Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
Congresswoman Júlia Zanatta (PL) demanded clarification about the 32,000-hectare national park between Santa Catarina and Paraná that could impose restrictions on farmers’ lands in Joinville, Garuva, and Campo Alegre, after a public hearing gathered residents who fear losing properties with the creation of the integral protection unit.
The national park that the federal government is studying to create in northern Santa Catarina has turned into a political battleground after farmers, small business owners, and residents of the affected lands reacted strongly against a proposal that could impose severe restrictions on 32,000 hectares of land distributed among municipalities in Santa Catarina and Paraná. Federal Congresswoman Júlia Zanatta (PL) entered the conflict by filing a request addressed to the Ministry of the Environment, seeking detailed information about the studies carried out by ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation) that support the creation of the national park, after participating in a public hearing in Garuva earlier this month where the community’s opposition to the project became evident. In the congresswoman’s assessment, “the Ministry of the Environment cannot ignore the massive, documented, and representative opposition from the directly affected population.”
The proposal to create the national park is not recent. The studies were released in November 2025, and the project was built in partnership between state deputies Marquito (PSOL-SC) and Goura Nataraj (PDT-PR), with the support of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, having been presented to Minister Marina Silva in 2024. The initiative mapped 23 points with tourism potential and provides for the preservation of springs, natural grassland areas, and sections of the Serra do Mar, environmental arguments that the proponents consider sufficient to justify the creation of an integral protection conservation unit in a region that harbors significant biodiversity.
What the national park entails and which municipalities would be affected
The Araçatuba Mountains and Quiriri Natural Fields National Park would encompass approximately 32,000 hectares distributed among five municipalities. In Santa Catarina, Garuva concentrates the largest part of the area, with about 18,400 hectares, equivalent to 37.2% of the territory planned for the national park, while Joinville would have approximately 2,625 hectares included, and Campo Alegre would add a little over a thousand hectares. In Paraná, the municipalities of Tijucas do Sul and Guaratuba complete the total area of the proposal.
-
Low-wage workers are losing their PIS/Pasep without even realizing it because the government changed the adjustment rule, and anyone who receives any salary increase may lose eligibility for the benefit.
-
The end of a classic document caused a short circuit in the Receita Federal, and now over 1 million tax returns are stuck in the Income Tax audit due to errors that are not the taxpayers’.
-
A company that produces clothes for some of the world’s biggest brands invested R$ 14 million in Blumenau and will jump from 150 thousand to 450 thousand pieces per month in SC.
-
The largest beverage manufacturer and one of the largest food manufacturers in Brazil have joined forces to place their products side by side on shelves and in delivery apps. The partnership between Seara and Ambev promises to invade supermarkets and transform the way millions of Brazilians do their shopping.
The classification as an integral protection conservation unit is the point that generates the most friction. Unlike more flexible categories that allow economic activities within the area, the national park imposes rigorous restrictions on land use that prohibit agriculture, livestock farming, construction, and the exploitation of natural resources within the demarcated limits. For rural producers, family farmers, and small business owners who have lived and worked in the region for generations, the creation of the national park would mean losing access to productive lands that sustain entire families and, in many cases, represent the sole patrimony of these communities.
Why residents reacted so strongly against the national park
The public hearing held in Garuva earlier this month exposed the level of dissatisfaction. Residents who attended the event made it clear that they consider the national park proposal a direct threat to the way of life of rural communities that have occupied the region for decades, and the intensity of the reaction motivated Zanatta to formalize the questioning to the federal government, understanding that the recorded opposition was “massive, documented, and representative.” The central concern is not with environmental preservation itself, which most recognize as important, but with the instrument chosen to achieve it: an integral protection national park that would eliminate any productive activity within its boundaries.
One of the arguments raised by opponents is that part of the area planned for the national park already has existing environmental protection. Permanent preservation areas, mandatory legal reserves on rural properties, and other protection categories already restrict land use in the region, and residents question whether creating even stricter additional restrictions in Santa Catarina would bring environmental benefits proportional to the social and economic cost it would impose on affected communities. The question that summarizes the outrage is simple: why create a total prohibition where partial protection that works already exists?
What the federal deputy wants to know about the national park
Zanatta’s request to the Ministry of Environment asks for specific information about the studies that underpin the proposal. The deputy questions the methodology used by ICMBio to delimit the national park area, the criteria that determined the 32,000-hectare extension, and the impact analysis on farmers and communities whose lands would be affected by the national park’s restrictions. The stated objective is to verify whether the studies adequately considered the reality of those living in the region or if they prioritized environmental aspects without weighing the consequences for the local population.
The Ministry has a regimental deadline to respond to the request, and the expectation is that the clarifications will help define the next steps. If the responses indicate that the studies were insufficient or that the impacts on farmers were not properly evaluated, Zanatta will have grounds to push for a revision of the national park proposal or for the adoption of a less restrictive protection category that allows for reconciling environmental preservation with productive activities. If the studies prove robust, the debate will move to the political evaluation phase where the government will decide whether to proceed with its creation or back down in the face of social pressure.
What is at stake for farmers and the environment with the national park
The conflict surrounding the national park reflects a tension that recurs in Santa Catarina and throughout Brazil when conservation policies affect rural communities. On one side, environmentalists and proponents argue that the Serra do Mar in northern Santa Catarina harbors threatened ecosystems, springs that supply thousands of people, and biodiversity that justifies full protection. On the other, farmers and residents maintain that it is possible to preserve nature without expelling those who live off the land, and that conservation categories allowing sustainable use would be a fairer alternative than a national park that prohibits any productive human activity within its limits.
The proposal remains in the study phase with no recent progress since the hearing in Garuva. The outcome will depend both on the Ministry’s responses to Zanatta’s request and on the proponents’ ability to demonstrate that the national park is the only effective way to protect the region, an argument that will need to overcome the concrete resistance of thousands of residents who see the proposal not as preservation of Santa Catarina, but as confiscation. The 32,000 hectares of disputed land simultaneously concentrate natural wealth that deserves care and families that deserve respect, and any solution that ignores one of these realities will be incomplete.
And you, do you think the national park should be created or are there less restrictive ways to protect the region? Leave your opinion in the comments.
Be the first to react!