Politicians Seek to Privatize Swathes of Brazil’s Beaches

Up to 10 percent could be open to development off limits to the public.

Beachgoers enjoy a sunny day in Ilhabela, Brazil.Mauricio Pannunzio/Fotoarena via ZUMA Pres

This story was originally published by Hakai Magazine and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Brazilian politicians with connections to the tourism and hospitality industries are pushing forward a bill that would privatize parts of the country’s beaches. Known as bill 4444/2021, the legislation, proposed by Congressman Isnaldo Bulhões Jr., is ostensibly designed to make the management of federal properties across the country more efficient. The bill sets out a plan to identify and catalog all lands and public buildings and examine who is occupying them, how they are being used, and whether users are paying the appropriate fees. In cases in which non-federal-government users—other branches of government or private users—occupy the land and buildings, the estate will revert back to the federal government.

But nestled within the bill’s text is a controversial provision that gives the government the power to create so-called special zones of tourism use. These zones would convert public beaches—up to 10 percent of the sand strip in a city—to private property, barring access to unauthorized people and opening the beaches up to development by hotels, private parks, clubs, marinas, and other endeavors allowed by Brazil’s Ministry of Tourism.

Though the bill was first put forth in 2021, in February it was deemed an urgent proposition by Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies, a lower house in the country’s National Congress. The move could see it go to a vote imminently. The urgent classification could also exempt the bill from otherwise mandatory stages, such as public consultation.

Congressman Rodrigo Agostinho, a longtime environmental activist, says the bill shows the pressure being exerted on congresspeople by the gaming industry. Earlier this year, Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies pushed games of chance closer to legalization. “Many companies that own casinos want to build them by the sea,” he says.

Agostinho says that he and other congresspeople who prioritize environmental protection “think it is a mistake to privilege a few hotels and possibly lead to the indiscriminate occupation of beaches all over the coast.”

GT-Mar, a working group that gathers congresspeople and civil society organizations worried about marine matters, has been following the bill’s development. According to Adayse Bossolani, GT-Mar’s executive secretary, privatizing beaches is a decision that carries environmental, social, and economic consequences, and one that needs to be discussed with experts. The bill poses “a giant threat,” she says.

Congressional representatives are analyzing the propositions as if the only issue is governmental ownership, but it’s more serious than that, Bossolani says. “Areas of dunes and mangroves, for instance, must be permanently protected. A decision that may put them at risk cannot be made without the proper debate with civil society,” she adds.

Alexander Turra, an oceanographer at the University of São Paulo in Brazil who coordinates the UNESCO Chair on Ocean Sustainability, is opposed to the bill for several reasons. Access to the coast is vitally important for coastal communities and for Brazilian society as a whole, Turra says, and should not be conceded, even in part, to small groups of entrepreneurs only interested in short-term gain.

The impacts of development on coastal ecosystems could be numerous, he adds. Migratory birds flock to beaches to feed and rest, and many species use them to reproduce. A future casino or hotel’s light could disorient species at night. “Their privatization may amplify coastal erosion,” he adds, “something that is being intensified by climate change.” Development could also lead to increased pollution.

Congressman Agostinho says that with bill 4444/2021 seeing support among congresspeople who back President Jair Bolsonaro, and from those connected to the tourism industry, he has his work cut out to persuade his colleagues to rethink the bill.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate