The release of the second report concerning the maritime link between the Green Islands and the Port of Christians has reignited a conversation that significantly influences the inter-regular connectivity model and the southern development of the island. In this context, the circle of entrepreneurs from the south of Tenerife (CEST) and the Federation of Southern Associations of Tenerife (FAST) evaluated the report’s contents yesterday, delivering a unified message: action is imperative. CEST’s president, Javier Cabrera, believes the report assesses “all possibilities” and underscores its inclusive perspective. “It is a thorough evaluation that captures various aspects of the issue,” he elaborated. However, he openly admonished the absence of political will: “I don’t perceive anyone eager to highlight this concern,” he remarked.
Cabrera argues that the Port of Christians requires a holistic approach, not just from a maritime perspective but also an urban one. “We have always maintained the need to reorganise its relationship with the city. The Costa Front is burdened by overstretched infrastructure that creates significant visual pollution around the Bay. Investing in the Christians is essential to enhance access, create bridges, establish suitable spaces, and ensure order.”
In his view, Fonsalía “remains a viable option,” although he clarified: “Perhaps not with the initial concept. We do not require a sports marina or a tourist harbour, but a functional port that operates efficiently.”
He also expressed concerns regarding the possibility of redirecting traffic to Granadilla. “This is not an option. Granadilla is not designed to accommodate that. It faces numerous technical and logistical challenges.”
Moreover, he lamented the “lack of institutional engagement from Santa Cruz concerning the issues of the South,” suggesting that “this kind of inertia exacerbates problems and wears down the populace.”
From the Friends of the South of Tenerife Forum (FAST), its president, José Fernando Cabrera, also acknowledged the technical report’s merits but insisted that a solution is yet to be presented, advocating for the continuation of studies of this nature.
“The reality is that both Santa Cruz and Granadilla have been discarded, yet that alone does not resolve the issue. A more thorough investigation is needed to arrive at an optimal solution.”
“This document states that without action, the Port of Christians will experience a collapse within ten years.” For this reason, he insists that any intervention must stem from a rigorous technical analysis, and “politics should not interfere.”
The president of FAST believes the port must undergo improvements, regardless of the final decision. “If Christians is chosen to remain the primary hub, extensive reforms will be necessary to accommodate the current demand.”
Regarding the alternatives suggested by the technicians, such as distributing functions between Granadilla (cargo) and Christians (passengers), he noted that “this option would significantly slow operations and render them unfeasible.” He also expressed regret over the lack of institutional coordination: “Workgroups have not been established, nor has there been collaborative planning.” He concluded with a clear message: “In a year, we should have a definitive solution.”
Differing in Approach
Both CEST and FAST concur that the situation at the Port of Christians is “unsustainable” and requires “immediate” resolutions. Both organisations caution against the risks of further delaying this issue without “a clear roadmap.” However, they exhibit differences; while CEST advocates for a comprehensive rethink, leaving the option of revitalising Fonsalía on the table, FAST warns that “only a serious technical assessment can steer the decision.”
