A new report has raised concerns over a Brazilian biochar project and the eucalyptus plantations underpinning its carbon removal (CDR) activities.

The Global Forest Coalition (GFC), with support from partner groups, assessed operations in Minas Gerais of the bioenergy division of a Brazil-based steelmaker, Aperam BioEnergia.

“Drawing on extensive interviews with members of traditional communities and public officials, the investigation examines the true impacts of Aperam’s activities,” the report said.

“It reveals an inherently unsustainable business model responsible for widespread and systemic social and environmental impacts on the region.”

Aperam manages 150,000 hectares of land, produces over 420,000 tonnes of charcoal for steel production annually, and has retired almost 100,000 carbon credits based on biochar, according to the report.

It argued that Aperam’s biochar credits have uncertain sequestration benefits, enable continued pollution elsewhere, and generate income that benefits the company’s wider charcoal and plantation operations.

The company, however, disputed many of the report’s allegations.

Read more: INTERVIEW: Puro endorsed by buyers’ club, sees growth potential in Americas

PLANTATION ALLEGATIONS

The report stated eucalyptus plantations cover roughly two-thirds of the area managed by Aperam in the Jequitinhonha Valley.

The GFC wrote that most of these plantations were established decades ago by Aperam’s predecessor, Acesita, on land traditionally used by local communities, through a process it claimed involved clearing large areas of native vegetation.

It said that “the large-scale deforestation of the native Cerrado biome, starting in the 1970s, has led to significant loss of biodiversity”, while noting Aperam’s statements that it preserves more than a third of its land and monitors wildlife across its operations.

“The conversion of plateaus to eucalyptus monocultures has lowered the water table by an estimated 4.5 metres, which has dried up local springs and streams and undermined traditional agriculture and local food security,” the assessment added.

The 4.5-m estimate was calculated in a separate 2022 report based on earlier research that found an average annual 10-cm decline in the water table in eucalyptus-dominated areas, while the GFC noted that Aperam disputes findings linking eucalyptus plantations to water depletion.

Loss of communal lands and traditional livelihoods, combined with growing water scarcity, has forced many people to leave their communities in search of work, while limited income options have left traditional and Quilombola communities facing an uncertain future, the GFC paper claimed.

The GFC also said land-rights disputes persisted, and cited community allegations of surveillance and intimidation involving company security.

Aperam operates six charcoal-production facilities across its plantations, which it terms “renewable energy production units”.

Wood from the eucalyptus plantations is converted into charcoal in kilns, with the biochar historically consisting of charcoal fines separated from the coarse charcoal, according to the report.

The GFC further alleged that “pesticide use and pollution from charcoal kilns are seen locally as likely contributions to increasing incidences of health problems such as cancer, for which local municipalities bear the costs”, though it acknowledged that no studies have been conducted to substantiate that suspected link.

It argued that Aperam’s biochar production cannot be separated from its charcoal production and eucalyptus plantations, with audit reports showing that, up to Dec. 2023, its biochar and charcoal were produced through the same pyrolysis process in the same kilns.

Forestry residues, including branches and roots, have also been used for biochar production since then, although the report said it was unclear whether these were burned separately or alongside tree trunks, or what proportion of the biochar came from them.

The GFC also struck a tone against biochar more generally, stating that “the carbon sequestration benefits of biochar are highly contested and uncertain,” and characterising the removal pathway as a “false climate solution”.

The organisation furthermore noted Aperam’s position that its plantations were established on infertile land without deforestation and that eucalyptus consumes similar amounts of water to native species, but disputed both points.

Read more: Additionality remains hard to quantify for ARR projects -webinar

DEMANDS

The report called on Aperam to immediately halt the expansion of eucalyptus plantations and cease further acquisition of land that has historically belonged to traditional and Quilombola communities.

The GFC said the company should return land to communities, end the use of agrochemicals such as glyphosate and sulfluramid, compensate affected communities for alleged environmental, social, and health damages, and guarantee their free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for future projects.

For Puro.earth, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and other voluntary certification schemes, it demanded the suspension of Aperam’s certifications pending an investigation, as well as measures to “prohibit the certification of large-scale monoculture plantations, and the carbon removal processes dependent on them, many of which have been established through land-grabbing and without FPIC.”

The report also called on international financiers to suspend support for Aperam, relevant authorities to launch an investigation, and buyers to halt sourcing and investment relationships with the company until it meets the aforementioned demands.

Read more: Asset manager partners with FSC to measure biodiversity impacts across European forests

DISPUTED FINDINGS

In response to questions from Carbon Pulse, Aperam said that “it is important to distinguish between accounts, perceptions and hypotheses on the one hand, and technically demonstrated cause-and-effect relationships on the other”.

Attributing the lowering of the water table and disappearance of springs and streams to forestry activities would require a technical assessment accounting for a host of other factors, a company spokesperson added.

“Water abstraction for the company’s operations takes place exclusively via authorised facilities, supported by the relevant valid legal permits, and within the limits and conditions established by the competent authorities.”

Aperam further highlighted environmental initiatives including its Circular Water Project, and said carbon incorporated into soils through its biochar process has an estimated average residence time of 5,000 years.

It said gas-burner systems designed to reduce emissions from its charcoal kilns have been installed and are operating at all six production units, while acknowledging that the equipment does not yet operate 100% of the time and saying it has an action plan to increase its operational availability.

The company added that it operates in compliance with applicable legislation and adheres to relevant certifications and standards, while its operations and expansion processes are subject to environmental assessments, licensing, monitoring, and audits.

Aperam also highlighted what it described as its ongoing dialogue with local communities, saying it recognised the importance of socio-economic development in the Jequitinhonha Valley.

It rejected allegations over land expropriation, saying the land in question was acquired by its predecessor Acesita through a lawful, compensated transaction, and emphasising that “there are no widespread allegations of expropriation, but rather isolated disputes that are addressed individually and within the applicable legal framework”.

“The company further notes that preventing the unauthorised removal of timber or other assets located on Aperam properties does not constitute an abusive or unlawful practice, but rather the legitimate protection of its property.”

Aperam said it was unaware of scientific evidence demonstrating a causal link between its activities and increased cancer incidence, while its certification standards prohibit substances deemed highly hazardous and strictly monitor any use that may be exceptionally permitted.

It added that the products it uses are authorised for forestry applications and applied under controlled conditions, and that it is working to reduce their use and pursue alternatives.

Furthermore, the company stated it does not maintain an armed in-house or outsourced security force, and denied engaging in intimidation, coercion, or restrictions against local communities.

CERTIFIERS WEIGH IN

Puro.earth said it took concerns about projects’ impacts seriously, and that certified projects must meet environmental and social sustainability criteria, and undergo independent third-party audits.

Aperam’s most recent third-party audit found no material non-conformities against the Puro Standard’s criteria or biochar methodology as assessed at that time, it said.

The registry added that “our most recent consultation on biochar received over 500 comments, and we always welcome input from any stakeholder wishing to contribute to methodology development.”

FSC told Carbon Pulse it would review the information and concerns raised in the report to determine whether further steps were warranted within its system.

It said decisions to grant, suspend, or terminate certification are made by accredited certification bodies, adding that FSC could take system-level measures, including further investigation or blocking an organisation from its system, if applicable requirements were found not to have been met.

By Stewart Mior – [email protected]