Environmental organisations and surf clubs have united to sign a manifesto opposing the new tourist development in southern Tenerife, known as Underwater Garden. Over twenty associations are calling for a change in approach and the immediate cancellation of this park, arguing it will have significant environmental, social, and economic repercussions. “It’s a theme park masquerading as marine regeneration,” they caution.
The signing organisations highlight that similar constructions in the Canary Islands have caused irreversible damage to both the landscape and ecosystems. “The use of terms like ‘sustainability’ or ‘regeneration’ conceals the speculative nature of the project,” they state.
Presented as a regenerative and sustainable park with features both on land and at sea, Underwater Garden spans 17 hectares in the southern part of the island. It was declared of regional significance in 2022, with the Cabildo justifying it as a key initiative to revitalise tourism lost during the pandemic. Three years on, visitor numbers in the Canary Islands have surpassed pre-pandemic levels. Amid ongoing debates about the islands’ growth, the project persists in its development.
“While research on ecological restoration is important, the Canary Islands already have a proven model for the rehabilitation of marine ecosystems: marine reserves. These have shown to be the most effective strategy for regeneration without exacerbating the anthropogenic effects on the coast,” environmentalists remark.
The groups caution that the installation of underwater infrastructure in an area characterised by strong currents and complex seabed contours is not only impractical but also poses a considerable risk to local marine ecosystems. “The biodiversity along the Canary Coast is delicate, and any intervention of this nature could have catastrophic effects, particularly in regions already pressured by human activities.”
The statement asserts that this project would draw thousands of additional tourists and increase boat traffic within the Special Conservation Zone (ZEC), further heightening pressure on the area. Ecologists assert that, just as they successfully opposed the port of Fonsaly, they will not allow this large-scale project to proceed.
Loss of space for the local community
The groups emphasize that the local community would face consequences from the indirect privatisation of the natural area at Punta Blanca, which is one of the last remaining refuges on the island for fishermen, surfers, families, and nature enthusiasts to appreciate the outdoors away from mass tourism’s pressures. “By establishing the theme park and restricting access to the area, it becomes challenging for locals to enjoy a vital space for their identity and well-being,” they elaborate. The groups advocate for planning that prioritises the protection of agricultural land instead of its unregulated exploitation.
A significant concern highlighted by these organisations is the potential impact on one of the most iconic surf spots in the Canary Islands. The unique environmental conditions in the area create this wave, which holds immense social and sporting value. “The installation of underwater infrastructure and a potential jetty poses a risk to the current dynamics and could alter the wave’s formation, adversely affecting surfers, local athletes, and the natural equilibrium of the coastal ecosystem,” they warn.
Furthermore, the organisations allege in their statement that, “The developer has employed misleading tactics to gain support, concealing crucial details regarding the infrastructure, environmental implications, and marine concessions.”
“Promoting the islands through parks and artificial attractions detracts from what the Canary Islands genuinely embody: their natural beauty and individuality. Such projects, centred on artificiality, steer us away from the vision of sustainable tourism that values and respects the islands’ authentic natural environment,” they conclude. The groups are urging the Cabildo to cease the promotion of tourist initiatives “disguised as sustainability.”
