The controversy over buggies in Lanzarote has entered a new phase. The company H2O Sports Lanzarote denounces threats against its workers and tourists, accuses the Teguise City Council and the Cabildo of not regulating the routes, and demands a solution that allows its activity to be developed with guarantees. However, reducing the conflict to a company seeking protection from supposedly inactive administrations would leave out an essential part of the problem: what the company itself is doing, under what authorizations it operates, and how far its rights extend when its vehicles travel on rural roads and natural spaces.
The issue requires a critical look in all directions. The threats, if confirmed, must be investigated and prosecuted. The delay of the administrations deserves explanations. And business activity must be subject to the same legal requirements as any other. None of these issues negate the others.
The denounced threats cannot justify everything
H2O Sports Lanzarote claims that its workers and tourists have suffered death threats, insults, attempted assaults, and sabotage through the placement of stones, logs, and sharp objects on the tracks. It also maintains that there is a harassment campaign against the company and that more than fifty families depend on its activity.
These are serious accusations that require rigorous investigation. If there are threats, intentional damage, or actions that endanger workers and visitors, it is up to the security forces and judicial authorities to clarify the facts and determine responsibilities. No disagreement over tourism, the use of roads, or landscape conservation justifies violence.
But there is a second demand for rigor: the company's complaint does not by itself demonstrate who committed these acts, whether there is a coordinated campaign, or what its motivation would be. It is necessary to distinguish between what the company claims and what can be proven through complaints, testimonies, recordings, police reports, or judicial rulings.
The same caution must be applied to the company. Denouncing threats does not automatically make all its actions legitimate nor does it resolve doubts about its permits. Being the victim of a crime, if proven, does not exempt one from complying with applicable administrative, environmental, or traffic regulations. These are separate issues and must be investigated separately.
A company that must also be held accountable
The debate cannot be built solely on the company's version. H2O Sports Lanzarote has the right to defend its activity, demand safety for its workers, and demand that institutions act with diligence. But those rights do not place it above the obligations that correspond to any tour operator.
Legality is not an argument that can be invoked generically to close any discussion. It must be demonstrated with current documentation and refer to the specific activity being carried out: authorizations, itineraries, traffic conditions, insurance, and other required conditions.
The information published by La Voz de Lanzarote on September 11, 2026, regarding a fine of 1,000 euros is particularly relevant. The measure was imposed after an excursion of six buggies was caught circulating off authorized roads, paths, or tracks in the Las Piletas ravine, in Guatiza, within an area classified as rural land for landscape protection. The fine was reduced to 600 euros after the discount applied for prompt payment.
This precedent proves a specific sanctioning action, not a general declaration of illegality for all routes or all companies in the sector. But it prevents us from ignoring that the conflict also has a dimension of regulatory compliance and territorial protection.
If an excursion leaves a permitted itinerary and circulates on unauthorized land, the existence of a business, the employment it generates, or the satisfaction of its clients does not make that conduct acceptable. And if a company considers a restriction to be unjustified, it has administrative and judicial avenues to challenge it.
The pertinent question, therefore, is not only what administrations are doing to regulate the sector, but also what documentation each company can present, what conditions it meets, and what measures it adopts to prevent its excursions from causing damage or nuisance.
Teguise: an ordinance that does not quite resolve the conflict
The Teguise City Council initiated the processing of a regulation to order the transit of buggies, quads, and other similar vehicles. The initial approval occurred on November 14, 2025, and the file received allegations from different sectors, both in favor of restrictions and against certain provisions.
It would not be accurate to state that the council has never acted. The problem is that initiating a procedure is not equivalent to completing it, and the succession of procedures cannot become a permanent explanation for maintaining a controversial situation.
After the period for objections, the City Council requested reports from the Directorate General of Traffic and the Cabildo to resolve issues related to competencies, scope, and legal viability of the ordinance. The lack of responses, publicly communicated during the following months, contributed to prolonging the uncertainty.
However, the information known on October 17 adds an element of greater institutional gravity. During the municipal plenary session, the mayor, Olivia Duque, acknowledged that the City Council was unaware if the companies operating on the rural roads of Teguise had valid authorizations. She announced the intention to order controls by the Local Police to request documentation and verify the administrative status of the operators.
