On Saturday there were mobilizations on the 7 islands under the slogan “The Canary Islands have a limit.” At the time of writing this text I do not know the result. Aside from the war of numbers, common in all demonstrations, I think it is evident to point out that they have managed to open a broad social debate and that they have been simultaneous on the 7 islands (something that, if I am not mistaken, has not happened since the protests against the oil prospecting).
As has been discussed in numerous articles and public statements, this movement encapsulates widespread social discontent—more common and justified on some islands than others—which has found expression in the rejection of the tourism model of endless growth. Although the movement originated with environmental and ecological groups, its demands have resonated across broad sectors of society, extending far beyond the traditional base of such organizations.
The impossibility of accessing affordable housing in the main urban centers of the territory, the inconveniences caused by the saturation of services and infrastructure, water restrictions, or the concern about the deterioration of natural spaces and beaches due to an uncontrolled expansionist drive that is occurring on some islands, are issues that affect a social majority regardless of ideology.
And most importantly, and I believe this is at the heart of the protests, is the growing perception that tourism growth is the path to increasing the income and well-being of Canarian society in its broadest sense. And the data seems to support this view. In 2000, the Canary Islands received 9.975.977 tourists; in 2022, 14,6 million; and in 2023, 15 million—a figure that will almost certainly be surpassed this year (tourist arrivals through August had already increased by 16%), reaching 16 million. However, in 2000, per capita income in the Canary Islands was €20.703, and in 2021 it was € 18.990 . According to Eurostat data, it has fallen again this year. In other words, in these two decades we have seen the arrival of visitors increase by 50% and yet we have lost 1.700 euros of per capita income.
We see , therefore, that the increase in tourist arrivals does not translate into greater well-being for a significant portion of the Canary Islands population, and that the strategy of " counting tourists "—that is, focusing our efforts on increasing visitor arrivals—has failed. Incidentally, since we arrived at the Gran Canaria Island Council, we have defended the proposal of not basing tourism success on continuous growth, not without receiving criticism for it, although now many in the political and business spheres embrace it.
But the decline in GDP per capita is directly related to what we call the " demographic challenge , " that is, the unique demographics of the Canary Islands. On the one hand, some municipalities have population densities similar to the most densely populated places in the world (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria has a population density, not counting tourists, of almost 3.800 people per km²), while on the other hand, islands and the mid-altitude and high-altitude areas are experiencing a continuous population decline. In fact, the evolution of the Canary Islands' GDP has been similar to that of Spain as a whole, but the disproportionate population increase is what has caused the sharp drop in GDP per capita.
Now, having said this, I believe that to adequately address the problems we must take into account two issues: not all of the problems that are pointed out are a direct consequence of the tourism model (although it has an influence), nor is the situation the same on all the islands, there being, in fact, important contrasts.
Demographics do not operate independently of the socioeconomic structure . Without the economic opportunities linked to tourism (jobs, investment , etc.), this population increase would have been very difficult to achieve, but not all of it is due to tourism. We belong to a region with privileged conditions (good weather year-round, one of the safest areas in Europe, good transport links to the continent, etc.) that make it attractive to many Europeans who enjoy freedom of movement. Therefore, we must consider the urgent need to find ways to curb the arrival of new residents.
But I have to say that in the last 25 years the growth in Tenerife has been 31%, 70% in Lanzarote and almost 100% in Fuerteventura and 15% in Gran Canaria. In the last 10 years Gran Canaria has only grown by 9.341 inhabitants (1,10%).
Likewise, the number of tourists per capita is not the same on all the islands, nor are the environmental problems the same. Unlike what has happened on other islands, Gran Canaria has gone almost 20 years without a major tourism project ( the last large hotel opened on this island in 2015) and has lost more than twenty thousand tourist beds in recent years. And yet, the major projects we have underway or planned are linked to the energy and ecological transition, and some have tried to lump them together (Salto de Chira, the upcoming call for offshore wind energy, the reform of the network of recycling centers, the film studios, the new Infecar building, guided transport, etc.) or with public services (the network of social and healthcare centers, the Museum of Fine Arts, etc.).
Much emphasis is also being placed on the issue of water, both in terms of wastewater discharges and restrictions, issues that do not have a significant impact on Gran Canaria. We are increasing water reuse and are not discharging wastewater into the sea. In fact, just this week we inaugurated the new wastewater treatment plant in Guía and Gáldar, one of the main demands of the north in terms of water treatment.
In short, many aspects of our development model, which centers on tourism, need to be reviewed. Today we are poorer than we were two decades ago , despite having doubled the number of tourists, and population growth is pushing our capacity to provide essential services (water, roads, healthcare, social and healthcare centers, public transport , etc.) to the limit.
We have to work to improve the quality of the destination, making it more sustainable and generating high value-added services linked to culture, gastronomy and the primary sector and the environment that can be provided by local actors.
That tourists who choose our islands to rest spend more time with us, generate more spending during their stay and contribute to strengthening sectors such as agriculture and livestock or local commerce.
The regulation of the uses of housing - especially the vacation use of large owners throughout the territory - is highly necessary. It is also necessary to limit the purchase of homes by foreigners with high purchasing power, put barriers to uncontrolled and arbitrary growth in rental prices and build public housing.
Road, socio-sanitary, water, waste treatment and water purification equipment and infrastructure must be adapted to population growth.
It is essential to implement policies that regulate population growth linked to the economic system. Urban planning must prioritize the conservation of natural spaces and limit uncontrolled urban expansion.
I also support a targeted Eco-tax to help correct and mitigate these effects. Furthermore, experience with its application in other parts of Europe—or in regions of Spain such as the Balearic Islands—indicates that it has no impact on business volume.
A tourism that contributes to a greater extent to breaking down inequalities by improving the conditions of its workers, raising salaries, dignifying the provision of professional services to the sector with the necessary qualifications and training and producing greater collective benefits. Dignification, qualification, improvement of working conditions and increased salaries would make possible greater integration of men and women from our land in the tourism industry and would make the incorporation of foreign personnel less necessary.
The sector must also integrate effectively into society by acquiring a greater commitment to social and economic business responsibility by actively participating in the development of social welfare, cultural, sports, environmental policies, etc.
The speed with which the call for the demonstration spread and the shift in many public discourses seem to indicate that April 20th was likely a turning point in reorienting the model in many island territories. I don't know if it will lead to policy changes. In Gran Canaria, we are clear about the Ecoisla model, the one we have followed and the one we must continue to follow.
Antonio Morales Méndez
President of the Cabildo of Gran Canaria
