Revista TOMO, São Cristóvão, v. 44, e22700, 2025

DOI:10.21669/tomo.v44.22700

Special Issue - Coastal Squeeze: Beaches under Socio-Economic

and Ecological Pressure

E-ISSN:2318-9010 / ISSN:1517-4549

Special Issue

The making of the coastal concession apparatus: a

sociohistorical study of Pampelonne Beach (France,

1920s–1970s)

Isabelle Bruno*1

Grégory Salle**2

Abstract

This article examines the sociohistorical emergence of the concession apparatus at Pampelonne Beach

(1920s–1970s), a landmark site on the French Riviera. Drawing on archival research, we analyze how a

previously unregulated shoreline was gradually transformed into a (at times contested) commercialized

recreational space through negotiations among state authorities, local actors, and private managers. While

not conferring private property rights, state-issued concessions authorize commercial operators to tempo-

rarily exploit beach segments by installing physical amenities on the sand. Operating at the nexus of public

ownership and private exploitation, the concession apparatus created a quasi-privatization, segmenting

beachgoers between affluent clientele and ordinary users, while generating substantial profits for private

operators and public authorities. Illustrating the spatial and social consequences of coastal capitalism, the

case of Pampelonne highlights how recreational nature is constructed as a commodity, deepening social and

ecological inequalities on the Mediterranean shoreline.

Keywords: Beach; Concession; Environment; Inequality; Shoreline.

*

Université de Lille. Centre d’études et de recherches administratives, politiques et sociales (CERAPS). Lille. France. E-mail:

isabelle.bruno@univ-lille.fr Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1451-8316 CrediT: Conceptualization, Investigation, Me-

thodology, Writing.

** National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). Université de Lille. Centre lillois d’études et de recherches sociologiques

et économiques (Clersé). Lille. France. E-mail: gregory.salle@univ-lille.fr Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8025-5593

CRediT: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing.

1

Isabelle Bruno; Grégory Salle

Introduction

Along the French Riviera, beachfront concessions create a visually striking alternation between

free spaces and commercialized areas. In the high season, open beach strips are interspersed with

enclosed sections occupied by expensive bars and restaurants [fig. 1]. These upscale businesses

have built terraces on the sand, aligned rows of deckchairs and sunbeds, and marked their boun-

daries with fences, occasionally monitored by private security guards. In this context, the designa-

tion private beaches has been widely used for decades and persists today, despite being technically

inaccurate. In France, beaches cannot legally be privatized below the high-water line, as coastal

regulations guarantee public access to shorelines and the free use of beaches (Prieur, 2020). This

persistent misnomer reveals a fundamental tension: the beach concession regime operates at the

nexus of norms and exceptions, ordinary use and elite privilege, private exploitation and public

ownership (Le Roux and Morera, 2025).

Figura 1- Pampelonne Beach, Ramatuelle (France), summer 2019.

Source: Photo of the authors during fieldwork, summer 2019.

The beach concession regime has introduced a loophole in the French “maritime public domain”

[Domaine public maritime], historically deemed inalienable and imprescriptible (Hostiou, 1990;

Pancracio, 2024, p. 122 sq.). It appears as a quasi-privatization, where public spaces are managed

as private amenities. State-issued concessions do not confer private property rights, but they au-

thorize commercial operators to temporarily exploit beach segments by installing physical ame-

nities on the sand. One might assume that beach concessions have developed within a clearly

defined contractual framework, since the legal framework governing coastal rights has deep his-

torical roots. The scholarship traces its origins to Colbert’s 1681 ordinance, considered “the first

coastal law” (Le Bouëdec, 2010, p. 136-137), or even to the 1566 Edict of Moulins¹.

1

The Edict of Moulins—distinct from the Ordinance of Moulins, issued at the same time—was a regulatory framework

governing the French royal domain. It established a clear distinction between a permanent domain, which was strictly

inalienable, and a casual domain, over which the King of France retained discretionary authority following its acquisition.

As the legal precursor to the principle of inalienability in the modern public domain, this edict remains a cornerstone of

French contemporary public law.

2

The making of the coastal concession apparatus

In the Mediterranean, where the maritime public domain is spatially limited due to minimal tidal

variation, legal scholars even go back to Justinian’s sixth-century Institutes². Yet legal and adminis-

trative documents reveal a rather unsettled situation. Despite this long tradition, French coastal

law was not stable and remained under construction throughout the twentieth century. This is

particularly true for beach concessions: they have variable titles and types over time, with several

French terms roughly corresponding to “renting” or “leasing” being often used interchangeably.

Moreover, the object to which they apply defies clear-cut delimitation and definition: the sandy

foreshore is not inert and immutable, but a dynamic ecosystem that resists sovereign control.

This induces an analytical shift beyond legalism, moving from rules to strategies (Bourdieu and

Lamaison, 1986). Beach concessions raise issues that extend beyond the legal sphere, encom-

passing social practices, economic strategies, moral values, ecological dynamics, technical issues,

environmental justice concerns, etc. More than a mere contractual agreement, they involve a ne-

twork of actors, activities, representations, procedures, data, texts, regulatory plans, and calcula-

tive logics—all embedded in power-knowledge relations. This is why we conceptualize this whole

set as a concession apparatus (Agamben, 2009; Lawlor and Nale, 2014).

Figure 2 - Location of the Saint-Tropez Peninsula (France).

Source: Wikimedia Commons. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Cotedazu r .png].

To analyze this apparatus, we will focus on the emblematic case of Pampelonne Beach in Rama-

tuelle, southeastern France [fig. 2]. Located on the eastern Saint-Tropez peninsula, this 4,5 km-

-far-famed beach is widely regarded as the birthplace of the French Riviera model, or Mediterra-

2

Commissioned by Emperor Justinian, the Institutes (533 CE) were an elementary legal manual. While carrying the force

of law, this set of legal principles also served a pedagogical purpose, designed specifically for law students. Translated into

French as early as the 13th century, it laid the foundation for legal education across Europe for over eight centuries, inclu-

ding the Roman principle that coastal shores were inalienable public assets, a concept that shaped Mediterranean maritime

law from antiquity to modern public domain doctrines.

3

Isabelle Bruno; Grégory Salle

nean-style model of beach concessions. While standing out for reasons that are at once historical,

geographical, legal, and reputational, it also reveals broader patterns (Ferrand, 2014; Chauchard,

2015). Based on the premise that “all sociology should be historical and all history sociological”

(Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, p. 90), our approach centers on the making of a still-emerging—

and at times controversial—concession system over the half-century (1920s-1970s) when “sum-

mer bodies” emerged and the “summer Mediterranean” gained renown (Urbain, 2014; Granger,

2017). This case study thus highlights a particularly telling example of “coastal capitalism” (Kahrl,

2020), while enriching the existing scholarship on beaches as contested spaces (Bidet and Devien-

ne, 2017; Sartore, Pereira, and Rodrigues, 2019; Low, 2025).

In doing so, we aim to overcome the two pitfalls of the dominant narrative on Pampelonne Beach

(Bruno and Salle, 2017). First, this narrative tends to disconnect this beach from its natural and

social surroundings, as an ecosystem and as a territory. Making it a separate, autonomous, nearly

insular place is an integral part of a commodified space. Second, most accounts—including official

documents—start the story of this beach in the 1950s, coinciding with the emergence of seaside

restaurants. They invariably feature the same key events, especially the filming of And God Crea-

ted Woman starring Brigitte Bardot and the founding of a beach venue called Club 55. While this

decade was undeniably a turning point, marking the rise of the seaside economy, such a narrow

view obscures the beach’s earlier social and environmental history. It starts from the moment

when the beach became a recreational consumer good, a moment we historicize here by showing

how conflicts over appropriation among various actors—government officials, local representa-

tives, beach managers, environmental advocates, and beachgoers—have reshaped the material

and symbolic dimensions of “the only place of enjoyment that the human species has discovered

in nature” (ibid., p. 384).