The reaction raises an inevitable question: why has it come to this point after months of controversy, neighborhood complaints, and processing of an ordinance?
The mayor explained that the City Council had requested information from the Cabildo about authorized companies and those whose permits had not been renewed. This consultation may be necessary to clarify competencies and the status of files, but it should not replace the checks that each administration can carry out within its powers.
The council must explain what controls have been carried out so far, when the announced order will be issued to the Local Police, what results are obtained, and what procedure will be followed if unauthorized activities are detected.
It must also clarify why an ordinance that was expected to be definitively approved during the first months of 2026 continues without a known resolution. If there are legal defects, they must be corrected; if reports are needed, their acquisition must be promoted; and if the City Council lacks the competence for certain restrictions, it must identify which institution can adopt them.
The public does not need another declaration of intent. It needs to know the calendar, the actions taken, and the measures that will be applied while the definitive regulation arrives.
The Cabildo: prohibition announcements and a pending network of routes
The responsibility for the conflict does not end at the municipal level. Law 4/2017, of July 13, on Land and Protected Natural Spaces of the Canary Islands, contemplates the development and approval by the island councils of an official network of routes for motor vehicles in natural environments, with their corresponding capacity and use regime.
Lanzarote still lacked this approved network in the information published during October 2026. Meanwhile, the Island Council had announced different actions to study the regulation of the transit of buggies and similar vehicles.
In May, the insular institution announced that it was working on the prohibition of tourist caravans on rural roads and protected areas. In July, the Minister of Territorial Policy, Jesús Machín Tavío, stated that he expected to have a precautionary ban on rural land before August. In September, a public consultation was announced as a prior step to an insular regulation that could restrict or prohibit the activity.
The succession of announcements makes it necessary to ask what has materialized. Was the precautionary ban initiated as announced in July? What legal and environmental reports were prepared? What obstacles have prevented a decision from being made? What measures have been applied in the meantime to avoid activities incompatible with the protection of the territory?
It should not be taken for granted that any announced prohibition is legally viable as proposed. Public measures must respect the distribution of powers, procedures, and legal guarantees. But these requirements do not justify an indefinite delay without explanation either.
The Island Council must publish the status of the official network of routes, clarify the applicable regime for different types of excursions, and explain what inspection and control actions it has carried out. If the institution considers that certain activities are not permitted under current conditions, it must specify the legal basis and ensure that its criteria are applied consistently.
The lack of definitive regulation cannot be an excuse for each administration to wait for the other to solve the problem.
Permits: the question that can no longer be postponed The situation regarding authorizations is one of the most delicate aspects of this controversy.
According to what was publicly stated by the mayor in the plenary session of October 16, the Cabildo had informed the City Council that no new authorizations had been granted for a prolonged period and that existing ones had been granted years ago, without their extension being recorded in the cases to which the explanation referred. The mayor herself acknowledged that the council did not know if the excursions were legally covered.
It had also been published that the authorization of the company operating in the Guatiza area had expired in December 2025, without its renewal being recorded. This data must be contrasted with the corresponding administrative file, but, if confirmed, it would be essential to determine the current situation of the activity.
It is not appropriate to declare here that a company operates illegally without examining its permits and the conditions of each route. It is appropriate to demand that the administrations carry out this verification and communicate their conclusions.
If an authorization has expired, it must be clarified what legal consequences it has, if there is any extension or transitional regime, and what measures are appropriate. If it remains in force, its scope must be specified and it must be verified that the activity complies with its conditions.
What is not acceptable is that the excursions continue while the City Council and the Cabildo acknowledge that they need to clarify who is authorized and on what terms. This uncertainty harms the residents, hinders control, and also offers no legal certainty to the companies themselves.
Guatiza: neighborhood complaints are not a minor detail
The conflict also did not arise with the latest business complaint. Residents of Guatiza have been reporting noise, dust, deterioration of roads, and disturbances to daily tranquility, farms, and the rural environment for some time. Some documents submitted to the institutions have called for restrictions and even the suspension of the activity while its regulation is resolved.
