Environmental groups have urged the IMO to reject biofuels for shipping, warning of increased deforestation, food security threats, and climate harm. Key figures from organizations like Biofuelwatch and the Global Forest Coalition stress the need for stringent sustainability standards and the prioritization of alternative solutions for a truly sustainable shipping future.
Environmental organizations have called upon the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to reject biofuels as a viable low-carbon option for shipping. They argue that doing so would exacerbate deforestation, land grabbing, and contribute to climate change. An open letter, signed by Biofuelwatch, the Global Forest Coalition, and 65 other organizations, emphasizes the environmental and social risks associated with biofuel expansion, particularly impacting the Global South, and demands stricter sustainability standards.
Among the main concerns is the Brazilian government’s promotion of biofuels in the shipping industry. As the second-largest biofuel producer globally, Brazil presents itself as a market leader while simultaneously preparing to host COP30 of the UN Climate Change Conference in November. Activists warn that an upsurge in biofuel demand may result in further destruction of essential rainforests and agricultural land vital for food security.
Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch expressed that endorsing biofuels as a ‘low-carbon fuel’ could lead to significant rainforest destruction and climate change acceleration. Similarly, Maria Emília Pacheco from Brazilian NGO FASE cautioned that reallocating land for biofuels directly threatens food security, particularly in Brazil and other Global South nations afflicted by hunger. She remarked that such practices would strip land needed for food production.
The IMO has set a commitment for Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions from shipping by approximately 2050. Integral to this initiative is the development of a Global Fuel Standard (GFS), meant to encourage cleaner fuel solutions. Nonetheless, advocates argue that incorporating biofuels into this initiative would counteract the IMO’s climate objectives.
Oli Munnion, Forests and Climate Change Campaign Coordinator at GFC, stated the inclusion of biofuels in the Global Fuel Standard would endanger those very goals the IMO aims to accomplish. The organizations request the IMO to prioritize alternative solutions, such as reducing shipping demand, enhancing energy efficiency, and investing in advanced propulsion technologies like wind-assisted propulsion and electrification.
Biofuels generated from crops like soy and palm oil have already significantly impacted Brazil’s environment. As the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 83) of the IMO convenes in April, campaigners highlight the pressing need to exclude biofuels from the Global Fuel Standard—this step would ensure alignment with climate commitments while safeguarding ecosystems and vulnerable communities.
Souparna Lahiri, Senior Policy Advisor for Climate and Biodiversity at GFC, indicated that the upcoming decisions by the IMO will dictate whether future shipping fuels ensure sustainable progress or contribute to global environmental and social crises. Furthermore, Ernsting reiterated that genuine solutions exist which can benefit both people and the planet, compelling the IMO to prioritize these alternatives over misleading green promises.
The call for the IMO to exclude biofuels from its Global Fuel Standard underscores the potential environmental harm associated with their use. Advocacy from groups like Biofuelwatch and the Global Forest Coalition highlights the risks of deforestation and food insecurity linked to increased biofuel production. As the IMO aims for Net Zero emissions in shipping, focusing on sustainable solutions must be a priority to truly protect ecosystems and communities.
Original Source: www.downtoearth.org.in