Drawing on local and national archives, our study aims to embed the case of Pampelonne Beach

within a broader context³. This helps avoid a teleological bias, according to which Pampelonne

Beach was “naturally” destined to become a famed recreational space and an economic asset. By

unpacking a pivotal era, during which the concession apparatus took shape—not without some

strife—, our approach investigates the power relations and social conflicts that have rendered the

shoreline exploitable, showing how recreational “nature” has been constructed through a process

that turned (seaside) land into a “fictitious commodity” (Polanyi, 2001 [1944]).

Conceding the beach: converting natural beauties into sources of profit

French historian Alain Corbin (1995) has shown how the beach was gradually “invented” as a

desirable space in upper-class perceptions and practices from the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nine-

teenth century. Yet his analysis primarily focused on the Atlantic coast, leaving the Mediterranean

on the periphery. By the early twentieth century, Pampelonne Beach was not a no-man’s-land. It

was not yet a place occupied on a durable basis but a place where people came and went for sub-

sistence and local uses. For instance, farmers collected sand and harvested seagrass, merchants

used this part of the shore to ship wine by boat, and workers sought refreshment in the sea during

the grape harvest.

3

We drew on national, regional, and local archival collections, mainly public, but also private. We used the following

acronyms: NA (National Archives, Pierrefitte); DAV (Departmental Archives of Var, Draguignan); CAR (Communal Archives,

Ramatuelle), and FIA (French Institute of Architecture, Paris); PA (Private archives).

4

The making of the coastal concession apparatus

From this point forward, however, Pampelonne Beach underwent a rapid yet profound transfor-

mation. In half a century, and despite war damage, an uncultivated space, hardly seen as an eco-

nomic asset by locals and untouched by tourism, was transformed into a profitable, “assembled

resource” (Li, 2014), ultimately becoming the driving force behind regional economic growth. To

understand this process, we must examine the formation of the concession apparatus as a state-

-crafted instrument of valuation, capitalizing on the scenic qualities of the place.

Valuing uncultivated nature: from sand mining to seaside tourism

Converting natural beauties into sources of profit: this is the ambition expressed by Théophile Bar-

nier, prefect [préfet] of Var, in a letter addressed in February 1922 to the mayors of coastal towns

in the area⁴. A lawyer by training, representing the central state at the local level, he exhorted them

to “safeguard the situation of beaches” against “the selfish” who harmed the landscape through

real estate construction or mineral extraction.

Both through the splendor of its sites and the mildness of its climate, the Côte d’Azur has

undoubtedly acquired a worldwide reputation. [...] It is indeed undeniable that the Var’s

Côte d’Azur is incomparable, encompassing the shores along which descend the forests

of the Estérel and the Maures, these two wooded massifs being entirely included in our

département. This region thus constitutes, at the same time as one of the most beautiful

jewels of the natural beauties of our Country, one of the most important sources of profit

through the influx of foreign money it provokes. It therefore appears that there is not

only a local interest in seeing our Côte d’Azur take the considerable extension that seems

to be its destiny: it is also of national interest. You will no doubt agree with me that there

is, indeed, a wealth on which we must watch and which it is our duty to encourage the

growth of.

(Letter from the Préfet of Var, T. Barnier, to the mayors of the Var coast, February 27^th, 1922.

[FIA, 343 AA 4/6].)

Through the creation of an ad hoc intermunicipal body called syndicate, the prefect sought to

unite several coastal municipalities around the development of the Var shoreline. This initiati-

ve aimed to leverage the tourist expansion of the neighboring Alpes-Maritimes département—

home to cities like Cannes and Nice—while preserving the Var’s unique rural character. As the

picturesque nature was framed as a resource to be exploited, it was not to be compromised by

excessive urbanization.

In March 1922, the Ramatuelle municipal council held an extraordinary session in response to

this letter, during which members unanimously decided to follow Barnier’s recommendations.

Together with other coastal municipalities, Ramatuelle then joined a new syndicate devoted to

“the protection, development, and enhancement of the Var’s Côte d’Azur”⁵. The following year, the

syndicate’s first bulletin clearly made beaches a priority:

4

On the historical role of the French préfet, see Machin (1974), Tanguy (2021). At the time of this letter, France was led by a

right-wing coalition government known as the Bloc national.

Extraordinary session on March 19th, 1922 [CAR, 2W 1 D 10]. The term Côte d’Azur was coined by the French writer and

5

politician Stéphen Liégeard in his 1887 eponymous book. Reissued in 1894, it played a key role in popularizing the region.

For broader historical context, see Blume (1992) and Miles (2024).

5

Isabelle Bruno; Grégory Salle

The defense of beaches ranks at the top of our agenda. The question is of the highest im-

portance for all our municipalities, whose beaches are more or less threatened by the in-

tervention of individuals.

(Syndicate of coastal municipalities for the protection, development and enhancement of

the Var Côte d’Azur, Bulletin no. 1, Draguignan, Olivier-Joulian Print., 1923. [FIA, 343 AA

4/6].)

By intervention of individuals, the president of the syndicate was alluding to the possibility opened

up by the Administration des Domaines (similar to state lands administration) of acquiring coastal

land by auction. According to the mayor of Cogolin, a neighboring town of Ramatuelle, this applied

to a small beach in his territory: he speaks of a “sale”, of “alienation to a buyer”, but not of a con-

cession; this word has not yet been pronounced, not even by the prefect. Local representatives did

not only blame individual potential buyers but also the central state. By alienating its territory,

they lamented, state officials hamper public access to the coast. Consequently, the syndicate col-

lectively adopted a motion—supported by the prefect, who declared that he was “personally and

vehemently opposed to this sale”—stating that the state should “under no circumstances” put

coastal plots of land up for sale.

Municipalities then faced conflicting demands regarding beach governance. On one hand, local

elected representatives were prompted by a high-ranking state civil servant to view “their” be-

aches as “resources” whose “value” should be increased. They were thus expected to develop

and exploit local beaches to attract seasonal residents and vacationers. On the other hand, the

shorelines remained under the responsibility of the state, which already utilized them for profit,

including through the sale of foreshore plots to the highest bidders. This practice has indeed a

long history: it was used on the Channel and Atlantic coasts since the first half of the nineteenth

century, although sometimes triggering local reluctance or resistance. A royal ordinance of 1825

authorizing prefects to put portions of the French shoreline out to tender has fuelled continuous

controversy around the “renting” or “leasing” of the maritime public domain by the central state

(Vincent, 2007, p. 67 sq.). On the Var coast, state-directed practices were of particular concern for

municipalities because they seemed to contradict the project supported by Prefect Barnier.

Moreover, his successor, Paul Cameau, took a rather different line. In a letter addressed in 1925 to

the mayor of Gassin, also located on the Saint-Tropez peninsula, the new prefect of Var argued that

“to put up for sale by auction in a public and competitive way” was what actually allows a “sale at

the best price”. He further explained:

[…] current necessities require that the State draws the most advantageous benefit from

its Domain. While it is a rule that facilities are granted to Municipalities to take account of

the interests of the populations they administer, one cannot, however, grant them domain

properties for prices substantially lower than their real value.

