This is a legacy page. Please click here to view the latest version.
Wed 19 Sep 2018, 09:37 GMT

NGOs hail Greenland HFO ban support


Clean Arctic Alliance applauds government's commitment to 'actively work for a ban'.


Vessel pictured off the coast of Greenland.
Image credit: Unsplash
NGO coalition Clean Arctic Alliance has hailed an announcement made by the government (Naalakkersuisut) of Greenland suporting a ban on the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil (HFO) by ships in the Arctic.

Commenting on the news, Kare Press-Kristensen, Senior Advisor to the Danish Ecological Council, a member of the Clean Arctic Alliance, remarked: "We applaud Greenland's government for speaking up for the much needed protection of the Arctic's nature and communities, by supporting the banning of the world's most polluting fuel - heavy fuel oil. After spending time measuring air pollution from cruise ships burning HFO in Greenland this summer, I'm very relieved that Greenlandic politicians support banning it."

In its statement, Greenland's government had said: "Naalakkersuisut has agreed to actively work for a ban on HFO in the Arctic, via the UN International Maritime Organization (IMO). The prohibition must cover both navigation and transport of HFO in the Arctic. Naalakkersuisut's position on the case has awaited an analysis of the socio-economic, environmental and climate consequences for Greenland of a possible ban on sailing on HFO in the Arctic.

"The Ministry of Nature and Environment states that the analysis is now available and, on this basis, Naalakkersuisut has decided to support a ban on sailing and transport of HFO in the Arctic. The analysis shows that a ban on sailing on HFO will be associated with a socioeconomic cost of approximately 8.1 million kroner [EUR 1.085 million/ $1.268 million] annually.

"A very important reason for avoiding HFO in Arctic waters is that marine casualties, which lead to waste of HFO in the marine environment, can have major environmental and economic consequences. HFO is very difficult and partly impossible to collect at low sea temperatures. Therefore, in case of major spill of HFO, there is a high risk that the oil will remain in the water for a long time or on the coasts that the oil may endanger."

In April 2018, the International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC72) agreed to move forward on developing of a Arctic ban on HFO - which is already banned in Antarctic waters.

MEPC72 directed one of its sub-committees (PPR6) - which will meet in early 2019 - to develop a ban on heavy fuel oil use and carriage for use by ships in the Arctic, "on the basis of an assessment of the impacts" and "on an appropriate timescale".

"Arctic summer sea ice is approximately half the extent it was in the 1970s and half the volume, while the region's strongest sea ice has broken up twice this year, for the first time on record. The use of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic not only increases the risk of devastating oil spills, but it also generates higher emissions of black carbon, which exacerbate the melting of both sea and glacier ice," Clean Arctic Alliance stressed.

Sian Prior, Clean Arctic Alliance Lead Advisor, added: "With MEPC73 coming up next month in London, Greenland's backing of a ban on the world's dirtiest shipping fuel in the Arctic is a timely encouragement for IMO member state governments to strengthen their commitment to quickly end the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil in Arctic waters. The best thing IMO member states can now do for their domestic shipping industries is to send a clear signal for investment in alternatives to HFO. We're also calling on shipping companies crossing the Arctic - such as Maersk and COSCO - to show industry leadership and move towards cleaner fuels, and to commit to decarbonised forms of propulsion in the future."


Oriental Aquamarine vessel. HMM deploys Korea's first MR tanker with wing sail technology  

Oriental Aquamarine equipped with wind-assisted propulsion system expected to cut fuel consumption by up to 20%.

BC Ferries vessel render. ABB to supply hybrid-electric propulsion for BC Ferries' four new vessels  

Technology will enable ferries to run on biofuel or renewable diesel with battery storage.

Alternative marine fuels port graphic. LNG-fuelled boxships sustain alternative fuel orderbook share despite market slowdown  

Alternative fuels maintained 38% of gross tonnage orders in 2025, driven by container segment.

Conceptual diagram of the MOL–ITOCHU strategic alliance. MOL and ITOCHU sign MoU for cross-industry environmental attribute certificate partnership  

Japanese shipping and trading firms to promote EACs for reducing Scope 3 emissions in transport.

CPN as China's No. 1 marine biofuel supplier in 2025 graphic. Chimbusco Pan Nation delivers 170,000 tonnes of marine biofuel in China in 2025  

Supplier says volumes quadrupled year on year, with a 6,300-tonne B24 operation completed during the period.

V.Group and Njord logo side by side. V.Group acquires Njord to expand decarbonisation services for shipowners  

Maritime services provider buys Maersk Tankers-founded green technology business to offer integrated fuel-efficiency solutions.

Container vessel manoeuvring in port. Has Zhoushan just become the world's third-largest bunker port?  

With 2025 sales of 8.03m tonnes for the Chinese port, Q4 data for Antwerp-Bruges will decide which location takes third place.

Monjasa Oil & Shipping Trainee (MOST) trainees. Monjasa opens applications for global trainee programme  

Marine fuel supplier seeks candidates for MOST scheme spanning offices from Singapore to New York.

Singapore's first fully electric harbour tug. Singapore's first fully electric tug completes commissioning ahead of April deployment  

PaxOcean and ABB’s 50-tonne bollard-pull vessel represents an early step in harbour craft electrification.

Fuel for thought: Hydrogen report cover. Lloyd's Register report examines hydrogen's potential and challenges for decarbonisation  

Classification society highlights fuel's promise alongside safety, infrastructure, and cost barriers limiting maritime adoption.


↑  Back to Top