Dispute Over Private Surveillance Plan in Teide National Park Intensifies
Tensions have emerged in Tenerife over a proposed biodiversity law that critics fear could blur the lines between public environmental oversight and private security within Teide National Park.
Tensions are rising over how Teide National Park is managed, following objections from the Tenerife PSOE, the Association of Forestry and Environmental Agents of the Canary Islands (Afmacan), and the Sepca union. These groups have challenged parts of the Canary Islands' draft Biodiversity and Natural Resources Law—specifically Article 117.2 and the eleventh additional provision—arguing that the language could blur the line between private security and public environmental oversight.
In response, the Spanish Brotherhood of Rural Guards, led by Víctor Villalobos, has denied that their involvement in the park’s surveillance amounts to taking over duties reserved for civil servants. The organization insists its role is to provide extra operational support, not to replace environmental agents, who remain legally responsible for protecting the park, preventing fires, and conducting inspections.
The legal disagreement centers on how to interpret the Private Security Law. Critics warn that private personnel should not handle tasks that carry administrative or legal weight. However, the Brotherhood argues that their ministerial authorization allows them to monitor rural areas and private estates. They maintain that their work would be limited to reporting incidents and providing logistical support, all under the coordination of the relevant authorities.
This debate comes as the Cabildo of Tenerife prepares to launch a new surveillance model. The plan aims to have environmental agents lead a team that includes rural guards, environmental educators, and information officers, while continuing to work alongside state and regional police.
The outcome of this dispute will depend on the final wording of the Biodiversity Law and the specific protocols set for auxiliary staff. For now, there is a clear divide: some argue that private support is necessary to cover the park’s vast landscape, while others insist that enforcement and environmental protection must remain strictly in the hands of public officials to ensure legal clarity.