study, “when one of its fundamental government partners”, referring to the Minister of Finance, Román Rodríguez, “has already publicly and openly stated that he does not agree with the project ”.
González also denounced the other contradictions that have been occurring within the Canarian Executive regarding the future of the port of Fonsalía, and has indicated to Pedro Martín that the management and development of Tenerife in the last ten years has been the responsibility of both the Canary Coalition and of the PSOE.
“The reality is that our island in these last two years has been losing important projects,” such as the southern trains, the regasification plant or the Predinfor project, lamented the popular councilor.
“We are absolutely headless”, and, “although I think it is very good that the study is done, that does not mean that we are wasting fundamental time for the development of our island,” he concluded.
The CC spokesperson, Carlos Alonso, also considers “a wise decision” to carry out this study, although he has asked that fundamental issues such as the increase in population in Tenerife be taken into account, because in the end “population and economic activity have a very important correlation on mobility ”. He also insisted that “things change”, and that sustainability should be, therefore, one of the main axes of the study.
Alonso disagreed with the Cabildo not participating in the study and assured that both the University of La Laguna and the College of Engineers should play a fundamental role in it.
During the reply, Martín criticized the “incoherence” of the nationalist spokesman and regretted that he is using “tacticism” to try to position himself “where he thinks public opinion is.”
“Three months ago your group in Parliament urged the Government to promote the port of Fonsalía. If for you three months is the past, it gives me the impression that we can continue to change our minds every week ”, he concluded.