(Letter from the prefect of Var to the mayor of Gassin, December 11^th, 1925. [DAV, 4S 7-11].)

Thus, the new prefect voiced the state’s interests in profiting from its domain, opposing local as-

pirations for municipal control of the shore. When a project to put up for sale the foreshore of

Pampelonne beach by public auction [adjudication] emerged, it provoked strong opposition from

Ramatuelle elected representatives. Notably, however, it was less the principle of the sale itself

that generated protest than the terms of the auction, which would not allow control over the iden-

tity of potential purchasers. When approached by state officials regarding this matter, local repre-

sentatives suggested that the foreshore plots might interest future owners from a parcel of land it

6

The making of the coastal concession apparatus

had just approved and expressed concern that an auction would potentially open the way to sand

mining companies.

Such industrial activity, they warned, would prove detrimental to beachfront property owners,

whose lands would be subject to saltwater intrusion, as well as to tourists, who would lose access

to the shoreline. In the eyes of local officials, the emerging seaside economy would thus be endan-

gered. In 1929, during a municipal council session, members formally protested against the “pro-

ject to put the foreshore of Pampelonne beach up for public auction”⁶. At that time, and then again

in 1930, the town council proposed a more direct solution: “to acquire [from the state] the totality

of the foreshore at a price compatible with its financial resources”. The council specifically noted

that it “does not wish to make any profit”, but merely intends “to keep the beach in its current state

and thus preserve its bathing, tourist, and picturesque value⁷”.

Ultimately, the auction was cancelled in favor of a state-driven project for developing the Var area,

more specifically, the Saint-Tropez peninsula. Aligning with earlier Barnier’s recommendations, its

objective was to “preserve the aesthetic character” of the region, a precious natural resource that

the “tourist industry” should exploit⁸. But this time, local actors were excluded from the process.

State officials intended to exploit the coastal public domain directly and exclusively. Importantly,

however, it was no longer through the sale of foreshore plots, but through auctioning the rights to

sea bathing⁹.

As early as 1912, a standard set of specifications for beach “rental” had been jointly developed at

the state level by the French Ministry of Public Works and the Department of Finance to standar-

dize previously informal local practices¹⁰. The aim was to generalize the auction system as a me-

thod of allocating to the highest bidders the provisional right to exploit beach parcels. While the

words “rental” [location] and “auction” [adjudication] remained predominant, “concession” was

also used. Article 9 of the terms and conditions stated “the cancellation of the concession” in case

of non-execution of prescribed measures. As evidenced by archival sources, the beach concession

system in Pampelonne really emerged in the late 1940s, when the first improvised beach entre-

preneurs began negotiating directly with public authorities¹¹. As seaside tourism grew, municipa-

lities—working in tandem with the General Office of Tourism (attached to the Ministry of Public

Works, Transport, and Tourism)—succeeded in establishing themselves as a key component of

the concession apparatus.

6

Municipal council of Ramatuelle, session of October 17th, 1929 [CAR, 2W 1 D 10].

Deliberations of the municipal council of Ramatuelle, sessions of October 17th, 1929 and April 27, 1930 [CAR, 2W 1 D 10].

Programme de l’aménagement de la presqu’île tropézienne, Department of Var, n.d. [1931] [CAR, 3D series].

Sea bathing was believed to have therapeutic virtues, in tandem with natural sunlight (Woloshyn, 2013; Urbain, 2014).

7

8

9

At that time, the beach per se was not yet isolated as a separate environment: what mattered most was its situation as an

interface between land and sea.

Letter from the Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs to the Chief Engineer, the department of civil engineering

[Ponts et Chaussées], December 30^th, 1912 [NA, 19920097/65].

10

11

Letters addressed to the mayor of Ramatuelle in the mid-1960s suggest that the first beach establishments date back to the

immediate post-war period, without counting at least one unofficial forerunner as early as the late 1930s. In a letter from

February 1966, one of the very first beach managers (the French word plagiste was just emerging, as we will see) mentions

a beach operated since 1946. In a letter from December 1964, another mentions an authorization to run a bar-restaurant

granted in 1949 [CAR 6W 23/2].

7

Isabelle Bruno; Grégory Salle

Sharing the spoils: conceding… but at what price?

A dozen years after the Provence landings in 1944, French geographer Étienne Juillard (1957)

described a Maures coastline in full transformation. This coastline, which he distinguished from

the Côte d’Azur strictly speaking, was changing under the effect of the rise of automobile transport

and mass tourism. The author argued that the Mediterranean agricultural economy was gradually

being complemented, if not replaced, by a seaside economy. Profit perspectives were shifting, as

well as power dynamics.

In this context, coastal mayors advocated more assertively for a local control of beaches. Officially

created in 1930, the Association nationale des maires des stations thermales, climatiques, balnéaires

et touristiques (National Association of Mayors of Thermal, Climatic, Seaside, and Tourist Resorts,

in English) relaunched its activities with a congress in 1947. In a stance adopted in 1956, its Gene-

ral Assembly challenged the attitude of the Civil Service, which “secure ownership of the beaches

of which the municipalities are dispossessed”. The mayors affirmed their desire to supervise the

beaches located in their territory themselves “because of their tourist importance and, possibly,

the budgetary commitments they entail”¹².

This position was embraced by the president of the association when he visited the Ministry

of Finance, accompanied by a representative of the General Directorate of Tourism. The aim

was to put an end to the systematic application of the auction procedure, whose results were

deemed “unfortunate”, since it “leads to the attribution of the concession to the highest bidder

but does not offer the municipality all the desirable guarantees regarding safety and hygiene,

and in case of public discontent, the mayor is often blamed¹³.” The association therefore advo-

cated prioritizing the attribution of beach concessions to municipalities, a claim that aroused

serious reluctance from the state administration in charge of the public domain. State offi-

cials defended the auction procedure—and thus a system based on free competition— while

striving to appear accommodating. They recalled that in practice, they generally favored an

amicable agreement with the municipality, as long as the financial conditions were considered

satisfactory.

In 1958, a delegation from the mayors’ association once again approached the central administra-

tion. Subsequently, the latter undertook to draft a new set of standard specifications in collabo-

ration with the General Office of Tourism. After multiple attempts by mayors to ensure the right

to exploit beach lots in the context of rising mass tourism in this area, a circular issued in March

1959 partially met their demands. Two aspects of this development deserve particular attention.

First, whereas the rights of municipal concessionaires had previously been restricted to installing

cabins in addition to tables and chairs, it was “decided to generalize the practice of including in the

concession granted to the municipality the exploitations that had previously been the subject of

particular concessions: physical education classes, children’s gardens, pedal boats, miniature golf

courses, etc.” Second, the new regulations extended granting durations to nine years, departing

from the previous principle of annual concessions¹⁴.

12

Extract from the note of the Director General of Taxes (Domain service) to the Minister of Public Works, Transport and

Tourism about the rental of the right to exploit beaches, July 21^st, 1958 [NA 19920097/65].

13

Note sur l’adjudication des plages, n.d. [1956] [NA 19920097/65].

Note sur les problèmes posés par les locations et concessions de plages, n.d. [1959] [NA 19920097/65].

14

8

The making of the coastal concession apparatus

In Ramatuelle, the mayor seized this opportunity to claim control over Pampelonne beach. Having

consulted with the central administration, he informed the town council as early as 1959 that

granting portions of the beach would be financially advantageous. Negotiations were promptly

initiated, and by 1960, an agreement was reached for four beach plots, resulting in a ‘3-6-9’ (ye-

ars) licensing agreement, with a concession fee amounting to 15% of revenues. In 1961, the muni-

cipality requested to rent the “entire free portions of the beach that may be sublet” and proposed

“a fixed fee as a minimum, plus an exceptional fee equal to 50% of the revenue from sublets”.

