Keywords

Introduction

The European Commission (EC) is committed to achieving climate neutrality through Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) strategies. However, the potential impacts on the Global South, particularly land ecosystems and local communities, are not well understood. CDR involves human-led initiatives to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, such as natural sinks and/or capturing CO2 during combustion. Conventional CDR strategies like reforestation, afforestation initiatives, and the use of novel methods, namely Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) facilities are often used to mitigate climate change.

BECCS is a technology that produces energy from biomass, captures the CO2 released during combustion, and then stores it underground. This process creates a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere making BECCS a promising tool for combating climate change (Butnar et al., 2020). According to the IPCC (2019), if the world continues in its current trend of intensive resource consumption, approximately 760 Mha of converted land, most likely located in the Global South, would be needed to compensate for high levels of remaining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In the Latin American and Caribbean regions, these dynamics worsen ecological and social inequalities, leading to conflicts stemming from resource extraction. Neo-colonialism, rooted in colonial times, refers to the disparities that persist in resource exploitation from Global South countries to power needs of colonial countries (Dorn, 2022; Nkrumah, 1965). Within postcolonial studies, energy transitions, and climate justice, green colonialism refers to the disparities that persist echoing historical colonial legacies within the context of resource exploitation.

Previous studies have addressed conflicts of energy transition agendas of the Global North to the Global South resources, such as renewables and hydrogen programmes, green extractivism, and subtler forms of carbon colonialism (Dorn, 2022; Zografos, 2022). This work proposes a mixed-methods approach to estimate the potential additional land required outside European boundaries, taking Brazil as a case, to meet the EU's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) goal and assess the environmental and social consequences beyond EU borders. It provides valuable insights for EU policymakers on the central differences in the meaning of energy justice and explores how philosophical notions of justice can help move away from unwanted green neo-colonialism agendas.

Science-Based Evidence Findings

We developed a mixed-method approach combining modelling-based and social science qualitative methodological principles. Figure 2.1 depicts the key steps employed in this study.

Fig. 2.1
figure 1

(Source Own elaboration)

Analytical framework of this study

Full size image

The study began with an analysis of EC Green Deal policies, focusing on reducing GHG emissions by 2050 and conventional and novel CDR strategies within the EU. The next step involved assessing the additional land area needed in Brazil to offset European GHG emissions, using principles of net primary production and carbon capture by Eucalyptus plantations associated with bioenergy with BECCS facilities. A baseline scenario of the GLOBIOM-Brazil model was used to estimate potential available lands in Brazil by 2050. Socio-environmental impacts were evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Finally, concrete policy recommendations were formulated based on the findings of the study.

Land Requirements in Brazil to Accomplish the EC’s NZE Goal

We explored two alternative pathways, distinguished by different levels of remaining emissions in the EU resulting from additional measures and the EU levels of net carbon sink removals from land-based CDR strategies from a/reforestation projects in the Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) sector and BECCS technologies. Projections suggest that even with additional measures implemented as part of the climate package (EEA, 2023), residual GHG emissions in the EU will still exist, reaching 2.48 and 1.74 GtCO2 yearly by 2030 and 2050, respectively. Conversely, the European Scientific Board on Climate Change (ESABCC, 2024) estimates a capacity of net sink of the EU’s LULUCF sector varying from -400 to -100MtCO2 and a removal potential of BECCS technologies within EU ranging between –336 and -70MtCO2 yearly by 2050.

To achieve climate neutrality by 2050, any remaining GHG within the EU that cannot be removed domestically will need to be offset elsewhere. This entails voluntary cooperation between the EU and third-party countries, as outlined in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015) and detailed in the Paris rulebook (UNFCCC, 2021).

If this extra land would be met in Brazil, we considered the implementation of large-scale short-rotation Eucalyptus plantations in a monoculture regime with a harvest cycle of 7 years, a density of 2222 tree.ha−1 and a carbon content of 186 tC.ha–1. Eucalyptus plantations are commonly used in afforestation projects due to their rapid growth rate, high biomass production, and efficient carbon sequestration capabilities, making them effective in offsetting CO2 emissions (Portugal-Pereira et al., 2023). Furthermore, we considered BECCS projected to be coupled into thermal power plants with a capture efficiency of 90% and a carbon penalty of 24%.

