Eurovegas and SEA

The case of Eurovegas in Spain has a deep political issue but in this post I will try to analyse the case with the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) tools and to see the most appropriate. Eurovegas is a big real-estate project with the goal to build 12 hotels, 3 golf courses, 6 casinos and 1 sportive centre. The surface on which this project is allocated measures 1.231 hectares.

Source: http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2013/02/08/madrid/1360320473_403277.html



Eurovegas is still a tense issue because there is a political issue and an important number of voices against this project. The project should start this year its first phase and it is expected that the construction of the project will end in 2025. I have not found the environmental impact assessment of this project on the Web even according to several laws there is an obligation[1]:

–  Ley 27/2006, de 18 de julio, por la que se regulan los derechos de acceso a la información, de participación pública y de acceso a la justicia en materia de medio ambiente (según el Convenio de Aarhus de Naciones Unidas; e incorporando las Directivas de la UE 2003/4/CE y 2003/35/CE)

–  Real Decreto Legislativo 1302/1986, de 28 de junio, de evaluación de impacto ambiental

–  Ley 2/2002, de 19 de junio, de evaluación ambiental de la Comunidad de Madrid

In this case, associations and platforms did the EIA and published it on the Web. This assessment is not official but give a good idea of what it is necessary to take into consideration[2]. They followed the law 2/2002 of Comunidad de Madrid.

The construction of this project will increase the emission of CO2 not only by the construction and the Eurovegas itself but also with the tourism travelling by air. Electricity will increase; this platform evaluates this increase equal to the consumption of a city of 676.000 inhabitants. The waste will increase eight times and if we think about the golf camps, water would also increase drastically. There is a risk of light contamination, which could affect animals of the zone and the population around this casino.

In Spain the EIA is more based on environment aspects more than social but regarding the social impact there is a possibility that the law bans smoking insight of public space will be remove in the casino. This action would have an impact on health; at the same time of the risk of alcohol and game addiction should also be taking into account. For the promoters of this project, the main argument is the creation of employment and it could be a positive impact but if the SEA would have been taken, the argument of jobs could be put in doubt. Below I will explain why. These few examples are directly linked to the EIA through analyse the baseline and the impacts and assess them. In this case, there is no clear best alternative perhaps a better sustainable construction (with renewable energy, etc) but I didn’t find any information.

What happens know if we would have taken the SEA according to its objectives[3]:

1. Encourage environmental and sustainability integration (including biophysical, social, institutional and economic aspects), setting enabling conditions to nest future development proposals;

2. Add-value to decision-making, discussing opportunities and risks of development options and turning problems into opportunities;

3. Change minds and create a strategic culture in decision-making, promoting institutional cooperation and dialogues, avoiding conflicts.

If the decision-makers and promoters have thought in a strategic way perhaps they could have seen some risks to build a project like Eurovegas in this area. Except all the risks that are mentioned in the EIA, there are risks before to imagine how to build it. For example, if we take a big picture the European crisis and the repercussions on the financing. This question is still open. The second one is the airport of Madrid. It is already overexploited, so what happens with the millions of tourists they expect to come to Madrid. Here the question of mobility is raised. Even they talk about to use of the airport of Ciudad Real (an inactive airport) but this alternative should also be assessed through SEA. Now the question of water, Spain has a big issue with water, so golf courses would have directly an impact of this issue because they consume a high quantity of water. The question of transparency and citizenship participation is raised. Conflicts exist among the political and civil society but it seems that dialogue is avoiding. Related to the argument of employment, 240.000 jobs will be created. Of course, it is a big number but according to the Guardian[4] this amount is reached in 18 years when the all project will be ended. What are 240.000 jobs in 10 years when in Spain now there are 6.000.000 unemployed people? And what kind of jobs they will be. Finally, the European Commission[5] has refused a prolongation for the fulfilment of the contamination limits in Madrid. They don’t have implemented strict measures to fulfil the objectives and the city could have financial sanctions. This question of contamination and the difficulty to tackle could be another indirect risk with Eurovegas.

This case of Eurovegas shows that SEA is fundamental to assess what are the key issues and the context. Moreover, they help the decision-makers to know if a project is necessary and will have more positive impact than negative. However, SEA and EIA are complementary and give more answers than taking one of them.

Eurovegas would be designed like in this picture

Source: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2013/02/08/madrid/1360349728.html

3 comentarios / 25 May 2013 por Stephanie Barrial
IMSD /

Comentarios cerrados.