“The Government will meet and reach agreements with all the groups interested in the Master Plan for Use and Management (PRUG) of the Teide National Park». This is guaranteed by the Minister of Ecological Transition, Fight against Climate Change and Territorial Planning of the Government of the Canary Islands, José Antonio Valbuena, who highlights “the exemplary nature of the public participation process.” He remembers that it is a provisional document and that meetings are held with specific sectors to reach agreements for the final text. The instrument is still open and has extended its deadline to submit contributions until July 22.
The counselor stresses that it is a preliminary work document from which it will be based and that its final version “will be far from the original as it will be enriched with the contributions of the groups, which are sent during the period of public exhibition and through the meetings of work with entities and representatives of different sectors».
Valbuena emphasizes that the draft contains more than 60 pages and there are discrepancies in three specific sections that “are not the essence of the document.” The counselor regrets some “interested criticism” that has been made in recent days about this process. He values the recent meeting of the regional deputy councilor, Miguel Ángel Pérez, with the audiovisual sector.
The mayor of La Orotava, Francisco Linares (CC), rejects the PRUG, asks “to have the opinion of the citizens” and requests “to start the process from scratch.” The nationalists announce that they will present motions in all the institutions so that the document can be withdrawn.
For its part, the Popular Party demands to know the position of the Cabildo and the Government of the Canary Islands on this plan. Its island general coordinator, Lope Afonso, values: “El Teide is a feeling and I doubt that the same situation would have occurred in Gran Canaria.” The president of the PP of the Canary Islands, Manuel Domínguez, defends the need to paralyze the process “due to the evident lack of consensus.”
