‘Green Desert’: How Farmers Are Winning a Battle with the Nation’s Pulp Production Titan
Geometrically precise rows of eucalyptus clones surround the Baixa Verde community in north-eastern Brazil. The identical trees present a sharp difference to the patches of wild Atlantic forest, among the planet’s richest biological habitats on Earth.
Surrounded by close to 247,000 acres of commercial eucalyptus groves, Baixa Verde exemplifies a uncommon local victory over a multinational in Brazil. The rural settlement owes its existence due to nearly two decades of legal battles over property claims – yet the conflict continues.
Following struggles to retain their land, the families now face an unparalleled safety emergency characterized by armed clashes, arson and death threats, part of a wave of violence driven by a territorial conflict that has escalated since 2024.
Conflicts over land rights have historically been an problem in the area. Securing land deeds is often considered to validate illegal land seizures from traditional communities, and residents had believed that a pulp-production company was planting eucalyptus trees on public land.
In 2008, one of the founders of the Baixa Verde settlement and a local activist visited government archives to inspect official papers. They found the page that proved the 3,200 acres in dispute were owned by the government. “We were certain that it was public land,” says the founder.
With the document in hand, they organized 91 local families and aligned with the Landless Workers Movement, a political and social organisation fighting for land redistribution. Their initial step was to occupy an area of a tree farm used by the company, accusing the company of using public land.
Two years after the initial takeover, the movement secured official acknowledgment that the company did not legally own the property section planted by the company. “This ruling was a triumph not just for the community property campaign but for all the civil society groups of Brazil,” says a community member who grew up in the encampment and is now one of the leaders of the movement.
After years of roadblocks and legal battles, the state of Bahia reached a settlement with the corporation and the organization in 2016, returning 3,200 acres of corporate property to the public domain 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 land means that we now have a space to care for our children,” says the settlement representative.
Although forfeiting the property, a corporate spokesperson maintains that the firm has always operated with “transparency, social and environmental responsibility” and consideration for the area residents. “The company has never been convicted of land grabbing and restates that its production areas are legally regulated and function with the required environmental permits.”
Yet, in the time following the settlement, the families say they have experienced death threats, shooting incidents, destroyed residences, taken crops and ruined farmland.
Per information from the organization, the dispute now centres on plots of land that remain occupied by farmers associated with the regional labor organization. When it was facing loss of possession of the contested land, the company donated 740 adjacent acres to the union – a donation verified by the union’s leadership.
“We face significant harassment happening around here. Our shelters have been burned down, as well as our cane plantations.”
Over the past four years, six organizers of the movement have been assigned protective monitoring by the national defense system for human rights defenders, journalists and ecology advocates. The authorities has suggested that some of these leaders move away, but due to dedication to the cause and connection with their hard-won land, they have refused.
Because of the life-threatening messages he has received, a community pioneer says he has trouble sleeping at night. “I am really scared that an incident may occur to my family,” he says.
The movement claims that eight families do not feel safe enough to cultivate their plots, which remain occupied by farmers reportedly connected to the company.
The corporation says that over the past 15 years, it has designated “more than 20,000 hectares to agrarian reform initiatives, whether through judicial agreements, donations to the federal land reform agency, donations, or straight purchases, to resolve ongoing conflicts in the territory.”
The company also says “the establishment of the communities – from design to subdivision and plot allocation – was managed completely by the regional authorities, without involvement from the company”, and “declines to discuss disputes among activist groups”.
One resident is among the two individuals who still live in the original settlement. She says she has been intimidated by armed men who encircled her home and fired weapons nearby. Since there are no neighbors close, the woman – who lives alone – thinks the gunshots were meant to intimidate her out of reclaiming her assigned plot.
During August, the Bahia state government authorised the removal of labor group-associated agricultural workers who remain on Baixa Verde lots – but the ruling has not been implemented.
Environmental Challenges and the ‘Emerald Wasteland’
In addition to protecting against threats and violence, transforming properties previously utilized for eucalyptus monoculture into agricultural cultivation is now the primary difficulty for the Baixa Verde communities. Eucalyptus production is dominated by large multinationals that, since the 1960s, have been transforming agricultural and woodland areas into monoculture plantations, motivated by international market needs.
Brazil is the global leading grower of the tree species, a rapidly developing, water-intensive plant, whose fiber is exported to make cardboard and paper products. The majority of the nation’s tree fiber is exported to Europe, where it is utilized for creating stationery items often marketed as a sustainable substitute to synthetic materials – despite the environmental damage resulting from single-crop farming.
In Bahia, the proliferation of these farms has received the regional nickname “green desert”, due to the loss of wildlife and the severe shortage of water and land faced by families living near eucalyptus plantations.
A settlement founder was raised in the area and recalls the waterway before the region was changed by single-crop tree farming. “We previously traversed it in a canoe. It was abundant,” he says. “Following corporate establishment, 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 eucalyptus is cultivated in elevated regions, while lowlands, water sources and indigenous plants are protected. This model guarantees ground conservation, animal habitat preservation and the maintenance of water resources.” The company also says it “conducts continuous monitoring of micro-basins in its operational zone” and “creates tree-planting and woodland renewal initiatives in areas near communities”.
Within the adjacent region of Minas Gerais, the eucalyptus region of Turmalina municipality has seen its groundwater level drop by 4.5 metres over the past 45 years, per scientific studies at Minas Gerais Federal University.
Vegetation under eucalyptus monoculture takes in just over a quarter of precipitation to restore groundwater levels – versus a 50% level of absorption associated with native forest. Seventy-five percent of farming families interviewed in the state reported their harvests suffering by the shortage.
The growing of the tree species also poses an increased risk of forest fire. Farms are highly combustible that Chile rejected the species as a practical environmental answer after a succession of major blazes in its domestic plantations.
Despite the environmental risks, commercial tree farms continue to have an important function in the carbon market, with trees being sold as emission offsets to fossil fuel polluters to offset their emissions. Although facing resistance from activists, in {
