The political party Contigo La Palma has officially submitted a comprehensive objection to the Strategic Environmental Document concerning the Environmental Impact Assessment for the coastal development in Puerto Naos and Charco Verde. The party argues against processing this tourism planning tool, known as the Singular Tourist Planning Instrument (IPST), through a simplified environmental evaluation and insists it should undergo a standard assessment instead.
Contigo La Palma strongly opposes the approach taken by the three major parties on the island—Coalition Canaria (CC), the People’s Party (PP), and the Socialist Party (PSOE)—regarding the future of tourism. According to party leader Javier Gutiérrez Taño, their proposed model focuses solely on infrastructure and accommodation, neglecting broader issues of equitable resource distribution.
The party highlights that both the new IPST and the reopening of discussions concerning the El Remo-La Zamora road variant share a fundamental flaw: the major parties restrict the tourism debate to infrastructure, deadlines, and routes, deliberately avoiding deeper, more relevant questions that matter to local residents.
Gutiérrez Taño pointed out that when contemplating over 2,000 new tourist accommodations or a road variant costing €350 million, the real question should be what kind of tourism model is desired. He contrasts an extractive model, which exhausts resources and favours external benefits, with a regenerative model that distributes wealth among long-term residents.
The party notes that neither the IPST nor the road variant comes with any thoughtful consideration on how this new tourism product will be marketed or who will operate it, missing crucial discussions about income distribution for locals. “We are presented with a complete package (beds, roads, parking), yet the debate on who really benefits or who bears environmental, social, and territorial costs never happens,” they contend.
Contigo La Palma criticises this approach as deliberate: by focusing discussions on technicalities of routing, administrative timelines, or asphalt measurements, the major parties divert attention from the central issue of the island’s future. “The same old tactic is at play: distract the public from substantive discussions and keep them engaged in minor details,” they emphasise.
The party cites recent comments from Sergio Rodríguez, the president of the Cabildo Insular de La Palma, as an example of this political style. Rodríguez claimed, “We don’t want to be like the rest of the Canaries; we are La Palma, and we deserve a future,” yet Gutiérrez Taño argues this rhetoric contradicts itself, as Rodríguez promotes the same type of mass tourism model as Tenerife and Gran Canaria, which has led to overcrowding and job insecurity.
Contigo La Palma has made its objections to the environmental strategy publicly available on their website. They highlight several reasons for opposing the simplified assessment method, including:
– The requirement to prove the relevance of a 2019 decree of island interest and the legal continuity of the IPST process.
– An inadequate analysis of alternatives, having predetermined the tourist parcel boundaries due to a prior agreement with landowners.
– Public health risks from volcanic CO₂ emission without proper measurements in place, despite plans for nearly 2,500 underground parking spaces.
– Insufficient water supply and waste management tied to the establishment of new facilities, neither of which currently exists or is guaranteed.
– Significant destruction of agricultural land, affecting nearly 40% of banana cultivation and impacting protected marine areas and species.
– Unverified claims that the developers own the 75% of the land required by law.
– The total absence of mechanisms for equitably sharing the financial gains from reclassified land use, leaving local residents at a disadvantage against large corporate operators.
Additionally, Contigo La Palma announced forthcoming objections against the LP-2 road project following the reopening of a public consultation period prompted by previous procedural delays.
The party asserts that this project, costing approximately €350 million, fails to justify its official aim of improving access to El Remo, given its scale and expense. They argue there are far less invasive and cheaper solutions for access, stressing that the destruction of landscapes for large tourism projects must not be tolerated.
Gutiérrez Taño concluded, stating that La Palma deserves genuine civic engagement in shaping its tourism model, rather than more deals struck behind closed doors between three parties that have long held power. “La Palma needs a real conversation: what kind of tourism do we want, who will benefit, and who will be held accountable?” he stated, reaffirming the party’s commitment to advocating for local interests.
