<s>[INST] The next text is a question of a member of the European parliament:"The Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Port Authority has made public (Canaries Official Journal of 14 November 2003) the Basic Arinaga Port Extension Scheme which affects the towns of Agüimes and Santa Lucía. The future quay, occupying 2.2 km of coastline, is intended for loading and unloading passengers and goods such as gas and oil. The damage which the building work to enlarge Puerto de Aringa will cause is far greater than the questionable socio-economic benefits it may provide, quite apart from its impact on the fabric of business life in Puerto de La Luz and Las Palmas, as a result of diverting part of container traffic and shipping to Puerto de Arinaga. The scheme will have grave effects on the most productive of the coastal marine ecosystems and the sebadales, shrinking the breeding and growing area for the species which are of interest to the fishermen of Agüimes (19284 inhabitants) and Santa Lucía (40 011 inhabitants). Moreover, it will affect the prospects for developing """"""""green"""""""" tourism in the area. The scheme's environmental impact study has not been drawn up with the requisite methodological seriousness and expertise, since many of its claims are quite unjustified from a scientific point of view (e.g.: existing alternatives to this new port, absence of impact on the coastal sedimentation patterns and therefore on Playa del Inglés and Playa de Maspalomas; the absence of effects on the natural wave and wind patterns at Pozo Izquierdo, Europe's most important windsurfing site; the absence of effects on the Playa del Cabrón site of Community interest (SCI) and on the sebadales of Arinaga Bay; the failure to quantify the populations of protected species affected, or the interest of the area in the island context; the real value of the scheme to the population of the surrounding towns; the loss of leisure opportunities and of exploitable marine resources).  Can the Commission demand that alternative schemes be investigated, which would not have a negative impact on the SCI and important bird areas affected by this scheme, nor prejudice the development prospects for sustainable activities in the area, such as water sports, fishing, shellfishing, bathing and leisure?"
Analyze carefully the text and assign it to the most relevant policy area among those listed below. Do not explain your answer and return only a number.
Policy area numbers: 1 = Macroeconomics
2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties
3 = Health
4 = Agriculture and Fisheries
5 = Labour, employment and pensions
6 = Education
7 = Environment
8 = Energy
9 = Immigration
10 = Transportation
12 = Law and Crime
13 = Social welfare
14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning
15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues
16 = Defence
17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues
18 = Foreign trade
19 = International affairs and foreign aid
20 = Governance and government
21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues
23 = Culture and media
[/INST]. Answer = [7]. </s>
The Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Port Authority has made public (Canaries Official Journal of 14 November 2003) the Basic Arinaga Port Extension Scheme which affects the towns of Agüimes and Santa Lucía. The future quay, occupying 2.2 km of coastline, is intended for loading and unloading passengers and goods such as gas and oil. The damage which the building work to enlarge Puerto de Aringa will cause is far greater than the questionable socio-economic benefits it may provide, quite apart from its impact on the fabric of business life in Puerto de La Luz and Las Palmas, as a result of diverting part of container traffic and shipping to Puerto de Arinaga. The scheme will have grave effects on the most productive of the coastal marine ecosystems and the sebadales, shrinking the breeding and growing area for the species which are of interest to the fishermen of Agüimes (19284 inhabitants) and Santa Lucía (40 011 inhabitants). Moreover, it will affect the prospects for developing """"""""green"""""""" tourism in the area. The scheme's environmental impact study has not been drawn up with the requisite methodological seriousness and expertise, since many of its claims are quite unjustified from a scientific point of view (e.g.: existing alternatives to this new port, absence of impact on the coastal sedimentation patterns and therefore on Playa del Inglés and Playa de Maspalomas; the absence of effects on the natural wave and wind patterns at Pozo Izquierdo, Europe's most important windsurfing site; the absence of effects on the Playa del Cabrón site of Community interest (SCI) and on the sebadales of Arinaga Bay; the failure to quantify the populations of protected species affected, or the interest of the area in the island context; the real value of the scheme to the population of the surrounding towns; the loss of leisure opportunities and of exploitable marine resources).  Can the Commission demand that alternative schemes be investigated, which would not have a negative impact on the SCI and important bird areas affected by this scheme, nor prejudice the development prospects for sustainable activities in the area, such as water sports, fishing, shellfishing, bathing and leisure?