Aperam BioEnergia’s green steel and carbon removal illusion
Joint report by Global Forest Coalition, Environmental Paper Network’s Biomass Action Network, Biofuelwatch, and the Hands Off Mother Earth (HOME) Alliance
Photo by Sergio Baffoni, Environmental Paper network
Click here to read the report
Executive Summary
This case study is an in-depth investigation into the impacts of Aperam BioEnergia Ltda., a leading producer of charcoal and biochar from industrial eucalyptus plantations in the Jequitinhonha Valley, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
One of the world’s largest charcoal producers and carbon removal credit companies: Aperam manages 150,000 hectares of land, with two-thirds covered by eucalyptus monocultures. It produces over 420,000 tonnes of charcoal annually for steel production, and has retired nearly 100,000 carbon credits based on biochar—which is produced in the same kilns through the same pyrolysis process.
Aperam’s operations are promoted as sustainable solutions: “Green steel” produced using “renewable charcoal” made from “sustainable forests”, and now “carbon removal” offsets sold to buyers in tech and finance, are key terms used by the company to pitch itself as part of the solution to the climate and biodiversity crises.
Key findings challenge the narrative of sustainability: Drawing on
extensive interviews with members of traditional communities and public
officials, the investigation examines the true impacts of Aperam’s
activities. It reveals an inherently unsustainable business model
responsible for widespread and systemic social and environmental
impacts on the region.
Industrial monoculture eucalyptus plantations are anything but
sustainable: The large-scale deforestation of the native Cerrado
biome, starting in the 1970s, has led to significant loss of biodiversity. 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.
Social and economic consequences for local communities are severe: The loss of communal lands and traditional livelihoods and growing water scarcity have forced many to leave their communities in search of work. Due to this and the limited options for income, the traditional and Quilombola communities face an uncertain future.
Communities fear the health impacts of agrochemicals and air pollution:
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.
Ongoing conflicts fuel community resistance: Disputes over land rights persist, with reports of surveillance and intimidation by company security and large-scale police operations. Despite this, communities are organising, seeking legal recognition and building agroecological and water management alternatives. Women are playing a pivotal role in community resilience, turning traditional crafts into new income sources and fostering solidarity.
Institutional backing has played a critical role in Aperam’s growth: A huge new financing package from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group is funding significant plantation expansion, whilst voluntary certification schemes such as recently renewed Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification and Puro.earth biochar certification ignore ongoing controversies and legitimise the company’s operations.
Carbon removal offsets are a lucrative but false climate solution: The carbon sequestration benefits of biochar are highly contested and
uncertain, and carbon credits generated by Aperam enable continued pollution elsewhere, rather than mitigating climate change at the source. On top of this, Aperam’s biochar production is inseparable from its charcoal and plantation operations, with the income from carbon credit sales benefiting the entire operation.
The investigation concludes that Aperam’s “green steel” and carbon
removal model is fundamentally unsustainable, externalising social
and ecological costs onto vulnerable communities. True sustainability
cannot be achieved through models that sacrifice local livelihoods, water
resources and ecological integrity for carbon credits or green labels. Justice for affected communities and the protection of the Cerrado’s unique biodiversity must be prioritised over corporate profits