The cross-boundary impact of EU’s carbon dioxide removal strategy in Brazil

In a recent publication, NbSI’s Aline Soterroni and collaborators took a a close look at the European Union’s (EU) Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) strategy and its implications beyond EU borders, particularly in Brazil. The study, published in a broader work on European climate policy, raises important questions about the environmental and social impacts of CDR measures like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and large-scale afforestation projects on the Global South.

Europe’s climate strategy—implications beyond its borders

The EU aims to reach climate neutrality by 2050, and CDR methods are a significant part of this plan. These include afforestation, reforestation, and the deployment of BECCS—technologies that convert biomass into energy while capturing and storing carbon emissions. However, with the land required to implement these strategies often being sourced in regions like Latin America, there is a growing concern about the potential for negative ecological and social impacts on these areas.

The study explores the requirements for Brazil to support EU carbon neutrality, which could involve vast areas of land—up to 152.5 million hectares by 2050. This requirement could exceed 80% of Brazil’s projected pasturelands, leading to intense competition for land between agriculture, forest restoration, and CDR projects. Such pressures threaten to undermine local food production and natural ecosystems, complicating Brazil’s own sustainability goals.

Environmental and social threats of carbon removal in Brazil

The study highlights significant risks linked to the deployment of short-rotation monoculture Eucalyptus plantations—a typical choice for BECCS. While fast-growing, these plantations can lead to severe soil degradation, including compaction and nutrient depletion, which could have long-term consequences for soil health and productivity. Additionally, large-scale monocultures affect biodiversity by replacing native habitats and could result in reduced resilience of the local ecosystems.

Water scarcity is another critical issue. Eucalyptus plantations are water-intensive, particularly in regions that are already water-stressed, such as northeastern Brazil. The study notes that monoculture afforestation could exacerbate water shortages, affecting both agricultural productivity and the availability of clean drinking water.

The social consequences are no less severe. The displacement of indigenous and local communities due to large-scale land-use change poses risks to traditional livelihoods and food security. Past experiences with similar afforestation initiatives in Brazil have shown negative effects, including forced displacement, land dispossession, and increased land prices that drive local farmers out of economically feasible farming.

Land tenure and climate justice

A significant part of the report’s findings relates to land tenure—a crucial issue for the Global South. Without secure land tenure, local and indigenous communities are more vulnerable to losing their land to large-scale CDR projects. The EU’s carbon strategies could inadvertently perpetuate neo-colonial practices, where the environmental costs of wealthy nations are outsourced to less affluent countries.

The study urges the EU to consider the ethical implications of relying on land-based CDR strategies outside its borders. It recommends enhancing collaboration with countries like Brazil, ensuring that land use changes for CDR do not compromise local communities’ rights or undermine sustainable land management practices. A rights-based approach to land tenure is suggested as essential to making such projects socially just and environmentally sustainable.

Key recommendations for EU climate policy

The researchers present several recommendations for ensuring that EU climate actions are environmentally and socially responsible:

1. Stricter emission reductions within the EU: The European Commission should focus more on internal emission reductions rather than relying heavily on land-based CDR outside the EU. Expanding the EU Emission Trading System (ETS) and imposing a carbon tax could incentivise emission reductions domestically.
2. Investing in regenerative land management: The study calls for increased funding for sustainable agricultural practices and the restoration of natural ecosystems to increase carbon sequestration within the EU, rather than placing this burden on third-party countries.
3. Supporting technological transfers and collaboration: To balance the burden, the EU should allocate funds to facilitate technology transfer and capacity building in the Global South, allowing for the shared development of CDR technologies.
   Responsible carbon offsetting: Revisiting the Renewable Energy Directive to include strict socio-environmental safeguards is necessary to prevent the negative impacts of BECCS and afforestation projects in Brazil and other countries.
4. Enhanced accountability and monitoring: The EU should improve its Monitoring, Verification, and Reporting (MVR) system to include all sectors of its economy, ensuring the transparency and credibility of carbon removal efforts.ConclusionThe study underscores the potential dangers of exporting the burden of carbon neutrality to the Global South. While technologies like BECCS and large-scale afforestation are promising tools for mitigating climate change, their deployment must be approached with caution, considering both environmental sustainability and social justice. By securing land tenure for local communities, ensuring equitable participation, and focusing more on reducing emissions within its own borders, the EU can lead a more ethical path to climate neutrality.

The path to carbon neutrality must not come at the cost of local communities and ecosystems. A just and sustainable transition is needed—one that respects the rights of those who may otherwise bear the unintended consequences of these ambitious climate strategies.