Palma coastal path ages without trees: residents demand clarification

Palma coastal path ages without trees: residents demand clarification

Who removed the trees — and for what reason?

In the morning, when joggers do their rounds and fishermen check their nets at Es Portitxol, bare spots now catch the eye where tree canopies once provided shade. Residents have shared images on Instagram that make it clear: several ficus trees along the bike and footpath have disappeared. The question that has been circulating since then is short and urgent: who decided this and for what reason?

Short-notice tree removals are not new in Palma, as documented in When Palma's Trees Fall Silent: Felled Pines and Lost Trust, but the location makes the issue particularly visible. The coastal strip is a favorite part of the city: a narrow promenade, scattered benches with salt streaks, children balancing on the curb, and seagulls crying at low tide. In this everyday scene the loss of greenery is immediately noticeable — and anger grows because no one has officially explained what exactly happened.

Critical analysis: lack of transparency and missing impact assessment

Decisions about urban greenery are often divided: city hall and the port authority share responsibilities, and permits can be complicated, as highlighted by recent waterfront projects such as Paseo Marítimo: More boulevard, more questions — will Palma make the new waterfront part of everyday life?. That is exactly the problem: when responsibility is spread across several bodies, political and technical accountability quickly disappears from view. On site there is currently no publicly accessible inventory: which trees were sick, which truly had to go, and which measures were considered beforehand? Without such information every action appears arbitrary.

The ecological consequences are easy to describe: less shade means greater heating of the ground and the promenade in summer, less evaporative cooling, and less habitat for birds and insects. For residents this increases subjective strain: benches become sunnier, walks in July more unpleasant. These practical effects have so far been insufficiently considered in the public debate.

What is missing from the debate

Three things are missing: first, clear, easily retrievable information about the reasons for the decisions; second, independent tree assessments that are made public before a felling; third, a plan for immediate reforestation or at least temporary shade solutions. Citizen participation often remains a buzzword rather than practice: a short notice or a digital message explaining why trees were removed would calm many people.

Everyday scene from Es Portitxol

A Friday noon: cafés fill the promenade, an elderly man sits on the bench next to where three trees were missing and points to the bare roots. Children swing in the breeze, which stays on their skin longer than before. A cyclist brakes, looks, shrugs and says, "It's a pity, that was a nice shaded spot." This is the small, concrete unease that results from the removed line of trees.

Concrete proposals — what to do now

1) Immediate duty to inform: City hall and the port authority should jointly publish a short, publicly accessible file: what work was carried out, who approved it, which reports were available. 2) Independent tree inspection: An external assessment by certified arborists would establish the facts; such reports must be comprehensible. 3) Interim measures: mobile sun sails, additional covered seating or quickly planted young trees would bridge the time until larger replantings take root. 4) Long-term master plan: a municipal tree register and binding reforestation rules for coastal zones would prevent bare gaps from remaining for months after felling (see Playa de Palma and Bellver Redevelopment: Shade, Paths — and Many Questions). 5) Local participation: a simple procedure in which neighborhood associations are informed and heard would reduce later conflicts.

Conclusion

The problem is less the individual felling than the procedure: when residents wake up to find greenery gone overnight or without explanation, mistrust arises. A short, clear response from the responsible bodies and a pragmatic timetable for replacement plantings would calm many concerns. Otherwise the promenade will remain poorer — and louder in summer.