Three years later, the municipal council formally proposed to acquire grants for the remaining

portions of beach still directly administered by the state, with the objective of “continuing the de-

velopment of the beach to allow its access and exploitation”¹⁵. All in all, through incremental steps,

the municipality eventually obtained what was then designated as a “lease of the right to exploit

sea bathing”. In turn, the municipality subleased this right to private entrepreneurs on an annual

basis. This method was a decisive factor in the formation of the concession apparatus. Yet the

procedural implementation could remain remarkably informal, as illustrated by a hastily drafted

handwritten letter from 1965:

Mr. Mayor,

I have the honor to request from your high benevolence the renewal for 1966 of the beach

concession No. 3 (located at Pampelonne – Le Pinet) that I have occupied for 4/6 [illegible]

years.

I left Ramatuelle this year, “my” beach is clean and free of all my suppliers, and my debts to

the Treasury were settled on time. With my gratitude, please receive, Sir, the assurance of

my respectful greetings.

(Letter addressed to the mayor of Ramatuelle, October 1965 [CAR – n.c.].)

To be sure, the state’s granting of concession rights was based on strict terms and conditions, from

the determination of the terms of reference to the calculation of associated fees. On the whole,

the concession apparatus was beneficial for the state in two ways. It acted both as a mechanism

for steady fee-based revenue collection and as a regulatory instrument through which the gover-

nment could control the activities of concessionaires. This arrangement, however, was troubled

by an emerging public that began to organize itself to assert collective access rights against the de

facto exclusionary practices that beach operators had gradually assumed.

The (granted) beach as a contentious space

From the mid-1960s, conflicts over the use of the beach intensified due to the permanent presence

of beach businesses on the foreshore. These businesses tended to extend beyond the limits set by

law, or at least to take advantage of a legal grey area. Only two decades after the Allied landings in

Provence (Operation Dragoon), during which Pampelonne Beach had served as a battlefield in Au-

gust 1944, local and national newspapers characterized the situation, with some exaggeration, as

a “beach war”. The “belligerents” comprised not only the state and the municipalities, but also an

emerging professional group, beach concessionaires or commercial beach managers [plagistes].

The formation of this new, soon powerful collective actor needs to be outlined to comprehend the

socio-spatial reconfiguration that unfolded during the 1960s and 1970s.

15

Deliberations of the Municipal Council of Ramatuelle, session of February 20, 1964 [CAR 2W2].

9

Isabelle Bruno; Grégory Salle

The proliferation of beach venues and professionalization of beach managers

The French word plagiste was coined in 1964 to refer to beach managers operating profit-making

establishments. At that time, these actors had already begun to organize themselves on a national

level. They were grouped in a Fédération des syndicats d’exploitants de plage (Federation of Beach

Concessionaires’ Unions, in English), which aimed to counterbalance the aforementioned Mayors

Association.

In December 1960, following a merger project within a Fédération nationale des syndicats d’exploi-

tants de piscines et d’établissements de bains de mer et de rivières (National Federation of Unions

of Swimming Pools and Seaside Bathing Establishments, in English), two organizations, the Fé-

dération des syndicats de plages des Alpes-Maritimes (Federation of Beach Unions of the Alpes-Ma-

ritimes, in English), based in Nice, and the Syndicat national des piscines et plages à baignades de

France (National Union of France’s Pools and Bathing Establishments, in English), based in Paris,

drew up a “draft defining the status of the profession of bathing establishment manager¹⁶”.

This text challenged the legal regime that defined the conditions of occupation of the maritime

public domain. The “concession of limited real rights”, the authors argued, harmed their “produc-

tivity” and the “optimal economic promotion” of the coastline. Complaining about an excessively

short duration, coupled with a risk of revocability that was deemed to discourage investment,

the operators called for a traditional commercial lease or long-term occupation grant. Distrus-

ting of central authorities, they also advocated the creation of local beach commissions, within a

fully formalized legal framework yet to be established. This new pressure group could lean on the

enactment of a 1963 law on maritime public domain, which fostered “the search for a rational and

profitable use of the national territory” (Juret, 1964, p. 16).

At the regional level, a significant advancement in the professionalization of plagistes occurred

a decade later. As growing stakeholders, they strategically attempted to influence a still volatile

legislation to align with their commercial interests. In October 1972, Mediterranean commercial

beach managers—two hundred delegates from four départements, including Var—convened in

Nice and voiced three main demands¹⁷. First, an improved legal status that would shield them

from what they viewed as the “arbitrary power” of the granting authority. Second, the creation of

a national beach board to harmonize administrative decisions, considered “often contradictory”.

Third, the implementation of long-term concession agreements to facilitate steady investment.

These demands articulated a more general protest against what beach operators perceived as the

“precariousness” of their professional situation. This claim for stability and recognition was the

premise of an enduring grievance that would be reinvigorated with the adoption of the 1986 Fren-

ch Coastal Act—a legislation partly designed to curtail the increasing encroachment on the coast

by private interests—and has been persistently reiterated in subsequent decades.

At the local level, beach establishments proliferated during the 1960s and 1970s [fig. 3a, 3b]. By

exploiting a contentious legal situation, they not only multiplied but also established permanent

16

“Draft text establishing the status of the profession of operators of bathing establishments”, December 9^th, 1960 [NA

19920097/65]. Note that the operators mention “private” establishments, not the administrative-legal category of “public

service transfer” [délégation de service public] that will later prevail.

See Les plagistes demandent un statut, Le Monde, October 23^rd, 1972. As we will see, this meeting took place shortly after the

17

adoption of a new standard national concession contract in June 1972.

10

The making of the coastal concession apparatus

structures on the sand—even outside the peak season—far beyond the simple, removable straw

huts or shacks that the law was intended to allow. As early as 1964, 44 plots were rented out in

Pampelonne, some of them with fifty meters of seafront. In August 1965, an article in Le Monde

condemned the “monopolization of the beaches”, describing a “rather confused” legal situation

and deploring the “downright ‘caging’ of the beaches and the most famous sites resulting from the

multiplication of concessions granted by the municipalities¹⁸”.

Figure 3a - Tahiti Beach” establishment (postcards, 1955 and 1980).

Source: Communal Archives, Ramatuelle

Figure 3b - Tahiti Beach” establishment (postcards, 1955 and 1980).

Source: Communal Archives, Ramatuelle.

18

“Des touristes manifestent contre l’accaparement des plages”, Le Monde, August 19, 1965.

11

Isabelle Bruno; Grégory Salle

As in other contexts, the social trajectory of beach entrepreneurs matters (Sartore, Leite and Ro-

drigues, 2023). In this case, most were outsiders to the region, lacking local ties; this status not

only shaped the ostentatiously “exotic” style of these venues but also oriented them toward an

external clientele. They were also prone to bending the rules and frequently exceeding the autho-

rized norms—regarding both time (permanent occupation instead of temporary use) and space

(surpassing the prescribed limits in width or length). At that time, few environmental associations

existed to challenge the influence of beach operators. Moreover, they often adopted an ambiguous

stance—advocating for environmental protection while resisting socio-economic diversity (Cha-

bert, 2016).

