🔗 Share this article

Razor-straight rows of eucalyptus clones surround the Baixa Verde community in Brazil’s northeast. These identical trees present a sharp difference to the remnants of wild Atlantic forest, one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems globally.

Bordered by nearly 100,000 hectares of commercial eucalyptus groves, Baixa Verde represents a rare community triumph over a multinational in Brazil. The rural settlement owes its existence due to almost twenty years of court disputes over land rights – but the fight is not over yet.

Following struggles to keep their territory, the families now face an unparalleled safety emergency marked by armed clashes, fire attacks and threats on their lives, part of a wave of violence stemming from a territorial conflict that has intensified since 2024.

Conflicts over land rights have long been an problem in the area. Securing land deeds is commonly deemed to validate illegal land seizures from indigenous populations, and local people had suspected that a wood-pulp manufacturer was cultivating eucalyptus on government property.

During 2008, one of the founders of the Baixa Verde settlement and another community member visited government archives to inspect official papers. They found the page that demonstrated the 3,200 acres in dispute were publicly owned. “We always knew that it was state property,” says the community leader.

Armed with this evidence, they assembled 91 local families and joined the Landless Workers Movement, a social and political group fighting for land redistribution. Their initial step was to occupy an area of a eucalyptus plantation used by the corporation, alleging the firm of utilizing government property.

Following two years after the original occupation, the movement won state recognition that the company did not legally own the parcel of land cultivated by the company. “This ruling was a victory not just for the local land rights movement but for all the social movements of Brazil,” says a community member who grew up in the encampment and is now a key organizer of the movement.

Following many years of roadblocks and court fights, the Bahia state government reached a settlement with the corporation and the organization in 2016, restoring 3,200 acres of company land to the public domain and giving each household a plot sufficiently sized to grow their own food. Of the sixty-one households staying, fifty-three have relocated into their new plots.

“Winning a right to the land means that we now have a place to look after our youngest ones,” says the settlement representative.

---

Despite losing the land, a company representative maintains that the firm has always operated with “openness, social and environmental responsibility” and respect for the local population. “The company has never been convicted of land grabbing and reaffirms that its operational zones are lawfully governed and operate with the required environmental permits.”

However, in the time following the agreement, the families say they have encountered life-threatening warnings, shooting incidents, destroyed residences, taken crops and ruined farmland.

According to the organization, the dispute now focuses on plots of land that remain inhabited by farmers affiliated with the local union. When it was facing loss of possession of the contested land, the corporation donated 740 adjacent acres to the union – a donation confirmed by the organization’s directors.

“We face significant harassment happening around here. Our shelters have been burned down, as well as our sugarcane fields.”

Over the past four years, six organizers of the movement have been placed under protective watch by Brazil’s protection programme for rights activists, communicators and environmentalists. The authorities has recommended that certain organizers move away, but due to dedication to the cause and bond to their hard-won land, they have refused.

Due to the life-threatening messages he has obtained, a community pioneer says he has difficulty resting at night. “I feel genuinely fearful that something is going to happen to my household,” he says.

The organization claims that eight households do not feel sufficiently secure to cultivate their plots, which remain inhabited by farmers allegedly associated with the company.

The corporation says that over the past 15 years, it has allocated “more than 20,000 hectares to land redistribution programs, whether through court settlements, contributions to the National Institute for Colonisation and Agrarian Reform, donations, or straight purchases, to settle persistent disputes in the territory.”

The firm also says “the creation of the settlements – from planning to subdivision and plot allocation – was managed completely by the state government, without interference from the corporation”, and “does not comment on disputes among activist groups”.

One resident is among the two individuals who still reside in the original settlement. She says she has been intimidated by armed men who surrounded her house and shot at the ground. Since no one lives nearby, the resident – who resides by herself – thinks the gunfire were meant to intimidate her out of taking possession of her allocated land.

In August, the state of Bahia authorised the removal of labor group-associated agricultural workers who remain on settlement properties – but the decision has yet to be enforced.

---

Environmental Challenges and the ‘Emerald Wasteland’

In addition to protecting against threats and violence, converting lands once used for eucalyptus monoculture into agricultural cultivation is now the main challenge for the settlement residents. Tree cultivation is controlled by major international corporations that, from the 1960s onward, have been transforming agricultural and woodland areas into single-crop farms, driven by global demand.

The country is the world’s largest producer of eucalyptus, a fast-growing, water-intensive plant, whose fiber is shipped abroad to make cardboard and writing materials. Most of the country’s eucalyptus pulp is exported to Europe, where it is used to make stationery items often promoted as a sustainable substitute to synthetic materials – despite the environmental damage resulting from single-crop farming.

Within Bahia state, the proliferation of these plantations has received the regional nickname “emerald wasteland”, due to the loss of wildlife and the severe shortage of water and land faced by households residing close to commercial tree farms.

A settlement founder was raised in the area and recalls the waterway before the area was transformed by eucalyptus monoculture. “We used to cross it in a boat. It was abundant,” he says. “Following corporate establishment, it dried up.” He links the resource shortage to the corporation’s appearance in 1991.

The company says it “adopts a mosaic management system, in which trees are grown in elevated regions, while lowlands, water sources and indigenous plants are protected. This model guarantees ground conservation, wildlife conservation and the maintenance of water resources.” The company also says it “conducts continuous monitoring of small watersheds in its area of operation” and “develops reforestation and forest restoration projects in areas near communities”.

In the neighbouring state of Minas Gerais state, the tree cultivation area of Turmalina municipality has seen its aquifer depth drop by 15 feet over the past 45 years, according to researchers at the state university.

Plant life in single-crop tree farms takes in just over a quarter of precipitation to replenish aquifer reserves – compared with a 50% level of absorption associated with indigenous woodland. Three-quarters of agricultural households interviewed in the state reported their crops being affected by the scarcity.

The cultivation of eucalyptus also poses an increased risk of wildfire. Plantations are so flammable that Chile rejected the species as a practical environmental answer after a succession of major blazes in its national farms.

Despite the environmental risks, eucalyptus plantations continue to play a significant role in the carbon market, with plants being marketed as emission offsets to petroleum companies to offset their emissions. Although facing resistance from activists, in {