Overall, we estimate that Eucalyptus plantation would remove 68.2 tonnes of CO2 per hectare. If CDR strategies in the EU are speedily employed (low-risk case), the necessity for additional carbon dioxide removal beyond EU boundaries arises from 2031 after which it gradually increases, reaching, on yearly average for this period, 0.7 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2. This would result in a cumulative removal of 14.7 GtCO2 by 2050. In the case of slow deployment of CDR strategies within EU territory, the removal starts as soon as in 2025, steadily increasing at an average rate of 0.9 GtCO2 yearly for this period, with a cumulative removal of nearly 23.0 GtCO2 during this period (high-risk case).

Under a low-risk case, the EU's land sinks potential and rapid deployment of climate change mitigation strategies could result in no additional land requirements until 2031, but by 2050, it would require 100.3 million hectares of land, equivalent to 1.2 times the total projected croplands in Brazil by 2050 (Soterroni et al., 2023).

If the LULUCF sinks are limited and the EU's CDR strategy is more conservative (high-risk case), annual land needs start in 2025, with 1.1 million hectares accumulating to 152.5 million hectares by 2050, which is nearly 80% of the entire estimated pasturelands in Brazil by 2050 under a baseline scenario (Soterroni et al., 2023). The allocation of this area in Brazil would intensify the competition for land within the country, as the agricultural abandonment by 2050 would provide only 71.0 million hectares that could be used for the EU's CDR strategy, according to the GLOBIOM-Brazil baseline scenario. It would also demand the restoration of up to 81.0 million hectares of degraded pastures on top of Brazil's existing commitments of pasture recovery under the national agricultural plan (ABC + Plan) and the Paris Agreement. The geographical location of these areas is expected to be located in the mid-central region of Brazil and the Southeast region of the Atlantic Forest biome (Soterroni et al., 2018, 2023). This understanding of the projected land distribution is crucial for sustainable land-use planning and resource allocation.

Unintended Consequences: Environmental and Social Threats

The deployment of short-rotation Eucalyptus plantations in monoculture regimes poses significant threats to terrestrial ecosystem services, including food security, freshwater, soil resources, and air and water quality regulation. Factors such as land governance, management regimes, edaphoclimatic conditions, competing land demands, and deployment scale can influence these risks (Calvin et al., 2021; Humpenöder et al., 2014; Portugal‐Pereira et al., 2016) and may have unknown ecosystem consequences (DeFries et al., 2004). Such, rather local, aspects are to a lesser degree considered in models.

Intensive management of Eucalyptus forests promotes soil compaction, infertility, and erosion (Landis et al., 2018). Additionally, the efficacy of soil carbon capture (SOC) can be reversible if continuous management practices to enhance soil carbon are not rigorously upheld (Andren & Katterer, 2001). The cultivation of Eucalyptus plantations has the potential to displace food production, resulting in heightened food prices (Smith et al., 2019). Concerns also arise regarding the potential pressure on deforestation despite explicit prohibitions on direct illegal deforestation (Ferrante & Fearnside, 2020).

Large-scale biomass plantations also affect water resources, exacerbating water scarcity in regions already under pressure, particularly in irrigated systems (Heidari et al., 2021). This is particularly serious in the Northeast region of Brazil. Monoculture production also affects biodiversity, especially when natural landscapes are converted into monoculture plantations or peatlands are drained (IPBES, 2019).

Regarding social risks, indigenous and local communities are susceptible to negative impacts stemming from land-based CDR strategies centred on afforestation, particularly those characterised by large monocultures of non-native species. Previous experiences with afforestation programmes for the development and internationalisation of the pulp industry show there are direct and indirect negative consequences of such programmes for local communities. Direct impacts encompass potential land dispossession, shifts in customary livelihoods, modifications in soil composition with concomitant implications for food security, and health-related alterations arising from soil contamination. Moreover, direct detriments extend to water scarcity and the depletion of cultural sites. A remarkable example is the case of Aracruz, a former Norwegian–Brazilian cellulose company in the state of Espirito Santo (Kenfield, 2007).

