Small group of shippers, NGOs urges IMO to exclude marine biofuels made from soy, palm

Eight shipping companies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—including the German shipping giant Hapag-Lloyd and NGO Transport & Environment—have called on the International Maritime Organization to exclude what they are calling “unsustainable biofuels” from its list of green alternatives to traditional fossil fuels.

IMO has agreed on ambitious targets to get shipping to zero around 2050, however, it has yet to specify how.

National delegates are in London in mid-February to debate new regulatory measures for decarbonizing the shipping industry.

“Without key safeguards, the new measures could lead to palm and soy oil to skyrocket as they will become the cheapest fuel to comply with lower emission standards, while waste biofuels such as used cooking oil are limited in availability,” Transport & Environment, one of the letter’s signatories, stated.

“Once deforestation and land use are taken into account, palm and soy are two to three times worse for the climate than traditional shipping fuels,” T&E claimed.

“The use of palm oil biofuels doubled in the EU between 2010 and 2020, following the introduction of a law promoting biofuels in cars,” the NGO stated. “Using crop land for fuel also puts pressure on biodiversity and food supplies.”

Constance Dijkstra, the shipping manager at T&E, said, “As things stand, the IMO risks doing more harm than good. Palm and soy biofuels are devastating for the climate, and they take up vast amounts of land. Instead of creating new problems, the global shipping community must focus on green fuels made from hydrogen. Burning crops is never the answer.”

Proponents of soy-based biofuels argue that the theory of indirect land-use change (ILUC) espoused by opponents of crop-based biofuels is flawed, and that actual, scientific real-word data show the claims made about soy-based biofuels and deforestation are false.

ILUC theory from two decades ago did not take into account the productivity and efficiency improvements enabled by modern precision agriculture adopted by farmers over the past 20 years.

Last year, eight lifecycle-analysis scientists submitted an amicus brief for U.S. litigation regarding the Renewable Fuel Standard that indicated ILUC theory is not consistently supported by scientific evidence.

“Research based on misclassifications of land use and flawed assumptions and methodologies spurred skepticism about the environmental and GHG-emission reduction benefits of biofuels, but that research has since been disproven,” the brief stated.

Some countries in Europe—such as France, Norway and the Netherlands—have already restricted or stopped using palm and soy biofuels domestically, according to T&E, which added that the EU itself has excluded the use of so-called “food crops” from its FuelEU maritime regulation.

“But at the global level, no such restrictions are proposed,” T&E stated.

“The letter calls for the IMO to exclude crop-based biofuels from regulatory compliance and ensure that crop-based biofuels do not benefit from economic incentives directed towards promoting zero- and near-zero emission fuels,” the organization said.

To read the letter and view its signatories, click here.

In 2023, the IMO agreed to a new climate strategy that includes reaching net-zero greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions “by or around, i.e., close to, 2050.”

In the meantime, the IMO has set the target of cutting emissions by 20 percent to 30 percent by 2030 and 70 percent to 80 percent by 2040, against 2008 levels.

A key part of this is the Global Fuel Standard, which would force ships to reduce their GHG emissions by switching to cleaner, alternative fuels.