These complaints must be verified individually. But they also cannot be dismissed because they conflict with the economic interests of a company.
The resident population has the right to have the complaints and damages it reports investigated, to know what uses are permitted, and to receive a reasoned administrative response. It should not be forced to coexist indefinitely with an activity whose legal situation remains unclear.
In the same way, it would not be fair to attribute to all workers or clients of the buggies the behaviors reported by some neighbors, nor to accuse all residents of participating in an alleged campaign of threats. Responsibility must be individual and supported by evidence.
Coexistence is not protected by silencing one of the parties, but by applying clear rules, investigating incidents, and ensuring that no economic activity automatically prevails over the rights of those who live in the territory.
Families and employment cannot be used as a shield
The company estimates that more than fifty families depend on its activity and compares the number of buggies to the number of rental vehicles circulating in Lanzarote. These are arguments that should be attributed to the company as long as they are not independently verified.
Employment is important. Tourist activity sustains jobs and generates income that deserve consideration in any public decision. But the number of workers does not, by itself, determine whether an activity is compatible with planning, environmental protection, or the conditions for using the roads.
Nor does the fact that there are other problems associated with vehicle rental make any buggy excursion legitimate. Each activity must be evaluated according to its characteristics, its impacts, and the regulations applicable to it.
The Administration must avoid both arbitrary prohibition and unjustified tolerance. If an activity can be carried out on certain routes, with limits on vehicles, schedules, speeds, and environmental conditions, those rules must be clearly defined and enforceable. If there are spaces where it cannot be authorized, it must be explained why and the restriction applied.
Employment cannot be an exemption from compliance with the law, just as environmental protection should not be used as a slogan without technical and legal basis.
What institutions should do now
The Teguise City Council and the Cabildo of Lanzarote must abandon the exchange of responsibilities and offer a joint, public, and verifiable response.
Teguise must clarify the status of the ordinance, explain what reports are missing, set a resolution schedule, and carry out the announced controls to verify the documentation of companies operating on its roads, within its powers.
The Cabildo must report on the authorizations granted, their validity periods, and possible extensions; explain the status of the official network of routes; and specify what has happened with the announced precautionary measures. It must also clarify which restrictions apply to each type of excursion and what surveillance actions have been carried out.
For their part, companies must prove that their activities comply with the required conditions, respect the itineraries and current limitations, and cooperate with controls. If they consider that an administrative decision violates their rights, they can appeal it through the appropriate channels. If they report threats, they must provide the authorities with the evidence they have.
And the complaints of the residents must receive an equally diligent response. The territory cannot be relegated to the background while it is debated who has the competence or who should take the first step.
Neither corporate impunity nor institutional paralysis
The buggy controversy reflects a broader problem: the difficulty of reconciling certain tourist activities with the conservation of the landscape, the tranquility of rural areas, and the ability of administrations to regulate land use.
The company should not be publicly condemned for accusations that have not yet been proven. But it also cannot present itself as a victim of administrative inaction without examining its own obligations, its authorizations, and the sanctioning history affecting the activity.
The City Council cannot indefinitely hide behind a lack of reports. The Cabildo cannot substitute decisions with successive announcements. And no operator can interpret regulatory uncertainty as unlimited authorization to act.
Public documentation shows a pending municipal ordinance, an island network of routes not yet approved, and a dispute over the validity of authorizations. There is also a sanctioning history for driving outside of authorized itineraries in a protected area. The threats reported by the company, on the other hand, require an investigation to determine the facts and those responsible.
These are different aspects, but they are all part of the same problem. Protection against possible crimes should not be confused with the oversight of an economic activity, nor should one of these issues be used to avoid the other.
Lanzarote needs clear regulation, effective controls, and responsibilities for everyone. Being an entrepreneur does not grant impunity; reporting threats does not automatically accredit the legality of an activity; and governing does not consist of announcing solutions that do not materialize later.
When a controversy drags on for months and affects neighbors, workers, visitors, and natural spaces, the obligation of institutions is to end the uncertainty. And that of companies is to demonstrate that they carry out their activity in accordance with the rules that apply to everyone.
Add La Voz de Lanzarote as a preferred Google source.
Stay informed with the latest current news.