Indirect deleterious consequences commonly manifest when afforestation initiatives are implemented in the proximate vicinities of indigenous land tenure. Illustratively, an ethnographic investigation conducted within the context of the Extractive Reserve (RESEX) Guai (Sapulcaia, Bahia State) reveals that local communities contiguous to Eucalyptus monocultures encountered water contamination with a consequent disruption in their traditional livelihood (in this case fishing). Another indirect negative consequence for local communities can be represented by the increase in land prices. Kröger (2012) reports an increase in land prices in areas designated for pulp projects, turning family farming economically unfeasible.

Considering these aforementioned socio-environmental consequences, integrated modelling exercises that estimate CDR strategies capacity in the Global South should consider socio-economic barriers and internalise social and environmental impacts into their least-cost optimised pathways. These could be implemented, for instance, by quantifying social and environmental externalities of large-scale conventional and novel CDR strategies that would add up the levelised abatement costs of CO2.

Conclusions and Recommendations

After conducting our analysis, we present five science-based policy recommendations aimed at mitigating potential unintended consequences in the Global South:

The EC is urged to implement stricter climate action measures to reduce emissions within its territory. This includes revising member states’ mitigation targets across key sectors like energy, transport, agriculture, and industry. These targets should be phased in over time, with yearly reviews based on technological advancements. The EU ETS, the existing carbon pricing mechanism, should be expanded with a carbon tax to incentivise emission reductions across sectors. This proposal is part of internal EU policy and regulations, involving both the Commission and Council.

The EC must champion nature-based solutions, such as regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, and restoration of ecosystems to increase land-carbon sequestration and conserve biodiversity and natural habits in the EU. This requires a reassessment of the LULUCF regulation, with stricter targets to enhance carbon sequestration in forests and other natural ecosystems. Financial incentives for landowners are crucial to ensure compliance with best practice guidelines. EC agencies, such as the European Environmental Agency (EEA), should collaborate with local authorities to provide effective land-carbon management practices while safeguarding local ecosystems and communities.

The European Council is urged to increase investments in R&D for novel CDR strategies and to facilitate technology transfer between the Global South and North regions. This entails revising the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) (EC, 2023) to incorporate a dedicated budget line for R&D on innovative CDR strategies, such as BECCS, and allocate funds for technology transfer to/from the Global South. Furthermore, the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation should facilitate a dedicated Horizon Europe programme to develop novel CDR strategies. This programme should involve collaboration between EU and Global South research centres to drive innovation and address societal challenges, e.g., impact on local societies.

The European Commission must promote responsible carbon offsetting by revisiting the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and establishing socio-environmental safeguards to mitigate and prevent negative impacts of BECCS projects on local ecosystems and communities in the Global South. Funding mechanisms within the EU ETS framework should be established for compensation schemes for local communities impacted by carbon offset projects.

The European Commission (EC) should leverage the existing framework provided by the EU Regulation on MVR of GHG emissions (EC, 2018) to encompass all sectors of the EU economy. This approach aims to enhance the accountability of carbon dioxide fluxes, ensuring both high credibility and the durability/permanence of removal efforts. This requires establishing rigorous standards for data collection, reporting methodologies, and independent audits. Key agencies to deliver these efforts include the EEA, which could offer technical expertise and support for the development and implementation of standardised methodologies; the Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG CLIMA), which could lead efforts to expand the scope of the MVR-GHG regulation and strengthen standards for data collection and reporting; and, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) that is well-positioned to develop scientifically robust methodologies.

This chapter explored a space for interdisciplinary knowledge exchange and co-creation, potentially leading to new research avenues and a more robust understanding of complex climate challenges between national models and local complexity. In opposition to a focus on overall techno-economic strategies (modelling, CDR methods, quantitative trade-offs), the SSH focused on local elements related to social impacts, species composition, and their connection with national policies. Although this created challenges related to scale, and methodologies, discussing these differences in focus and methods led to integrating local complexity into the national models, i.e., calibrating new variables into the model. As such, we managed to bridge a gap in climate change science, often addressed by social scientists.