This situation sparked numerous conflicts in Pampelonne Beach, as elsewhere along the Mediter-

ranean coast. Albin Chalandon, Minister of Infrastructure and Housing from 1968 to 1972, was

forced to intervene repeatedly to defuse tensions. In August 1970, he appeared on television to

defend the legality of the concessions, insisting that the beach was public and thus open to all,

against the alleged existence of so-called private beaches. A year later, faced with ongoing con-

flicts, he announced a moratorium on new concession requests. Yet the concession apparatus was

already entrenched, and the term private beaches persisted in public discourse, even being used

by his own advisors in the progressive press¹⁹. This revealed the de facto privatization enabled by

the concession apparatus.

Beach Wars

Coinciding with the emergence of the French term plagiste, the mid-1960s witnessed the press-

-coined phrase beach wars²⁰. Centered around several local scandals and legal cases that gained

national significance (notably in Saint-Raphaël in 1965 and in Le Lavandou in 1970), this meta-

phorical war manifested in two distinct dimensions.

The first aspect concerned physical access to the beach, which was hindered by private property.

At Pampelonne, in the absence of a seafront road, the municipality assumed responsibility for

carving out vertical access routes by incorporating some rural and neighborhood pathways into

the municipal road network. Local representatives had to negotiate with owners of land adjacent

to the beach to secure their consent, achieving amicable agreements that state authorities would

likely have been unable to obtain.

The second dimension involved not only access but occupation, stemming from the commercial

operation of the beaches. The subletting of conceded foreshore to beach managers—who were

installing facilities and erecting fences to demarcate their allocated lots—effectively reduced the

area available to the general public who did not patronize these beachfront venues and impeded

free movement along the coastline.

In 1966, against a background of increasing incidents between summer vacationers and beach

managers, Ramatuelle’s town council, considered responsible for the public order on the beach,

put on the agenda a “project for the revision of the plots” to “respond to the protests of the public

19

“We do not want to “shoot the beach managers”, but to legalize the situation and find a balance between public beaches and

private beaches.” Quoted in “Plages privées: nouvelle réglementation mise au point cet hiver”, Combat, July 30^th, 1971.

20

See e.g. “La ‘guerre des plages’ à Saint-Raphaël”, Le Monde, August 27^th, 1965; “La guerre des plages doit être gagnée”, Témoi-

gnage chrétien, September 2^nd, 1965.

12

The making of the coastal concession apparatus

for more extensive open spaces”. Four related decisions were taken: (1) “to pursue the removal of

all installations unduly remaining in the maritime domain” and “to draw all consequences that will

be deemed useful regarding latecomers”, suggesting a threat of non-renewal; (2) “to proceed to a

new implantation of lots to be rented”, while planning to “reduce their importance in order to ex-

tend the zones of free beaches”, with a view to curb the creeping privatization of the coast; (3) “to

define the conditions of subletting by mutual agreement, according to the situation of the plots”,

to put an end to more or less informal agreements; (4) “to take all provisions for the maintenance

of portions of free beach, in particular by partially imposing it as a charge on subtenants adjacent

to the unrented portions”, a way to transfer part of this burden to beach managers themselves²¹.

However, the management of Pampelonne beach proved to be increasingly burdensome and cos-

tly for a small rural municipality like Ramatuelle, which in 1965 had only 655 voters and thirteen

town councilors, most of whom were small farm owners and/or wine growers. In early 1967, their

deliberations indicated that “the maintenance and rental of the beaches pose difficult problems

for the municipality²²”. That year, the summer season was once again contentious, as illustrated

by a letter sent to the mayor by a Parisian press editor in which he declared that he would file a

complaint with the public prosecutor and notify the prefect of Var to assert his right to “free access

to the maritime public domain”:

Mr. Mayor, [...]

I have the honor to report to you the illegal, criminal actions of the operator of the first hut

on the right, coming from St. Tropez, which are likely to tarnish the good reputation of your

beaches. [...]

The facts are as follows:

As I was going to bathe with my family in this place, this individual ordered me to take a

mattress or to clear off. When I refused, I was shoved, insulted in public, as well as my wife,

and finally [...] I was surrounded by five musclemen who threatened to “smash my face in”,

me and my three children, if I did not leave immediately. […]

P.S.: I am not the only one who was treated this way and this attitude was systematic.

(Recorded handwritten letter addressed to the mayor of Ramatuelle, August 27^th, 1967

[CAR 6W 23/2].)

The seemingly local weakness provided an opportunity for state officials to gain ground within

the concession apparatus at the expense of local representatives. The same year, 1967, a Commis-

sion interministérielle d’aménagement touristique du littoral (Interministerial Committee for the

Development of Tourism and Coastal Planning, in English) was created under the Prime Minister’s

authority.

Its objective was to promote a “real” investment policy for coastal development, especially on the

French Riviera. As it turns out, it was in Ramatuelle/Pampelonne that this committee planned to

test a new legal status for beach exploitation. The concession was then granted to a mixed-eco-

nomy company, called SCETO (for Société centrale pour l’équipement touristique, Central Office for

Tourist Equipment in English), in charge of promoting and implementing “sustainable planning”.

The aim, however, was not to preserve the natural environment of the beach, but to combat the

“precariousness” of beach managers by giving them guarantees for the amortization of their in-

21

Municipal Council of Ramatuelle, session of January 21^st, 1966 [CAR 2W2].

Municipal Council of Ramatuelle, session of January 12^th, 1967 [CAR 2W2].

22

13

Isabelle Bruno; Grégory Salle

vestments. For this purpose, the option of a fifty-year emphyteutic lease was even suggested²³. But

the SCETO was viewed with a certain suspicion by the Ramatuelle town council. While initially

self-described as a study office in charge of developing planning projects, it then attempted to take

over the management of the beach. It apparently did so for a very short period of time but the con-

troversial attempt to move from consultancy to effective management quickly failed.

In 1972, at the national level, an interministerial circular modified the specifications dating from

1912. It replaced the legal regime of the rental with that of a proper concession to modernize

and clarify existing regulations. The new concession contract model was characterized as “more

adapted to current operating conditions”, especially “in the Mediterranean region where the den-

sity of tourist frequentation” presented “particularly acute problems”²⁴. Theoretically, the circular

ostensibly positioned the rights of the public—free access and circulation along the shoreline—

and the obligations of concessionaires as foundational principles of the new regime. Practically,

it sealed an ambivalent compromise. While it claimed to contain beach concessions within strict

proportions, it institutionalized them permanently. The size of the establishments, the length of

the contracts, or the rates charged could still be discussed, but not so much the existence of the

beach establishments themselves.

Municipalities secured recognition as the “privileged partner of the state”, which was now obli-

gated to contract primarily with local authorities. At the same time, a quantitative threshold was

defined: up to 30% of beach surface area could be allocated to beach managers, who could install

facilities and “make the stationing of the public subject to their use”²⁵. This represented a shift

from a legal regime in which the state granted rights to exploit sea bathing activities to one whe-

re the physical beach space itself, as a socially produced space, became the explicit object of the

concession.

In Ramatuelle, the new mayor elected in 1971, Albert Raphaël, negotiated the concession to take

control of beach management. Against SCETO, this local figure of the French Socialist Party allied

with beach operators to obtain a fifteen-year concession, exempt from domain fees, to undertake

the necessary works for the development of a beach of national reputation. After negotiations, in

1974, the Direction départementale de l’Équipement (Departmental Directorate of Equipment, in

English) sent to the town council a concession application file for fifteen years. It came with an

annual fee, but in return, it was accompanied by public support granted by the Ministry of Territo-

rial Development within the framework of a national objective aimed at opening up one hundred

kilometers of beaches by 1977. In the eyes of the mayor of Ramatuelle, the attribution of this con-

cession marked a supervision of the beach by the municipality²⁶”.

