The Cabildo revealed yesterday the completion of the pedestrian walkway at the roundabout of Father Anchieta “for September”, as stated by the Minister of Roads, Dámaso Arteaga, during the plenary session, in response to an inquiry from Vox regarding the end of this project. “Officially, the anticipated completion date is April 30, 2025, but due to complications in manufacturing and transport, the ultimate completion date may be postponed. This is a considerable complex initiative, involving technical issues that have arisen, which we must address, along with the associated timelines,” Arteaga explained, noting that they anticipate the walkway “will be realised at the beginning of the 2025-2026 academic year, in September.”
In light of these circumstances, the councillor clarified that “we had initially planned to transport the pieces two at a time, but we had to alter that agreement with the shipping company.” Furthermore, “in the Peninsula, where these modules are manufactured, timing is crucial; you cannot simply apply paint to the modules as you must wait for operational windows with optimal conditions.” This is compounded by tidal conditions, “as there are modules that have faced delays because the ship must arrive at high tide to conduct operations.”
“Several factors are influencing the manufacturing and transportation of these modules, which are leading us to postpone the completion date of the works,” Arteaga concluded, emphasising that “around 75% of the projects in this country are facing delays due to various reasons.”
In the Cabildo’s recent updates regarding the advancement of this initiative, it was mentioned that the civil works could conclude between April and May, allowing for subsequent phases to follow, with the project expected to be fully finished by mid-2025.
In another matter, the Plenary approved a motion presented by the Insular Government (CC-PP) to “urge the Government of Spain to permanently ensure the free public transport service in the Canary Islands, within the legal framework of the economic and fiscal regime,” as outlined in the proposal, which received the backing of the PSOE and solely faced opposition from Vox.
“There is an adequate legal framework for this temporary measure stipulated in Royal Decree-Law 1/2025, which should evolve into a definitive or structural aspect within the Government of Spain,” highlighting that the next few years necessitate this council making a declaration “to ensure that free transport becomes a permanent measure for regular commuters.”
In this context, the PP spokesperson, Lope Afonso, asserted that “it is logical for this measure to be stable and not swayed by momentary political discussions or the ruling party at the time.”
Additionally, during the question segment, the PSOE posed a query regarding the delay in the processing of the Governing and Management Plan (PRUG) for Teide National Park. José Miguel Ruano responded by affirming that discussions are still ongoing “in permanent dialogue” with the Government, “addressing various PRUG matters that need enhancement,” but he pointed out that “we are making significant progress.”
He also emphasised that “the government group will not support the Valbuena Plan” from the previous legislative term, as it ran “contrary to the interests of the island, including traditional practices in the National Park such as beekeeping and its proper management, which we will now take on with the transfer of responsibilities,” he stated.
Waste Charge
In another development, the Plenary gave initial approval to the draft regulatory ordinance for the waste management charge, with support from the insular government parties (CC-PP), abstention from the PSOE, and opposition from Vox.
The Island Director of the Treasury, Juan Carlos Pérez Frías, explained that the aim is to adjust the ordinance “to Law 7/2022 concerning contaminated waste and soils approved by the State, which translates European regulations into action, making it mandatory compliance.” He also reminded that in October 2023, the insular plenary decided to “maintain” the current rate for municipalities “until the deadline specified by the aforementioned law”, which is “until April 9, 2025.”
Regarding the ordinance, he indicated that “it involves a prior cost assessment that includes two new concepts, all in line with the new regulations.” “The first,” he specified, “is the discharge tax instituted by Law 7/2022 and that the Cabildo has been bearing since its enforcement on January 1, 2023, until now, on April 9. This tax is projected to generate around 14.9 million.” The second concept relates to greenhouse gas emissions, impacting another 3.6 million.
Furthermore, “it is proposed to eliminate the current classification of the charge by segments, so that it only accounts for the amount of waste collected.”
Based on this, “the charge is expected to be around 90.39 Euros per tonne and this amount will cover 100% of the estimated waste management expenses, except for the services provided to clean points, which will still be supported by the Cabildo, estimated at 3.4 million,” said the island director, who also indicated that “the ordinance would come into effect on April 10, 2025.” “The last update to this charge occurred in 2019, and hence, the increase needs to be adjusted to ensure it is not unprofitable,” he stated.
From the PP, Manuel Fernández labelled this measure as “the Tasazo de Pedro Sánchez” and lamented that “there was an alternative way to implement this European standard, but the PSOE is consistently inclined to raise taxes on citizens.”
Meanwhile, Aaron Afonso, spokesperson for the socialist group, condemned that this system has been approved “without any prior consultation with the municipalities,” claiming that “a charge is established without differentiating between types of waste.” In response, the insular director of waste, Alejandro Molawny, clarified that “the waste subjected to the charge only includes that which comes from the mixed container or is directly disposed of in a cell; all waste classified at source (paper, containers, glass, or organic) is exempt from this charge.”
