Valencia port expansion to the north has received approval from the Council of Ministers, according to a report to the Efe agency from the City-Port Commission, a coalition of neighborhood and environmental groups. The plan would affect beaches and the Albufera south of the city and is projected to impose an external cost of about 6 billion euros on society.
The project, which the central government reactivated this Tuesday after years of debate over its environmental consequences, has now cleared another major bureaucratic hurdle. It is supported by the business sector as a whole, by the port and maritime industries, and by most political parties except Compromís.
Impact on southern coasts
Josep Gavaldá, a member of Per l’Horta, one of the coalition associations, describes the effects on the southern coast as brutal. He recalls prior experiences, noting the 30 million euro investment in the El Saler beach renovation and suggests the current northern expansion will yield even stronger impacts.
In a caption accompanying an accompanying image, the expansion of southern beaches is referenced and described as part of ongoing coverage.
Ecologists Action spokesperson Pau Monasterio adds that renovations are temporary measures. He highlights that the mechanism moving sediments due to repeated port expansions is a key factor in sand loss on beaches, calling attention to the barrier actions as central to this dynamic.
He argues that the only viable path to reduce or mitigate these barriers is to roll back the final northern embankment, which he regards as the most effective way to protect beaches both economically and ecologically.
Julio Moltó, president of the Nazaret Neighborhood Association and a member of the Commission, notes a long history of how the harbor affects the beaches, citing the loss of sandy areas following the 1986 port expansion.
He observes a current along this stretch of the Mediterranean where harbor moats and other obstacles prevent sand from reaching the southern coast and may cause it to denude there as well.
The environmental concerns around southern coasts are echoed by observers who warn that any further port expansion could severely threaten the area.
La Albufera is in danger
Gavaldá warns that La Albufera faces salinization, a change that could threaten animal life and rice crops and is described as difficult to mitigate.
Moltó adds that climate change intensifies the problem, noting stronger storms and warmer sea temperatures as effects that ripple to the southern coast and to La Albufera.
A risk is highlighted that saltwater could intrude into La Albufera. If the port’s solid infrastructure contributes to this, southern beaches and La Albufera Nature Park may be placed in jeopardy.
Monasterio explains that La Albufera is a freshwater system. The sand barrier separating it from the sea, Devesa, acts as its first line of defense. If that barrier narrows, it cannot sustain itself even during temporary sediment inflows.
Seawater increasingly comes into contact with La Albufera waters underground, with the most sensitive areas showing salinization. The ecosystem, including plants, animals, fisheries, and agriculture, faces broader risks.
Ecologistas en Acción attributes these problems to freshwater scarcity, port expansions, and the climate crisis, calling it a dangerous mix for La Albufera.
Expanding the port is viewed by some as adding fuel to an already volatile situation, described as being at the doorstep of a significant ecological risk.
6 billion external costs
Gavaldá explains that the expansion aims to raise container capacity from five million to twelve and a half million, which would drive more ships and trucks. Today, about five thousand trucks move through the port daily.
He notes that transportation and guarantees carry external costs that society ultimately bears. The estimate, based on a 2019 EU report that first quantified public expenditure, suggests the port’s needs and the broader economic impact were not fully accounted for in current calculations.
He criticizes the project as a potential misallocation of public money, arguing that the long-term costs could reach six billion euros in 2019 terms, a figure he characterizes as barbaric. The argument is that public funds would flow to a private enterprise while the wider public only faces negative outcomes.