Suspending the ‘Cuna del Alma’ urban development project in Puertito de Adeje (Canary Islands)

Subject: Suspending the ‘Cuna del Alma’ urban development project in Puertito de Adeje (Canary Islands)

The Canary Islands, and in particular Tenerife, are among the most densely populated Spanish territories and receive more than 14 million tourists each year. It is easy to imagine the direct impact of both factors on sustainability and environmental preservation. Nevertheless, it is one of the regions of the EU with the highest rates of unemployment and poverty.

This context, together with the fact that there are few undeveloped coastal areas in Tenerife, has played a part in the popular rejection of the ‘Cuna del Alma’ major urban development project in Puertito de Adeje.

In addition to the disappearance of an area of high environmental value, with unique flora and fauna, the project would affect the historical and ethnographic heritage of the area and pose a direct threat to the ‘Franja marina Teno-Rasca’ SAC (ES7020017) and the La Caleta Site of Scientific Interest.

1. Is the Commission aware of the project and has it assessed the possible infringement of Community legislation, in particular of the Aarhus Convention and Directives 92/43/EEC and 2011/92/EU?

2. Given that if the work goes ahead it will be irreversible, and bearing in mind the environmental precautionary principle laid down in Article 191 TFEU, is the Commission considering asking the authorities to suspend the project as a precautionary measure?

Answer given by Mr Sinkevičius on behalf of the European Commission (29 November 2022)

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (1) requires that the competent authorities in the Member State determine, prior to granting development consent, whether the project (2) in question shall be subject to an assessment because of its likely significant effects on the environment.

In addition, they are responsible under the Habitats Directive (3) to carry out an appropriate assessment of any project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, in view of the site’s conservation objectives.

In light of the outcome of that assessment, the competent authorities shall agree to the project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site (4).

The Aarhus Convention (5) requires that the parties (6) ensure effective and timely public participation with regard to projects, plans and programmes with a significant impact on the environment. This obligation is set out in more detail in EU law, including Directive 2003/35/EC (7).

The Commission stresses that both the EIA Directive and Directive 2003/35/EC include provisions on access to justice. In any case, without prejudice to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, Member States are primarily responsible to ensure compliance with their obligations under EU law.

The Commission considers that the redress mechanisms available under national law are the most adequate means to deal with individual instances of incorrect application not raising issues of wider principle (8).

National judges are also competent to order the suspension of projects that are incompatible with EU law as a precautionary measure in a swifter and more efficient manner.

⋅1∙ Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on

the environment Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1‐21.

⋅2∙ Urban development projects are referred to in point 10(b) of Annex II of Directive 2011/92/EU.

⋅3∙ Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7‐50.

⋅4∙ Without prejudice of the provisions of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive.

⋅5∙ UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

⋅6∙ Both Spain and the European Union are parties to the Aarhus Convention.

⋅7∙ Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans

and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission — OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 17‐25.

⋅8∙ In line with the Commission’s strategic approach to its enforcement actions, as set out in the communication from the Commission — EU law: Better results through

better application — C/2016/8600 — OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10‐20; and in the communication from the Commission — Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers.