“Considering that it was only in the public consultation for 30 days, the interested parties not having been heard, a participation plan urges being created which involves the municipalities with stakes in the project and fishing associations affected by the discussion, with it being obligatory to emit a favourable, unanimous deal to give continuity to the process,” a joint statement reads, which was accessed by Lusa.

This is one of the six points about which the Consultive Commission “shouldn’t advance” without priorly consulting signatories in order to elaborate the Maritime Area Affection Plan for Exploration of Renewable Energy (CC-PAER).

The text is signed by six municipalities in the Porto Metro Area who are affected by the project, and the local fishing associations Pró-Peixe, the North Fishing Vessel Owners Association, the Pro-More Safety for Seamen Association, and Apropesca.

In case is the report of a preliminary proposal by the Labour Group about the planning and operating of renewable energy production plants in the ocean, which was in public consultation from January 30th to March 10th.

This project for the creation of an offshore wind farm in Portugal delimited Viana do Castelo, Leixões, Figueira da Foz, Ericeira-Cascais and Sines as possible sites for renewable energy exploration.

In the Matosinhos zone, besides the wind turbines located about 38 kilometres offshore, the possibility was identified to install a 180 square-kilometre platform 3km from the coast, mostly affecting Matosinhos, Porto, Gaia and Espinho, with a potential of almost a gigawatt.

According to Jornal de Notícias, Matosinhos council vice-president Carlos Mouta said on Thursday that the closest platform “will be pushed further back” and “will end up around 38km off the coast.”

Other points brought up were related to “the distances of equipment to the coastline,” which should be “reviewed” with the European average as a standard, as “the instalment of any human construction on high seas has a direct impact, namely visual, on the quality of life, on the economic fabric and in the tourism sector.”

The letter also defends that the project should “be subject to an environmental impact evaluation,” keeping in mind that the report “(still) doesn’t clear up the number nor the type of towers that will be used,” with it also being implied “that an evaluation should be made on the potential for the occurrence of grave accidents and catastrophes.”

As for fishing, “with the potential of interference of the project in fishing routes still to be calculated,” as well as an excess of conditions to activity, signatories want “for the compensation fee to be determined beforehand” for the municipalities and the sector.

The statement appeals to the need to “bridge procedural gaps observed in the report,” in a point in which the importance of licenses is emphasised in “the guarantee and pondering of legally protected rights and interests” of the affected.