Mon 16 Apr 2018, 09:18 GMT

PPR6 to develop Arctic HFO ban as nations urge 2021 implementation


MEPC directs 2019 sub-committee to draw up plan following strongly worded proposal to apply ban 'no later than the end of 2021'.


US Coast Guard vessels pictured in icy waters.
Image credit: Flickr
Plans to develop a ban on heavy fuel oil (HFO) from Arctic shipping, along with an assessment of the impact of such a ban, were agreed during the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 72), which closed on Friday in London.

The meeting directed the Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) to develop a ban on heavy fuel oil use and carriage for use by ships in the Arctic at its next session, in February 2019 (PPR6), "on the basis of an assessment of the impacts" and "on an appropriate timescale".

In addition to assessing the impact of a ban on communities and developing a ban on HFO use and carriage as fuel in the Arctic, PPR 6 will develop a definition of HFO taking into account regulation 43 of MARPOL Annex I (the Antarctic HFO ban) and prepare a set of guidelines on mitigation measures to reduce risks of use and carriage of HFO as fuel by ships in Arctic waters.

The latest development follows the agreement made in July 2017 for MEPC to consider the "development of measures to reduce risks of use and carriage of heavy fuel oil as fuel by ships in Arctic waters".

A strongly worded proposal to ban HFO as shipping fuel from Arctic waters was co-sponsored by Finland, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the US.

The proposal for a ban, along with a proposal to assess the impact of such a ban on Arctic communities from Canada, was supported by Australia, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Ireland, Japan, the League of Arab States, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK.

The proposal text states: "A single HFO spill could have devastating and lasting effects on fragile Arctic marine and coastal environments. In addition, Arctic shipping is projected to continue to rise, thus increasing the risk of a spill. For these reasons, the ban on HFO should be implemented as soon as possible, and any delay in implementation of the HFO ban by eligible ships should be short-lived... The co-sponsors propose that the implementation date of the ban be set for no later than the end of 2021."

Dr Sian Prior, lead advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of 18 non-governmental organisations working to end HFO use as marine fuel in Arctic waters, commented: "Thanks to inspired and motivated action taken by a number of IMO member states to move towards a ban on heavy fuel oil, Arctic communities and ecosystems will be protected from the threat of oil spills, and the impact of black carbon emissions.

"A ban is the simplest and most effective way to mitigate the risks of HFO - and now we're calling on the IMO to ensure that this ban will be in place by 2021. Any impact assessment must inform, but not delay progression towards an Arctic HFO ban, and member states must ensure that Arctic communities are not burdened with any costs associated with such a ban," she continued.

"With Denmark the sixth Arctic nation to back a ban on HFO from Arctic Shipping, the green alliance of Arctic nations have sent a clear message to the IMO," said Kare Press-Kristensen, senior advisor in the Danish Ecological Council. "With both the Danish government and the Danish shipping industry united to ban HFO, we hope to gain further international support for the ban from more nations and progressive parts of the shipping industry. Next step will be to engage Greenland further in planning and preparing for the ban."

Tor Christian Sletner, head of environment, research and innovation at the Norwegian Shipowners' Association, was cited as saying: "We know heavy fuel oil is very hard to pick up, we know that in this environment, with ice-infested waters, with darkness, with heavy cold, with long distances, accidents with a ship spilling heavy fuel oil in the water is very serious."


Dubai skyline. Oilmar seeks senior bunker trader for Dubai office  

Experienced trader with proven P&L responsibility sought by UAE-headquartered firm.

CFD simulation of vessel with three eSAILs. ABS reviews bound4blue’s Pwind calculation methodology for eSAIL wind propulsion systems  

Independent review aims to ease regulatory compliance and accelerate adoption of suction sail technology.

Port of Rotterdam aerial view. Port of Rotterdam appoints new programme manager for bunkering  

Astrid Sonnevelt has a background in renewable products, business development and emissions reduction.

Merlion statue in Singapore. Oilmar seeks bunker trader for Singapore office  

Marine fuels trading role open to mid-level and senior-level candidates.

Floating hydrogen terminal render. Höegh Evi and Nord Gas Solutions complete ammonia-to-hydrogen cracking tests in Norway  

Pilot cracker achieves 99.5% hydrogen purity, supporting floating terminal deployment plans across Europe.

Lucia Cosulich vessel. Fratelli Cosulich Marine Energy takes delivery of second methanol-ready bunker tanker  

Lucia Cosulich is second of four sister vessels in the group’s fleet expansion programme.

Grimaldi ro-ro passenger vessel render. AYK Energy secures nine-vessel battery deal with Grimaldi Group  

New ro-pax vessels will feature multi-fuel engines capable of running on methanol.

World Fuel logo. World Fuel hiring Korean-speaking bunker trader for Singapore hub  

Bunker trader sought to cover Korea and the wider region.

Aerial view of a container vessel. EU ETS 2026 review raises cost predictability concerns for European shippers  

European Shippers' Council warns that carbon market reforms could affect logistics planning and competitiveness.

Grande Oriente vessel. Grimaldi takes delivery of 12th ammonia-ready car carrier Grande Oriente  

Naples-based firm says its latest PCTC halves fuel consumption compared with earlier-generation vessels.