69 NGOs urge IMO to exclude biofuels from Global Fuel Standard

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) and its 176 member states have been urged by 69 conservation NGOs to oppose the promotion of biofuels in international shipping and commit to a future powered by ‘genuine’ clean energy.

The organizations stressed that biofuels cause ‘devastating’ impacts on climate, communities, forests, and other ecosystems and therefore cannot be part of the solution to the climate crisis.

GFC and Biofuelwatch are among the 69 organizations that have sent an open letter to the IMO Secretariat and copied to delegates ahead of its upcoming negotiations on a new low-carbon fuel standard, stating that the shipping industry’s biofuel plans threaten rainforests, communities, and the climate.

The letter also called out the Brazilian government, which will host the next United Nations Climate Conference (COP30) in Belém in November 2025, as one of the key IMO members pushing for the uptake of biofuels in shipping as part of plans to increase the global market for its expanding biofuel industry.

“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,” Almuth Ernsting of the NGO Biofuelwatch said.

“Communities in the Global South are already bearing the brunt of monoculture plantations—their expansion to feed further growth in biofuels would deepen the crisis.”

In July 2023, the IMO adopted the Revised Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Strategy committing to net-zero GHG emissions by around 2050. One of the key policies to achieve this target is the Global Fuel Standard (GFS), which aims to incentivize the use of clean energy on ships. The IMO promised to finalize the standard in April 2025 through a series of meetings to be held in London over the coming three months, beginning with a key discussion on February 17-21.

“Allowing the use of biofuels under the Global Fuel Standard would jeopardise the very goals the IMO seeks to achieve,” Oli Munnion, GFC’s Forests and Climate Change Campaign Coordinator, commented.

“The design of the Global Fuel Standard should be based on stringent life cycle assessment guidelines that exclude the use of biofuels while protecting the climate, the environment, and people’s livelihoods.”

Biofuelwatch, GFC and the other signatories to the letter called on the IMO to exclude biofuels from the GFS and prioritize ‘real’ solutions to climate change, including demand reduction, efficiency improvements, and adoption of advanced propulsion technologies such as wind-assisted technologies and electrification.

The letter also called on the IMO to implement stringent life cycle assessment guidelines that protect ecosystems and human livelihoods.

The shipping industry’s massive five-percent share of global oil production is now being eyed as a market for biofuels. However, replacing fossil fuels with biofuels could worsen climate and environmental damage rather than mitigate it. Environmental and social costs research consistently shows that biofuels’ life cycle emissions—including land-use change—often exceed those of fossil fuels. Biofuels derived from food and feed crops like soy and palm oil are linked to deforestation, land grabbing, food insecurity, and water pollution. Additionally, gender-based inequalities are exacerbated as women lose access to land and resources critical for their livelihoods and food security, according to the NGOs.

Brazil, the world’s second-largest biofuel producer behind the United States, has proposed biofuels as a long-term solution for shipping. Yet the country’s soy and palm oil production has already caused widespread ecological harm. By 2024, Brazil’s soybean cultivation occupied land equivalent to the size of Sweden, the organizations shared.

“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,” Souparna Lahiri, Senior Policy Advisor for Climate and Biodiversity at GFC, said.

“The biofuel industry’s greenwashing cannot hide the destruction it leaves in its wake. The IMO must not trade one environmental disaster for another.”

As per the NGOs, the impacts are not limited to Brazil. Countries across the Global South, from Colombia, Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina, to Indonesia, Malaysia, and Cameroon are facing rising deforestation rates as cropland expands to meet biofuel demand. This has devastating impacts on small farmers and indigenous communities, including effects on health due to the intense use of pesticides.

“The decisions made at the IMO’s MEPC 83 meeting in April will shape the future of international shipping,” the NGOs emphasized.

By excluding biofuels from the GFS, the IMO can align with its climate commitments and safeguard global ecosystems and communities, GFC and Biofuelwatch added, urging all IMO Member States to reject biofuels and commit to clean energy solutions that prioritize environmental sustainability and social justice.

“The shipping industry has an opportunity to lead with integrity,” Ernsting continued.

“Real solutions exist that protect people and the planet. The IMO must choose these over false promises,” she concluded.

• Hapag-Lloyd, NABU: No place for ‘unsustainable’ biofuels in shipping’s future fuel mix
• MEPC 81: Lion’s share of countries throw support behind global GHG price for shipping
• Shipping industry calls for global GHG fee in new proposal
• Long-term use of biofuels as marine fuel depends on affordable supply, DNV says
• LR: Widespread biofuel adoption in shipping hindered by feedstock availability and competition demand