Agroaldea
Union of Associations of the Biosphere Reserve of Gran Canaria.
The document presented by the Cabildo is incompatible with World Biosphere Reserve Gran Canaria.
[quote]Approaching the new Insular Management Plan (PIO), the first thing that jumps out is the difficulty of the document, poco asequible y que no está al alcance de todos los ciudadanos.[/quote]
It comes with scales that do not clarify where it passes each line of delimitation of uses not include the names of neighborhoods. In addition, no information on paper to consult the neighbors, so that people who can not access internet can hardly know this document.
The Union of Associations of the Biosphere Reserve of Gran Canaria, UARBGC, claims that the new PIO, practically, all traditional activities are “extinguish ", by artificially and unjustifiably raise the administrative level of protection of natural spaces.
Management Plans are generally less restrictive than the Master Plans for Use and Management, but, in this case, PIO is so restrictive that is out of reality and leaves clarify the general regulations, since the 90 % moderate use happened to traditional use and is now back again to moderate use.
Traditional uses are what Biosphere Reserve tries to make viable, in that they are sustainable practices that have constructed the current landscape of Gran Canaria, all in accordance with the European standard and aims of UNESCO for Biosphere Reserves.
Among these uses is pastoralism, Gran Canaria being the only Canary island that is still practiced and that coexists with the turns of almond trees, and that there is a Protected Designation of Origin for its cheeses; locería Lugarejos the fail of the ocher and weeds del Pinar as ancestral activity recognized as part of our cultural heritage.
We have made use of the territory has allowed terracing, which they are known in the summits with their own expressions as strings and 'Bocaos'; or the use of Mt. (pinocha, broom and bed escobones for cattle) What, In addition, It is the best and cheapest technique fire.
The PIOT into force and the Rector of Use and Management Plan Nublo considered all these activities as traditional and, Therefore, permitted. However, the new PIO considers that if a land is vacant for over thirty years and, Therefore, colonized by vegetation substitution: It is already naturally!. And although they are fenced agricultural lifelong, You can not spend more on agriculture.
We understand that ignorance is anthological that the drafters of this document show on the functioning of ecosystems anthropized. A local representative of Rincón states: “It goes into contradictions, because near my house clean to prevent fires, now we can not even ask permission to do so”.
[quote]In this PIO only you can preserve and maintain, pero no se puede recuperar.[/quote]
Some examples:
The rooms implements a 15 % slope not allowed. In addition, the slope is measured with original slope and not fanned traditional agricultural use.
Currently walls, ponds, Access, rediles, alpendres, etc. remain to extinguish. And to top, any activity in use but “not currently legalized ", It may not be legalized. Nor shall apply the “possible legalization” if it affects environmental values.
Terraced areas, both traditional agriculture and traditional architecture is not referred to 'protect' in this PIO.
The lands “unused” more than 30 years, They are irrecoverable for traditional use due to recolonization by wild plants. Therefore a house on agricultural land of more than thirty years, It is not allowed reenable.
Among other aberrations, You can not clean to collect almonds that can be considered extinct use, to take over 30 abandoned years. Although our almond trees have an extraordinary value due to their development and biodiversity, unique in the world.
In several meetings with neighbors it has shown that "the parameters of previous plans were fixed”, but now it said: “corrective measures will be implemented under acceptable conditions”, but it depends on authorization of the interpretation of the duty officer. And interpretations know a while ...
For now loop the loop, the document leaves perfectly clear all standards. Like this, the plan envisages creating a Commission interpretation to settle the doubts of PIOT own.
With this procedure check, Once again, that “watertight models that work in urbanism”, they want to implement in the field, Forgetting the ports tremendous blunder that city and rural are antagonistic.
To verify that this PIO commitment to scorched earth and exploitation 100% tourism monoculture, are some figures that are unaffordable for the people of Gran Canaria.
[quote]The PIO proposed to nearly double the tourist places, passing the 138.000 current to reach 260.000.[/quote]
According to data ISTAC-INE, the average stay of tourists in Gran Canaria in recent years was 8,02 days per tourist, so you get the average occupancy level throughout the whole year was alojativa plant 57,97%.
In 2014 and exceptional circumstances, They came to Gran Canaria 3.595.552 tourists. More than ever in history. So the average occupancy does not reach the 60%. In high season from November to March, the occupancy rate reaches 63,49%, while in the low (August apart) April-October, stays in the 47,27%.
The approach to reach the 260.000 tourist places, it is absolutely unsustainable from any perspective, because the large landowners and land speculators is favored.
This IOP is a speculative short-term plan, that nothing arises what are the strategic proposals for the future of Gran Canaria would. Because it is unavoidable urgent economic diversification, especially to address one of the major structural weaknesses of the Canarian economy: its fragility.
CONCLUSIONS:
We conclude that this is the PIO “philosophy, of ideology, of ethics or morals”, the coast is unchecked urban and exploitable, to permanently turn it into scorched earth, and the mediocrities and summits of the island would be the playground of those who “exploit the coast”.
this philosophy, with our leaders and planners who hold positions of responsibility, besides wrong it is very dangerous, because those are the ones that have eliminated our traditional culture.
They have made us dependent on foreign up 92% what we eat, although FAO, (Organization of the United Nations Food and Agriculture) recommends produce 50 % consumption least, and much more in islands, but we can not even produce drinking water independently.
This IOP is incompatible with the objectives of the Biosphere Reserve of Gran Canaria. Remember that it was the council itself which proposed to UNESCO that much of Gran Canaria was declared Biosphere Reserve.
The Biosphere Reserve, It is the example of what not believed. It's the old way of thinking and acting in politics and in the 10 years of Biosphere Reserve, not known a single project in line with sustainable development.
We only know some 'eco-occurrences' to justify UNESCO to have done something. Proof of this is that the Council of Citizen Participation does not reflect the same. Of the more than 13 members who began, because they no longer represent anyone, only three were chosen for their industry, the rest were placed handpicked by the minister of industry or are not from the area.
It is vital scheduler function if you do not want to kill her child, know how the different components interact in the world of field. For example, I would have to explain that no water, no environmental recovery; which it happens to be the main problem of the Biosphere Reserve, and the Cabildo permanently refuses to seek a solution.
The NEIGHBORS back to check, Once again, how we have been used and deceived, because they asked UNESCO declaration Biosphere Reserve, not to favor the neighbors, but only as a claim of this economic model predator, with increasingly clear interests between politicians and tour operators.
We believe this PIO seriously jeopardizes the Declaration of the Biosphere Reserve of Gran Canaria. Or they do are thinking of applying to UNESCO the declaration is withdrawn? It would be quite a recognition 10 years of failure.
Finally, It is mandatory that the “PUBLIC INFORMATION” reaching out to citizens, which it is not guaranteed, so we understand that we believe have violated the principles that the social state and law enshrined in our Constitution, such as the right to information and to not be defenseless against what the authorities decide indolently.