Under the guise of combating invasive species, the Spanish government is laying the groundwork for a far-reaching innovation that could significantly impact private animal owners: the introduction of a so-called Positive List. This catalogue, enshrined in the new Animal Welfare Law, is intended to define which animal species are permitted as pets, while all others will be preventively banned – often without sound scientific justification.
Currently, examples such as iguanas and certain turtle species, some of which are endangered, are already affected by such bans. Ricardo Gómez Calmaestra, head of the Wildlife Service of the Directorate General for Terrestrial and Marine Biodiversity at the Ministry for Ecological Transition (MITECO), emphasized at the Second Iberian and Seventh National Congress on Exotic and Invasive Species that while Spain has enacted numerous regulations to curb invasive species over the past 18 years, these continue to increase. His proposed solution: the mandatory introduction of Positive Lists, which effectively mean a ban on all unlisted species.
According to Gómez Calmaestra, trade is one of the main pathways for the entry of invasive species. Although many species are already excluded from trade in Spain, the speed of new species’ infiltration exceeds the administrative response capacity. “We are destined to create Positive Lists sooner rather than later,” says Gómez Calmaestra. These lists, which only include permitted species, would be, in his opinion, the “most operational” solution, as the administration cannot keep up with the market’s speed of adaptation. The new Animal Welfare Law could therefore provide the framework for implementing these lists, even if it currently focuses on pets.
Criticism of the Positive List: Science versus Ideology
The planned Positive List is highly controversial. Critics see it as a departure from the previous system, which was based on scientific analysis and specific prohibitions, towards a model of systematic, preventive bans often based on unscientific and biased criteria.
Spain currently has a national list of prohibited species, comprising 206 taxa. Since 2020, there have also been specific regulations for the import of non-native species, covering around 130,000 potentially invasive or harmful species. In addition, there is the CITES system, an international treaty that controls trade in endangered species.
However, with the passing of the Animal Welfare Law, the door has been opened to reverse the system. Instead of scientifically examining why a species should be banned or protected, the government now intends to preventively ban all animals not on the Positive List.
This raises serious questions among environmentalists and exotic animal owners. For example, why should parakeets be banned, but not cats, even though both species can multiply uncontrollably and pose a threat to biodiversity? Or why not rabbits, hamsters, and other rodents? The prohibition of iguanas is particularly problematic, even though the government itself admits they pose no danger. The endangered Annam leaf turtle (Mauremys annamensis) is also on the list of invasive species to be eradicated.
Many critics suspect that with this government, animal ideology takes precedence over scientific findings, practical experience, technical criteria, or the actual welfare of the animals themselves. The debate surrounding the Positive List in Spain clearly illustrates the conflict between species protection efforts and the right to private animal ownership, especially when scientific arguments take a back seat.
