Who will be allowed to walk through the Serra in the future? The law that pits hikers and landowners against each other

Who will be allowed to walk through the Serra in the future? The law that pits hikers and landowners against each other

Key question: Who owns the path — the farmer, the walker or the legislator?

On a clear Saturday morning in the Serra you first hear the engines in the car park just before Valldemossa, then voices, barking dogs and the distant caw of a crow. Walking groups squeeze past fences behind which lie orange groves and old stone houses. It is precisely this proximity of houses and walking routes that has sparked the new dispute: a recently presented draft law, known as the Llei de la Serra, contains passages that would give owners more leeway to reroute paths and allow access to their plots only with prior written permission — possibly against a fee.

That strikes a sensitive nerve. For many Mallorcans and visitors the Path clear — but why so late? Soller must reopen closed GR-221 section and its side trails are the backbone of island hiking. At the same time, only around five percent of the Tramuntana is under public administration; the rest belongs to private individuals. That creates a permanent conflict: in some places historic tracks run through narrow properties, residents feel harassed, and walkers are annoyed by new fences.

On one side environmental groups warn of an erosion of path access. Estimates from local conservation circles assume that dozens of tracks should actually be public but are effectively inaccessible. For these voices the main problem is that many municipalities still have not created definitive path registers — a task that is time-consuming and often ends in lengthy legal disputes with landowners.

On the other side representatives of organized mountain sports emphasise that public paths are protected under current law and that the draft should not simply override public tracks. They also point out that there are already places today where access to private land is only allowed with consent — in some cases for a fee. However, they also admit: some formulations in the draft are unclear, for example the passage that suggests people who have to be rescued due to negligence könnten in future be charged for it. Who determines that negligence — the rescuer on duty at the scene or a judge later in the procedure — remains open.

What is missing in the public debate is the variety of situations on the ground. It makes a difference whether a path runs past an inhabited farmstead, whether it is an agricultural operation with machinery traffic or a narrow, centuries-old connection between two villages. Questions about dog ownership, waste disposal and noise protection are also part of the conflict, but are only touched on at the margins in the draft law.

Concrete steps that could help now:

1) Accelerate complete path registers for municipalities: Review archives, digitise historical maps and record clear GPS routes. A public, binding cadastre would technically clarify many points of dispute.

2) A uniform permit instrument: If private land is affected, there should be a standardised form — with clear deadlines, maximum fee caps and an online platform to manage requests.

3) Mediation offices and arbitration: Local conciliation bodies could resolve conflicts between owners and users faster than years of litigation.

4) Transparent rules for rescue costs: Criteria for when rescue costs must be covered need to be objective and provide a right to appeal. Otherwise there is a risk of arbitrariness in individual cases.

5) Education and mandatory information: Clear signage, rules of conduct for dogs and awareness campaigns in towns like Sóller wants to regulate the beaches: rules, controversy and what's missing in the debate or Pollença reduce friction.

On a walk through Deià you can almost feel the problem physically: a family has a picnic next to an ancient wall, a hiker steps carefully to the edge on the narrow path, a resident looks out of a window — and everyone hopes for rules that are clear and protect all. That is the practical yardstick: laws must make everyday encounters possible without unnecessarily burdening people and the landscape.

Conclusion: The Llei de la Serra has the potential to clarify long-overdue questions — provided it brings precision and procedural security. If both are missing, a patchwork of barriers, paid passages and court cases threatens. Politics and organisations must now pull together: binding path data, fair permitting procedures and clear rules for rescue operations are easier to implement than endless legal processes. Otherwise the paths between orange trees and stone houses may one day no longer be open to everyone.