This increasing local control, however, should not be interpreted as a simple abdication of state

authority through power transfer. As revealed by the specifications’ provisions, prefectural decre-

es, and correspondence exchanged with concessionary municipalities, the granting state main-

tained vigilant attention to the exploitation modalities of subcontracted lots. Prefectural services

23

“Deux objectifs pour la commission d’aménagement du littoral”, Les Échos, June 8th, 1967.

Letter from the Ministry of Equipment and Housing (Directorate of Maritime Ports and Waterways), the Ministry of Econ-

24

omy and Finance (General Directorate of Taxes, Department of Land and Domain Affairs), to Prefects, “Subject: concession

of a natural beach to a municipality, to a syndicate of municipalities or to a department”, June 1^st, 1972 [CAR, n.c.].

Circular N° 72-86 of June 1^st, 1972 relating to the concession of natural beaches to a municipality, to a syndicate of munici-

25

palities or to a department (“Specifications”).

Retrospectively, he would summarize the operation in these terms: “from 1973 on, we took control of [Pampelonne beach]:

26

Raphaël Albert, Mayor for thirty years (1971-2001) (provisional title), unpublished typescript [PA].

14

The making of the coastal concession apparatus

occasionally exhibited meticulous, even fastidious oversight. Effective law enforcement and regu-

latory control must be qualified, however, given that annual repetition of identical warnings and

sanction threats rarely materialized into enforcement measures. While official instructions con-

sistently emphasized the theoretically and legally “precarious and revocable” character of beach

businesses, these open-air beachfront venues had, in fact, established themselves firmly in the co-

astal landscape. Overall, beach operators have effectively prevailed. By asserting their presence—

frequently extending to or beyond the legal boundaries of their concessions—they have durably

transformed the social uses of the beach, redirecting them toward a commercial logic.

Conclusion

Who owns the beach? By showing how the concession apparatus took shape in an emblematic spot

of the French Riviera, this article provides one situated answer to this somewhat unexpected yet

recurring question (e.g., Ritchie, 2021, p. 224-243). The concession apparatus serves as a legal me-

ans of “privatizing the Mediterranean coastline” (Selwyn, 2004) without formal privatization. Now,

let us outline the two main effects produced by this apparatus. First, it has resulted in substantial

profits for private operators while providing a stable revenue stream for local and national public

authorities. By the late 2010s, the combined annual turnover of Pampelonne’s 25 to 30 beach es-

tablishments—depending on the year—was estimated at € 30–40 million, generating € 8 million

annually in taxes and fees, including € 1 to 1.5 million in municipal concession payments²⁷. Second,

commercial enterprises have divided distinct social groups, separating ordinary beachgoers acces-

sing the shoreline for free leisure from an affluent clientele, leaving the “space of consumption” to

shift towards the “consumption of space” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 352-353) in distinctive beach establish-

ments. By the 1980s, Pampelonne had become (in)famously known as a jet-set beach.

From then on, social stratification would manifest spatially in a distinctive territorial division

across the sandy shoreline, even in the absence of no trespassing signs. Vertically, the concession

system has symbolically deterritorialized the beach, precipitating a quasi-insularization that has

established Pampelonne as a recognized toponym in its own right, seemingly released from its

administrative connection to the town of Ramatuelle it belongs to. Horizontally, acting as a land

registry or cadastral system, the concession apparatus has partitioned the coastal space into se-

parate and competitive plots, in a distribution supposedly designed to accommodate all social

groups and tastes.

In practice, however, inequalities have deepened in Pampelonne. Members of the working class

are there as employees, not customers, while even middle-class vacationers are put off by the

physical and symbolic barriers created by the concession apparatus. As André Gorz (1980, p. 87)

pointed out in the mid-1975, “if you want to stretch out in the sun, you have got to use (and pay

for) these industrial facilities. Enjoyment of the sun, the beach, and relaxation is made dependent

on renting them. Capitalism has accomplished the feat of capitalizing picturesque spots and sce-

nery—that is, it has transformed them into capital—of managing, operating and renting them out

to users. To do this, all they had to do was industrialize the means of access and use of these sites”²⁸.

27

Rapport de présentation du SCOT du Golfe de Saint-Tropez, t. 1 (Le diagnostic territorial), n° 2019/10/02-06, October 2019,

p. 106.

28

Italics are from Gorz himself. Earlier in the book, he condemns the “luxury of the private beach” as opposed to the “democ-

ratization of access to the beaches” (ibid., p. 69).

15

Isabelle Bruno; Grégory Salle

Despite the aforementioned conflicts, the situation did not fully fall under the concept of a contes-

ted market, at least not during the period under study. The discourse justifying beach establish-

ments emphasized economic development rather than the common good or general interest. As

the private beaches designation suggests, these venues were largely perceived as pure commercial

enterprises, not as public service facilities. Critical voices were not so much opposed to market

mechanisms per se—occasionally criticized yet rarely condemned as inherently immoral—but ra-

ther to the exclusive appropriation of coastal areas, which restricted public access and use, along

with the soaring prices that made beach restaurants unaffordable to much of the population. Whi-

le the beach underwent commodification, the core moral dispute centered less on marketization

than on the exclusionary effects of beach grabbing and coastal enclosure.

In this regard, the case of Pampelonne Beach exemplifies a dual process where social erosion

goes hand in hand with natural erosion. Over the last decades, Pampelonne has indeed not been

exempt—albeit to a moderated degree—from coastal squeeze. This situation calls for a socio-e-

cological approach that acknowledges how natural processes—such as coastal erosion and sea-

-level rise—challenge the static logic of the concession apparatus, so as to consider the beach as a

critical site for observing how “nature” and “society” constitute one another. The shoreline resists

the passive, malleable image projected by the concession apparatus. Exacerbated by rampant arti-

ficialization, coastal squeeze is undermining the foundations of the seaside order based on beach

concessions, even causing the disappearance of small beaches in the Var region.

In other words, while the concession has made the beach available or disposable in subjecting it

to commercial appropriation against the de jure “unavailability” that characterizes public things

(Thomas, 2002, p. 1435 sq.), its dynamic environmental context now forcefully demonstrates a

de facto unavailability. In the early twenty-first century, this “return of the uncontrollable” (Rosa,

2020²⁹), whereby natural processes manifest themselves forcefully, has served as a stark remin-

der to policymakers and concessionaires alike that the beach is a living environment, not merely

a resource to be exploited. Observations of coastal squeeze at Pampelonne Beach prompted to

adoption of a new coastal development plan that now limits the space occupied by seaside esta-

blishments on the foreshore.

Funding

This research was supported by the Institut Universitaire de France (IUF) and The Fondation Mai-

sons des Sciences de l’Homme (FMSH)

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank archivist Caroline Martin for her assistance.

Archival Sources

NA = National Archives, Pierrefitte. DAV = Departmental Archives of Var, Draguignan. CAR = Commu-

nal Archives, Ramatuelle. FIA = French Institute of Architecture, Paris. PA = Private Archives.

29 As explained in the English version’s foreword, the German original title could have been translated as “unavailability” or

“unpredictability”. The issue at stake is “modernity’s incessant desire to make the world engineerable, predictable, avail-

able, accessible, disposable (i.e. verfügbar) in all its aspects” (p. viii).

