Potential Impacts of the EU’s carbon dioxide removal strategy for Brazil’s land ecosystems and local communities
Land-based carbon dioxide removal options like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) have strong emphasis in the EU’s roadmap to net zero, but at what cost? Taking Brazil as a case study, a new paper explores the potential environmental and social consequences of the EU’s CDR strategy beyond its boundaries. August 27, 2025
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies will be necessary to achieve net zero emissions and limit global warming to below 2°C, alongside deep emissions reductions. Different CDR methods and implementation options exist, and depending on the scale and deployment, they could have co-benefits or negative side effects.
Land-based CDR options like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) have strong emphasis in the EU’s roadmap to net zero, but at what cost?
Under the European Green Deal, the European Commission aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 and by 90% by 2040. However, current policy trajectories suggest the EU’s land requirements for land-based CDR will surpass its domestic capacity, bringing potential transboundary impacts.
This study, led by Dr Joana Portugal Pereira and co-authored by Dr Aline Soterroni, explores the potential environmental and social consequences of the EU’s CDR strategy beyond its boundaries. Taking Brazil as a case study, the authors estimate that the land demand for BECCS would require 10.2 million hectares by 2030 and between 100.3 – 152.5 by 2050.
Such large-scale deployment of BECCS, without robust procedural safeguards would pose serious negative biodiversity impacts and replicate historical patterns of ecological harm and social exclusion.
“Deforestation, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and the displacement of Indigenous and local communities are not acceptable trade-offs for climate neutrality”, says Aline.
These risks mirror the dynamics of ‘green neo-colonialism’ (the practice of appropriating land and resources under the guise of environmental purposes), and should be understood more precisely as risk trajectories that emerge when mitigation burdens are externalised without reciprocal governance arrangements.
As shown in a previous study led by Aline, if Brazil were to accommodate such land demand, it could also jeopardise the country’s own capacity to achieve a net-zero greenhouse gas pathway rooted in nature-based solutions (Soterroni et al., 2023).
To prevent climate mitigation strategies driving forms of green neo-colonialism, the authors recommend policies which prioritise bottom-up participatory methods, rooted in procedural justice, with the goal of restoring land to the dispossessed.
The paper advances conceptual understanding of potential tensions between Global North climate mitigation priorities and their impacts on Global South nations.
It serves as a potent reminder of the need for more equitable climate action that safeguards the rights and livelihoods of communities in the Global South, and as a guide for what that might look like.