What it is
Bill would delay the hunting ban in Spain's national parks
It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 2 December 2020. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Popular en el Congreso.
Official title: Private member's bill to amend Law 30/2014, of 3 December, on National Parks, regarding the necessary measures to adapt the situation of existing national parks to the legal effects linked to the declaration.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000110· updated 11 Nov
Automatic summary, not yet reviewed
- The 2014 National Parks Law gave a 6-year period to adapt existing parks to the ban on hunting and recreational fishing. That period ended on December 5, 2020, and the bill says the Government has not reached agreements with the owners of the affected land.
- The sponsors defend hunting as a key rural activity that keeps people living in the area and provides jobs for many families in depopulated areas inside the parks.
- The bill would change the deadline in the law: public authorities would have until December 2023 to adapt the parks, except regarding minimum surface areas. Where adaptation affects third-party rights, they should seek voluntary agreements with owners and, failing that, use expropriation or buy back those rights.
- Voluntary agreements would be based on technical criteria drawn up with landowner participation and would be included in each park's management plans. Agreements already signed would remain in force. The law would take effect the day after its publication in the Official State Gazette (Boletín Oficial del Estado).
Who it affects
- Landowners inside the national parks: They could keep hunting on their land while talks continue, and would need to reach voluntary agreements with the authorities or face expropriation.
- Hunters and recreational fishers: The ban on these activities in national parks where they were allowed would be delayed until December 2023.
- Rural residents and workers in park areas: The sponsors argue the measure protects jobs and population linked to hunting.
- Authorities managing the national parks: They would have a new deadline of December 2023 to adapt the parks and draw up the technical criteria for the agreements.
Words worth knowing
- Proposición de ley
- A bill introduced by a parliamentary group rather than the Government. It is still being processed, so it is not an approved law yet.
- Moratoria
- A waiting period before a rule takes effect, to allow time to adapt.
- Expropiación forzosa
- Forced expropriation: the government takes private property, such as land, for the public interest, paying compensation to the owner.
- Rescate de derechos
- Buyback of rights: the government recovers or cancels a right someone held over land, paying for it.
- Plan rector de uso y gestión
- The document that sets out how each national park is managed and used.
It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries
Where it stands
How far did it get?
It took 2 of 7 steps. It reached Admitted, and today it is rejected.
- Introduced2 December 2020Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
- Admitted4 December 2020The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
- Amendmentsnot reachedGroups propose changes.
- Committeenot reachedA committee goes through the text in detail.
- Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
- Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
- BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 6 official steps on a timeline
7 February 2023
How did the plenary vote?
Voted on: Private member's bill by the Popular Parliamentary Group in the Congress, amending Law 30/2014, of December 3, on National Parks, regarding the measures necessary to adapt the situation of existing national parks to the legal effects linked to their declaration.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 2 of sitting 231· updated 10 Nov
Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.
Your province
How did the deputies from your province vote?
And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.
Or see how most of each province voted
- A Coruña More votes against 3 yes · 5 no
- Albacete Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Alicante/Alacant Tie 6 yes · 6 no
- Almería More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Araba/Álava More votes against 0 yes · 4 no
- Asturias More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Ávila More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Badajoz Tie 3 yes · 3 no
- Barcelona More votes against 4 yes · 24 no · 3 abst.
- Bizkaia More votes against 1 yes · 6 no
- Burgos Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Cáceres Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Cádiz More votes against 4 yes · 5 no
- Cantabria More votes in favour 4 yes · 1 no
- Castellón/Castelló More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Ceuta More votes in favour 1 yes · 0 no
- Ciudad Real More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Córdoba More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Cuenca More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Gipuzkoa More votes against 0 yes · 5 no
- Girona More votes against 0 yes · 5 no · 1 abst.
- Granada More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Guadalajara More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Huelva More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Huesca More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Illes Balears Tie 4 yes · 4 no
- Jaén More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- La Rioja Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Las Palmas Tie 4 yes · 4 no
- León Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Lleida More votes against 0 yes · 4 no
- Lugo Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Madrid More votes against 17 yes · 18 no
- Málaga More votes against 5 yes · 6 no
- Melilla More votes in favour 1 yes · 0 no
- Murcia More votes in favour 6 yes · 4 no
- Navarra More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Ourense Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Palencia More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Pontevedra Tie 3 yes · 3 no
- Salamanca More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Santa Cruz de Tenerife More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Segovia More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Sevilla More votes against 5 yes · 7 no
- Soria Tie 1 yes · 1 no
- Tarragona More votes against 0 yes · 6 no
- Teruel More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Toledo More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Valencia/València More votes against 7 yes · 8 no
- Valladolid More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Zamora More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Zaragoza More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
More details: how each group and each province voted
The groups
Who voted in favour and who against?
In favour, most of Mixto, Popular en el Congreso and VOX. Against, most of Euskal Herria Bildu, Republicano, Socialista, Vasco (EAJ-PNV), Ciudadanos, Gcup-ec-gc and GPlu. 7 deputies voted differently from their group.
By province: in 17 most voted in favour; in 22, against.
Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.
- In favour: 17
- Against: 22
- Tie: 13
| Group | Seats | How it voted |
|---|---|---|
| Euskal Herria Bildu | 5 | 4 against · 1 did not vote |
| Republicano | 13 | 12 against · 1 did not vote |
| Socialista | 120 | 119 against · 1 did not vote |
| Vasco (EAJ-PNV) | 6 | 5 against · 1 did not vote |
| Mixto | 11 | 8 in favour · 3 against |
| Ciudadanos | 9 | 8 against · 1 did not vote |
| Gcup-ec-gc | 33 | 31 against · 2 did not vote |
| GPlu | 12 | 8 against · 4 abst. |
| Popular en el Congreso | 88 | 88 in favour |
| VOX | 52 | 52 in favour |
What happens next
What happens now?
It goes no further. A similar one could be introduced later.
Sources
Where does all this come from?
- Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000110
Official title, type, author, dates and stage.
Retrieved 11 November 2026
- Congreso de los Diputados, vote 2 of sitting 231
The count and every seat’s vote.
Retrieved 10 November 2026
- The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
- Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
- We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.