16

The making of the coastal concession apparatus

Deliberations of the Municipal Council of Ramatuelle, session of February 20^th, 1964 [CAR 2W2].

Deliberations of the municipal council of Ramatuelle, sessions of October 17^th, 1929 and April 27^th, 1930 [CAR, 2W 1 D 10].

Draft text establishing the status of the profession of operators of bathing establishments”, December 9^th, 1960 [NA

19920097/65].

Extract from the note of the Director General of Taxes (Domain service) to the Minister of Public Works, Transport and

Tourism about the rental of the right to exploit beaches, July 21^st, 1958 [NA 19920097/65].

Letter addressed to the mayor of Ramatuelle, August 27^th, 1967 [CAR 6W 23/2].

Letter addressed to the mayor of Ramatuelle, October 1965 [CAR – n.c.].

Letters from beach operators, December 1964 and February 1966 [CAR 6W 23/2].

Letter from the Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs to the Chief Engineer the department of civil engineering

[Ponts et Chaussées], December 30^th, 1912 [NA, 19920097/65].

Letter from the prefect of Var to the mayor of Gassin, December 11^th, 1925. [DAV, 4S 7-11].

Letter from the Préfet of Var, T. Barnier, to the mayors of the Var coast, February 27^th, 1922. [FIA, 343 AA 4/6].

Ministry of Equipment and Housing (Directorate of Maritime Ports and Waterways), the Ministry of Economy and Fi-

nance (General Directorate of Taxes, Department of Land and Domain Affairs), to Prefects, “Subject: concession of a

natural beach to a municipality, to a syndicate of municipalities or to a department”, June 1^st, 1972 [CAR 2W2].

Municipal Council of Ramatuelle, sessions of January 21^st, 1966 and January 12^th, 1967 [CAR 2W2].

Municipal council of Ramatuelle, Extraordinary session on March 19^th, 1922, and session of October 17^th, 1929 [CAR,

2W 1 D 10].

Note sur l’adjudication des plages, n.d. [1956] [NA 19920097/65].

Note sur les problèmes posés par les locations et concessions de plages, n.d. [1959] [NA 19920097/65].

Programme de l’aménagement de la presqu’île tropézienne, Department of Var, n.d. [1931] [CAR, 3D series].

Raphaël Albert, Mayor for thirty years (1971-2001) [provisional title], unpublished typescript [PA].

Syndicate of coastal municipalities for the protection, development and enhancement of the Var Côte d’Azur, Bulletin

no. 1, Draguignan, Olivier-Joulian Print., 1923. [FIA, 343 AA 4/6].

Official Documents And Legislation

Circular n. 72-86 of June 1^st, 1972 relating to the concession of natural beaches to a municipality, to a syndicate of mu-

nicipalities or to a department (“Specifications”). Internal document, restricted access.

Rapport de présentation du SCOT du Golfe de Saint-Tropez, t. 1 (Le diagnostic territorial), n. 2019/10/02-06, October

2019. Available on: https://www.golfe-sainttropez.fr/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/11/RP_TOME1_Diagnostic_

Territorial_Approuv.pdf. Accessed on: 30 nov. 2025.

Newspaper And Periodical Articles

Accessed via: Dossier de presse « Domaine public » (t. 1, n. 117, 1956-2005), Fondation nationale des sciences politi-

ques (FNSP), Paris.

Deux objectifs pour la commission d’aménagement du littoral, Les Échos, June 8^th, 1967.

La ‘guerre des plages’ à Saint-Raphaël, Le Monde, August 27^th, 1965.

LE GOFF, J.-P., La guerre des plages doit être gagnée, Témoignage chrétien, September 2^nd, 1965.

Les plagistes demandent un statut, Le Monde, October 23^rd, 1972.

Plages privées: nouvelle réglementation mise au point cet hiver, Combat, July 30^th, 1971.

SIMON, J.-F., Des touristes manifestent contre l’accaparement des plages, Le Monde, August 19^th, 1965.

17

Isabelle Bruno; Grégory Salle

References

AGAMBEN, Giorgio. What is an Apparatus? Stanford: Stanford UP, 2009. 80 p.

BIDET, Jennifer; DEVIENNE, Elsa. Beaches of Contention. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, n. 218, v. 3, p. 4-9,

2017. Available on: https://doi.org/10.3917/arss.218.0004. Accessed on: 15 nov. 2025.

BLUME, Mary. Côte d’Azur: Inventing the French Riviera. London: Thames & Hudson, 1992. 208 p.

BOURDIEU, Pierre; LAMAISON Pierre. From Rules to Strategies. An Interview with Pierre Bourdieu. Cultural Anthro-

pology, v. 1, n. 1, p. 110-120, 1986. Available on: https://www.jsto r .org/stable/656327. Accessed on: 30 mar. 2025.

BOURDIEU, Pierre; WACQUANT, Loïc. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.

BRUNO, Isabelle; SALLE, Grégory. État ne touche pas à mon matelas! Conflits d’usage et luttes d’appropriation sur la

plage de Pampelonne. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, n. 218, v. 3 p. 26-45, 2017. Available on: https://doi.

org/10.3917/arss.218.0026. Accessed on: 15 nov. 2025.

CHABERT, Jean-Baptiste. L’action foncière : une ressource pour des mobilisations riveraines. Norois, n. 238-239, p. 43-

58, 2016. Available on: https://journals.openedition.org/norois/pdf/5855. Accessed on: 15 nov. 2025.

CHAUCHARD, Cécile. Entre menace commerciale et protection juridique, la plage de Pampelonne. In: BROGINI, Anne. La

Méditerranée au prisme des rivages. Menaces, protections, aménagements en Méditerranée occidentale (XVIe-

-XXIe siècles). Saint-Denis: Bouchène, p. 311-315, 2015. Available on: https://shs.cairn.info/la-mediterranee-au-pris-

me-des-rivages--9782356760371-page-311?site_lang=f r. Accessed on: 15 nov. 2025.

CORBIN, Alain. The Lure of the Sea: The Discovery of the Seaside in the Western World, 1750-1840. Berkeley/Los

Angeles: UC Press, 1995 [1988]. 400 p.

FERRAND, Jean-Pierre. La protection de la plage par le droit de l’urbanisme. Revue juridique de l’environnement, v.

39, n. 3, p. 447-463, 2014. Available on: https://droit.cairn.info/article/RJE_143_0447/pdf?lang=f r. Accessed on: 15

nov. 2025.

GORZ, André. Ecology as Politics. Boston: South End Press, 1980. 215 p.

GRANGER, Christophe. La saison des apparences. Naissance des corps d’été. Paris: Anamosa, 2017.

HOSTIOU, René. Du domaine public maritime: notion et régime juridique. Cahiers nantais, n. 35-36, p. 99-105, 1990.

Available on: https://www.persee.fr/doc/canan_0755-9232_1990_num_35_1_1519. Accessed on: 30 mar. 2025.

JUILLARD, Étienne. La côte des Maures. Son évolution économique et sociale depuis cent ans étudiée dans la région

de Saint-Tropez. Revue de géographie alpine, v. 45, n. 2, p. 289-350, 1957. Available on: https://www.persee.fr/doc/

rga_0035-1121_1957_num_45_2_1900. Accessed on: 15 nov. 2025.

JURET, Pierre-Marie. Le domaine public maritime. Bulletin législatif Dalloz, March 16^th, 1964. 230 p.

