Environmental groups warn the International Maritime Organization against adopting biofuels for shipping, citing concerns over deforestation and food security. They urge the IMO to consider stricter sustainability criteria and alternative solutions to reduce environmental impacts and promote cleaner technologies. Campaigners emphasize that the decisions made by the IMO will significantly influence the global shipping sector’s climate strategy.
Environmental groups have called upon the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to reject biofuels as a low-carbon alternative for shipping. In an open letter addressed to the IMO, Biofuelwatch and the Global Forest Coalition (GFC), supported by 65 other organizations, warned that the adoption of biofuels could exacerbate issues such as deforestation, land grabbing, and climate change, particularly in the Global South, and called for stricter sustainability criteria.
A significant concern highlighted in the letter pertains to Brazil’s promotion of biofuels within the shipping sector. The Brazilian government, recognized as the world’s second-largest biofuel producer, is seeking to position itself as a leader in the biofuel market. As Brazil prepares to host the upcoming Conference of Parties (COP30), campaigners emphasize that increased demand for biofuels could lead to more widespread destruction of rainforests and vital agricultural land necessary for food production.
Almuth Ernsting, a representative from Biofuelwatch, stated, “If the IMO was to endorse biofuels as a ‘low-carbon fuel’, it would lead to more rainforest destruction and land-grabbing while in fact accelerating climate change.” Maria Emília Pacheco from the Brazilian NGO FASE expressed concerns that prioritizing biofuel production risks undermining food security, stating, “Increasing biofuel production to meet the demand generated by the IMO would end up removing land essential for food production.”
In 2023, the IMO committed to achieving Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions from shipping by approximately 2050. This initiative includes developing a Global Fuel Standard (GFS) intended to promote cleaner fuels. However, campaigners believe incorporating biofuels within this framework could contradict the IMO’s climate objectives, as Oli Munnion from GFC articulated, “Allowing the use of biofuels under the Global Fuel Standard would jeopardise the very goals the IMO seeks to achieve.”
The organizations advocate that the IMO should prioritize alternative solutions such as reducing the demand for shipping, enhancing energy efficiency, and investing in sustainable technologies like wind-assisted propulsion and electrification. The shipping industry’s current practices account for a notable percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions; hence, stakeholders are urging the IMO to take decisive action.
As the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 83) prepares for its April meeting, campaigners emphasize the urgency of excluding biofuels from the Global Fuel Standard. They underscore that this move would ensure alignment with the organization’s climate commitments and protect ecosystems and vulnerable communities. Souparna Lahiri, Senior Policy Advisor for Climate and Biodiversity at GFC, noted, “The IMO’s decisions over the coming months will determine whether shipping’s future fuels drive sustainable progress or exacerbate global environmental and social crises.”
In conclusion, environmental organizations are urging the IMO to reject the use of biofuels in shipping, citing serious environmental risks and potential harm to food security. They are calling for sustainable alternatives that align with the IMO’s climate commitments. With significant decisions pending, the future of shipping fuels will be pivotal in addressing global environmental challenges while safeguarding vulnerable communities.
Original Source: www.downtoearth.org.in
