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."


RINA employee on board vessel. RINA unveils Mermaid propulsion concept to navigate uncertain decarbonisation landscape  

Fuel-agnostic design claims savings of more than 1,000 tonnes per year in some applications.

Adinkerke and Aalter naming ceremony. Exmar names third and fourth dual-fuel ammonia-powered vessels  

Midsize gas carriers Adinkerke and Aalter named at formal ceremony.

Professor Lynn Loo, GCMD. GCMD outlines practical approach to quantity assurance in marine biofuel supply chains  

New report addresses verification of both total fuel volume and renewable content in biofuel transactions.

Steel-cutting ceremony of London Express class vessel. Hapag-Lloyd cuts steel for first vessel of new London Express class  

16,800-TEU LNG dual-fuel vessel is first of 12 newbuildings in the class.

Vessels at sea. DNV report warns regulatory uncertainty complicates fleet investment decisions  

CEO urges greater clarity to provide the confidence needed for long-term investment.

Blue Whale NxtGen Energy battery system. Corvus Energy launches LFP battery system developed with BYD Energy Storage  

Blue Whale NxtGen Power targets tugs, ferries and workboats with high power demand.

Welcome ceremony of Yampu vessel. World’s first battery-powered self-unloading bulk carrier enters service in Australia  

MV Yampu connects South Australia’s limestone trade with a battery-electric propulsion system.

Skipanes vessel. E-methanol-ready ro-ro vessel delivered to Smyril Line  

190-metre vessel is built for year-round North Atlantic operations and designed for future e-methanol conversion.

Belgium flag. Sunoil Biodiesel secures approval to supply biofuels in Belgium  

Dutch biofuel supplier expands its European footprint with Belgian market entry.

Tacoma Maersk naming ceremony. Maersk takes delivery of dual-fuel methanol-capable Tacoma Maersk in China  

9,000-TEU vessel is one of six mid-sized dual-fuel ships joining Maersk's fleet.