KAHRL, Andrew W. From Commons to Capital: The Creative Destruction of Coastal Real Estate, Environments, and Com-

munities in the US South. Transatlantica, n. 2, 2020. Available on: https://journals.openedition.org/transatlantica/

pdf/16278. Accessed on: 15 nov. 2025.

LAWLOR, Leonard; NALE, John (eds.). Dispositif (Apparatus). In: The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, p. 126-132, 2014.

LE BOUËDEC, Gérard. Pour une histoire sociale de l’estran français. Du XVIe siècle à la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Anna-

les de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest, v. 117, n. 4, p. 135-164, 2010. Available on: https://journals.openedition.org/

abpo/pdf/1844. Accessed on: 15 nov. 2025.

LEFEBVRE, Henri. The Production of Space. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell, 1991.

LE ROUX, Thomas; MORERA, Raphaël (Dir.). La nature sous contrat: concession, histoire et environnement (XVI^e-XXI^e

s.). Rennes: PUR, 2025. 322 p.

LI, Tania Murray. What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers, n. 39, p. 589-602, 2014. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12065. Accessed on: 15 nov. 2025.

LOW, Setha (Ed.). Beach Politics: Social, Racial, and Environmental Injustice on the Shoreline. New York: New York

University Press, 2025.

MACHIN, Howard. The French Prefects and Local Administration. Parliamentary Affairs, v. 27, p. 237-250, 1974. Avai-

lable on: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a051695. Accessed on: 15 nov. 2025.

18

The making of the coastal concession apparatus

MILES, Jonathan. Once upon a time world: the dark and sparkling story of the French Riviera. London: Atlantic Books,

2024. 464 p.

POLANYI, Karl. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press,

2001 [1944].

PANCRACIO, Jean-Paul. Droit du littoral. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2024. 424 p.

PRIEUR, Loïc. France. In: Regulating Coastal Zones. Londres: Routledge, 2020. p. 169-189. Available on: https://www.

taylorfrancis.com/reader/download/638a7251-f341-4e43-a801-5549d797e397/chapter/pdf?context=ubx. Accessed

on: 15 nov. 2025.

RITCHIE, Robert C. The Lure of the Beach. A Global History. Oakland: UC Press, 2021. 525 p.

ROSA, Hartmut. The Uncontrollability of the World. Cambridge: Polity, 2020. 140 p.

SARTORE, Marina de Souza; PEREIRA, Simone de Araújo; RODRIGUES, Cae. Aracaju beach bars as a contested market:

Conflicts and overlaps between market and nature. Ocean and Coastal Management, v. 179, no. 104828, 2019. Availa-

ble on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104828. Accessed on: 30 mar. 2025.

SARTORE, Marina de Souza; LEITE, Elaine da Silveira; RODRIGUES, Cae. Economic Evaluation Rationalities: How Life

Trajectories Shape Beach Commerce as Seen Through the Bourdieusian Framework. Mondes du Tourisme, 2023. Avai-

lable on: https://journals.openedition.org/tourisme/pdf/5298. Accessed on: 30 mar. 2025.

SELWYN, Tom. Privatising the Mediterranean Coastline. In: BOISSEVAIN, Jeremy; SELWYN, Tom (eds.). Contesting the

Foreshore. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2004. p. 35-60.

TANGUY, Gildas. French Prefects: Genesis and Institutionalization of a State ‘Grand Corps’ (Nineteenth–Twenty-First

Centuries). In: TANGUY, Gilda; EYMERI-DOUZANS, Jean-Michel. (eds.). Prefects, Governors and Commissioners.

Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 39-64, 2021. Available on: https://link.springe r .com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-

59396-4_2. Access on : 15 nov. 2025.

THOMAS, Yan. La valeur des choses. Le droit romain hors la religion. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, v. 57, n. 6,

p. 1431-1462, 2002. Available on: https://doi.org/10.3406/ahess.2002.280119. Accessed on: 30 mar. 2025.

URBAIN, Jean-Didier. Au soleil: Naissance de la Méditerranée estivale. Paris: Payot, 2014. 304 p.

VINCENT, Johan. L’intrusion balnéaire. Les populations littorales bretonnes et vendéennes face au tourisme

(1800-1945). Rennes: PUR, 2007. 278 p.

WOLOSHYN, Tania. Le Pays du Soleil: The Art of Heliotherapy on the Côte d’Azur. Social History of Medicine, v. 26, n. 1,

p. 74-93, 2013. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hks052. Accessed on: 30 mar. 2025.

19

Isabelle Bruno; Grégory Salle

A formação do aparato de concessões

costeiras: um estudo socio-histórico da

Praia de Pampelonne (França, 1920-1970)

La construcción del aparato de

concesiones costeras: un estudio socio-

histórico de la playa Pampelonne

(Francia, 1920-1970)

Resumo

Este artigo examina a emergência socio-histórica

do aparato de concessões na praia de Pampelonne

(décadas de 1920 a 1970), local emblemático da

Riviera Francesa. Com base em pesquisa arquivís-

tica, analisamos como uma costa antes não regu-

lamentada foi gradualmente transformada em um

espaço recreativo comercializado (às vezes contes-

tado) por meio de negociações entre autoridades

estatais, atores locais e gestores privados. Embora

as concessões emitidas pelo Estado não confiram

direitos de propriedade privada, autorizam opera-

dores comerciais a explorar temporariamente seg-

mentos da praia mediante a instalação de infraes-

truturas físicas na areia. Operando na interseção

entre propriedade pública e exploração privada,

esse aparato criou uma quase-privatização, seg-

mentando os frequentadores entre uma clientela

abastada e usuários comuns, ao mesmo tempo em

que gerava lucros substanciais para operadores

privados e autoridades públicas. O caso de Pam-

pelonne, que ilustra as consequências espaciais

e sociais do capitalismo costeiro, destaca como a

natureza recreativa é construída como uma mer-

cadoria, aprofundando desigualdades sociais e

ecológicas no litoral mediterrâneo.

Este artículo examina la emergencia sociohis-

tórica del aparato de concesiones en la playa de

Pampelonne (décadas de 1920 a 1970), un sitio

emblemático de la Riviera francesa. A partir de

una investigación archivística, analizamos cómo

una costa antes no regulada se transformó gradu-

almente en un espacio recreativo comercializado

(en ocasiones, disputado) mediante negociaciones

entre autoridades estatales, actores locales y ges-

tores privados. Aunque las concesiones otorgadas

por el Estado no confieren derechos de propiedad

privada, autorizan a los operadores comerciales

a explotar temporalmente segmentos de la playa

mediante la instalación de infraestructuras físicas

en la arena. Operando en la encrucijada entre la

propiedad pública y la explotación privada, este

aparato generó una cuasi-privatización, segmen-

tando a los usuarios entre una clientela adinerada

y los bañistas comunes, al tiempo que generaba

ganancias sustanciales para operadores privados

y autoridades públicas. El caso de Pampelonne,

que ilustra las consecuencias espaciales y sociales

del capitalismo costero, subraya cómo la naturale-

za recreativa se construye como una mercancía, y

así profundiza las desigualdades sociales y ecoló-

gicas en la costa mediterránea.

Palavras-chave: Praia; Concessão; Meio Ambiente;

Desigualdade; Litoral.

Palabras clave: Playa; Concesión; Medio Ambiente;

Desigualdad; Litoral.

Timeline of the Manuscript



Received: May 2025

First Review: July 2025

Second Review: June 2025

Third Review: June 2025

Accepted for Publication: September 2025

Author revision: September 2025

Grammar, Spelling and ABNT review: October 2025

Author revision: November 2025

Published on December 2025

20