Fuerteventura’s Flourishing Digital Landscape
Empowering entrepreneurs through technology-driven innovation.
Fuerteventura is witnessing a transformative boom in its digital economy, driven by technology and innovation. With its picturesque landscapes and a supportive entrepreneurial ecosystem, the island has become an attractive destination for startups and tech enthusiasts. This phenomenon not only promises economic growth but also positions Fuerteventura as a pivotal player in the broader Canary Islands’ business landscape.
Local initiatives have emerged to nurture budding entrepreneurs, providing them with the resources and mentorship necessary to thrive. Co-working spaces and tech incubators are sprouting up, drawing in talented individuals from various fields. This collaborative spirit fosters an environment where creativity flourishes, enabling businesses to leverage the island’s unique advantages, including a strategic geographical location and a burgeoning digital infrastructure.
As Fuerteventura continues to grow as a digital hub, the potential for job creation and increased investment is substantial. The blend of natural beauty and technological advancements presents a compelling narrative for attracting diverse talent. Together, these factors are not only invigorating the local economy but also setting the stage for Fuerteventura to emerge as a leader in innovation across the Canary Islands.
Source: Gobierno de Canarias
Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands The Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) at its headquarters in Las Palmas has rejected the request of the sand extraction company Góngora Gutiérrez for the Ecological Transition to initiate the ordinary environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the project called Modified and Improvement of the exploitation of the resources of Section C) calcareous sands for the Arenera de Góngora quarry and Gutiérrez, mining file C-36, in the municipality of La Oliva (Fuerteventura)”. The inadmissibility “is based on considering that the content of the documentation presented was already the subject of an ordinary environmental impact assessment procedure within the framework of file number 2018/561-ORD, which concluded with the unfavorable Environmental Impact Declaration of the project.” The Court highlights that “the place where the activity is carried out, the location, is the same in the initial project and in the modified one”, that “the only difference that is observed between both projects is the affected surface that goes from 801,700 m2 to 118,889 m2, but remains within the perimeter of the initial project in the mining grids that were already described and evaluated previously, affecting the same environmental parameters that were the arguments of unfavorability”, and that “the exploitable reserves, the estimated annual production and the operational phase of approximately 30 years are practically the same.” The Section Second of the Administrative Litigation Chamber at its headquarters in Las Palmas examines the cause of inadmissibility provided for in article 39.4 of Law 21/2013, of December 9, on Environmental Assessment, which allows for inadmissibility when “it has already been inadmissible or has already issued an unfavorable environmental impact declaration in a project substantively analogous to the one presented.” assess that the project presented was already the subject of an ordinary EIA procedure within the framework of file number 2018/561-ORD, which concluded with the Agreement of the Autonomous Commission for Environmental Assessment dated November 25, 2019 in an unfavorable sense. “Special protection zone When comparing both projects, it can be seen that “there is a difference in the affected surface” but that “the available exploitable reserves, the estimated null production and the operational phase of approximately 30 years according to demand are practically the same” and that “the place where the activity is carried out is the same (…) affecting the same environmental parameters that were the arguments that led to the unfavorable result.” The Chamber recalls that the area is located on rustic land with dominant natural value in a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds called Lajares, Esquinzo and Costa del Jarubio, in priority areas for birds and on an Island declared in its entirety as a Biosphere Reserve, the exploitation being located “in a core area and buffer zone of the Reserve” and “in an area delimited as habitat of the houbara.” He highlights that “although the modified project represents a reduction in the affected area, it does not have a favorable report from the Island Council of Fuerteventura as the managing body of the Area that is part of the Natura 2000 Network, nor from the Biosphere Reserve Council, nor with a report referring to the impact of the project on the houbara and its habitat”, and that “one of the reasons for the decline of the houbara in Fuerteventura is the extraction of sand.” Therefore, it concludes that “although the extraction surface is reduced, this does not represent an environmental improvement if the time factor has not been taken into account in the analysis of the evaluation.” The Court states that “we can conclude that both are ‘substantially analogous’, because despite now proposing a reduction in the surface subject to exploitation, the project is located within the same area that was the subject of an unfavorable EIA, whose soil is specially protected as stated in the act. contested.” It emphasizes that “the extraction method is the same”, that “the duration of the project goes from 37 years to 30 years, and the estimated annual production is the same 40,000 m3” and that “this new project does not include modifications that entail significant environmental effects different from those previously foreseen, being precisely the environmental parameters that must be taken into account.” It points out that, in short, “it is substantially still the same project, of the same nature, same object and same place where is developed and does not incorporate modifications that entail significant environmental effects other than those originally planned.”
Originally reported by radiosintonia.com, rewritten by the Fuerteventura Times AI Editorial Desk.
