Geometrically precise lines of eucalyptus clones flank the Baixa Verde settlement in Brazil’s northeast. The identical trees present a sharp difference to the patches of native Atlantic woodland, one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems on Earth.
Surrounded by nearly 100,000 hectares of commercial eucalyptus groves, Baixa Verde exemplifies a uncommon community triumph over a multinational in Brazil. The rural settlement owes its existence due to nearly two decades of court disputes over property claims – yet the conflict continues.
After fighting to keep their territory, the households now confront an unparalleled safety emergency marked by armed clashes, fire attacks and threats on their lives, within a surge of aggression stemming from a territorial conflict that has intensified since 2024.
Conflicts over land rights have historically been an issue in the area. Obtaining property titles is often considered to legitimise land grabs from traditional communities, and residents had suspected that a wood-pulp manufacturer was planting eucalyptus trees on public land.
During 2008, one of the founders of the Baixa Verde settlement and another community member visited government archives to inspect official papers. They discovered the document that proved the 1,300 hectares in dispute were owned by the government. “We were certain that it was public land,” says the community leader.
Armed with this evidence, they organized 91 local families and joined the Landless Workers Movement, a political and social organisation fighting for land redistribution. Their initial step was to take over a section of a tree farm used by the company, alleging the firm of using public land.
Two years after the original occupation, the organization secured official acknowledgment that the company did not legally own the parcel of land planted by the company. “This document was a victory not just for the community property campaign but for all the social movements of the country,” says a settlement resident who was raised in the settlement and is now a key organizer of the movement.
After years of obstacles and court fights, the state of Bahia signed an agreement with the corporation and the movement in 2016, returning 1,300 hectares of corporate property to the government and providing each household a plot sufficiently sized to grow their own food. Of the 61 families remaining, 53 have moved into their assigned lands.
“Winning a right to the property means that we now have a place to look after our children,” says the community leader.
Despite losing the land, a company representative asserts that the company has always operated with “transparency, community and ecological accountability” and consideration for the local population. “The corporation has never been convicted of land grabbing and restates that its operational zones are lawfully governed and operate with the necessary ecological licenses.”
Yet, in the time following the agreement, the households say they have encountered life-threatening warnings, gunfire, burned homes, taken crops and ruined farmland.
According to the movement, the conflict now centres on property parcels that remain inhabited by agricultural workers associated with the local union. When it was facing loss of possession of the disputed property, the corporation donated 300 nearby hectares to the labor group – a contribution verified by the organization’s directors.
“We face significant harassment occurring in this area. Our tents have been set on fire, as well as our sugarcane fields.”
Over the past four years, six leaders of the movement have been placed under protective watch by Brazil’s protection programme for rights activists, journalists and environmentalists. The authorities has recommended that certain organizers relocate, but due to dedication to the cause and bond to their fought-for property, they have refused.
Due to the death threats he has obtained, a community pioneer says he has difficulty resting at night. “I feel genuinely fearful that an incident may occur to my family,” he says.
The organization states that eight households do not feel sufficiently secure to cultivate their plots, which remain inhabited by farmers allegedly associated with the corporation.
The company says that over the past 15 years, it has designated “more than 20,000 hectares to land redistribution programs, whether through court settlements, contributions to the federal land reform agency, gifts, or straight purchases, to settle persistent disputes in the territory.”
The firm also says “the creation of the settlements – from planning to subdivision and lot definition – was managed completely by the regional authorities, without interference from the company”, and “declines to discuss disputes among activist groups”.
One resident is among the two individuals who still reside in the old encampment. She says she has been harassed by weapon-carrying individuals who encircled her home and fired weapons nearby. Because there are no neighbors close, the woman – who resides by herself – thinks the gunfire were intended to threaten her out of reclaiming her assigned plot.
During August, the state of Bahia authorised the removal of labor group-associated agricultural workers who remain on Baixa Verde lots – but the decision has not been implemented.
Environmental Challenges and the ‘Emerald Wasteland’
In addition to protecting against threats and violence, transforming properties once used for eucalyptus monoculture into agricultural cultivation is now the main challenge for the settlement residents. Tree cultivation is controlled by large multinationals that, since the 1960s, have been transforming agricultural and woodland areas into single-crop farms, motivated by international market needs.
The country is the global leading grower of the tree species, a fast-growing, water-intensive plant, whose fiber is exported to make packaging materials and paper products. The majority of the nation’s tree fiber is shipped to European nations, where it is utilized for creating stationery items often promoted as a sustainable substitute to plastics – notwithstanding ecological harm resulting from single-crop farming.
In Bahia, the proliferation of these plantations has earned the local moniker “emerald wasteland”, due to the disappearance of native species and the severe shortage of resources and territory experienced by families living near eucalyptus plantations.
A settlement founder was raised in the area and remembers the river before the region was changed by single-crop tree farming. “We previously traversed it in a boat. It was full,” he says. “After the company arrived, it disappeared.” He attributes the water scarcity to the corporation’s appearance in 1991.
The corporation says it “implements a varied management approach, in which trees are grown in elevated regions, while lowlands, water sources and indigenous plants are protected. This system guarantees ground conservation, wildlife conservation and the maintenance of water resources.” The company also says it “performs ongoing observation of micro-basins in its area of operation” and “creates tree-planting and woodland renewal initiatives in areas near communities”.
Within the adjacent region of Minas Gerais, the eucalyptus region of Turmalina has seen its groundwater level drop by 4.5 metres over the past 45 years, per scientific studies at Minas Gerais Federal University.
Plant life in single-crop tree farms absorbs 26% of rainfall to restore groundwater levels – compared with a half of rainfall intake associated with indigenous woodland. Three-quarters of agricultural households surveyed in the state reported their crops being affected by the shortage.
The cultivation of eucalyptus also presents a heightened danger of wildfire. Farms are highly combustible that Chile ruled out eucalyptus as a viable climate solution after a series of large wildfires in its national farms.
Notwithstanding ecological dangers, eucalyptus plantations continue to play a significant role in the emissions trading system, with trees being sold as carbon credits to petroleum companies to counterbalance their pollution. Despite opposition from campaigners, in {
