Mon 16 Apr 2018 09:18

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: 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."

Chart showing percentage of off-spec and on-spec samples by fuel type, according to VPS. Is your vessel fully protected from the dangers of poor-quality fuel? | Steve Bee, VPS  

Commercial Director highlights issues linked to purchasing fuel and testing quality against old marine fuel standards.

Ships at the Tecon container terminal at the Port of Suape, Brazil. GDE Marine targets Suape LSMGO by year-end  

Expansion plan revealed following '100% incident-free' first month of VLSFO deliveries.

Hercules Tanker Management and Hyundai Mipo Dockyard sign bunker vessel agreement Peninsula CEO seals deal to build LNG bunker vessel  

Agreement signed through shipping company Hercules Tanker Management.

Illustration of Kotug tugboat and the logos of Auramarine and Sanmar Shipyards. Auramarine supply system chosen for landmark methanol-fuelled tugs  

Vessels to enter into service in mid-2025.

A Maersk vessel, pictured from above. Rise in bunker costs hurts Maersk profit  

Shipper blames reroutings via Cape of Good Hope and fuel price increase.

Claus Bulch Klausen, CEO of Dan-Bunkering. Dan-Bunkering posts profit rise in 2023-24  

EBT climbs to $46.8m, whilst revenue dips from previous year's all-time high.

Chart showing percentage of fuel samples by ISO 8217 version, according to VPS. ISO 8217:2024 'a major step forward' | Steve Bee, VPS  

Revision of international marine fuel standard has addressed a number of the requirements associated with newer fuels, says Group Commercial Director.

Carsten Ladekjær, CEO of Glander International Bunkering. EBT down 45.8% for Glander International Bunkering  

CFO lauds 'resilience' as firm highlights decarbonization achievements over past year.

Anders Grønborg, CEO of KPI OceanConnect. KPI OceanConnect posts 59% drop in pre-tax profit  

Diminished earnings and revenue as sales volume rises by 1m tonnes.

Verde Marine Homepage Delta Energy's ARA team shifts to newly launched Verde Marine  

Physical supplier offering delivery of marine gasoil in the ARA region.


↑  Back to Top