Proposed International Maritime Organization restriction would certainly enable exceptions as well as waivers leading to 84% of Arctic delivery remaining to melt HFO in the Arctic, as well as allowing 70% of vessels to still bring HFO as gas.
Responding to the launch of a brand-new White Paper: The International Maritime Organization’s Proposed Arctic Heavy Fuel Oil Ban: Likely Impacts And Opportunities For Improvement by the International Council on Clean Transportation (iCCT), Clean Arctic Alliance Lead Advisor Dr Sian Prior claimed: “Now it’s clear the IMO’s proposed ban on HFO use in the Arctic is a ban in name only”.
“Not only is it outrageous that the proposed International Maritime Organization ban includes exemptions and waivers which, as this new report shows, would allow 84% of the HFO used by Arctic shipping to still be burned, and 70% of the current HFO fuel volume on board vessels in the Arctic to still be carried, but we are also concerned that the regulation could result in lower standards being applied to ships flying Arctic coastal State flags and greater risks in the vulnerable inshore waters that are most important for Indigenous communities.”
Representation Image– Credits: imo.org
The ICCT paper discovers that the preliminary application of a suggested International Maritime Organization restriction on hefty gas oil from Arctic delivery, in addition to recommended exceptions for ships with safeguarded gas storage tanks as well as waivers for Arctic seaside countries’ ships running in their very own waters, will certainly stop working to shield the Arctic by permitting “business as usual” for a lot of delivery drivers in the area, as well as might sustain a race in the direction of reduced security requirements,
“If an Arctic country can waive the ban for its own ships, but is required to enforce the ban for all ships flying other flags in their waters, an unlevel playing field will have been created. In addition, waiving the ban for its own ships could compromise an Arctic coastal country’s ability to ensure that activities under their control do not cause damage to the waters and environment of neighbouring countries, or that pollution does not spread to neighbouring countries.”
“In addition, since the exemptions apply to newer ships, the continued use and carriage of HFO in the Arctic is likely to increase after the ban takes effect, as older ships are removed from the fleet and newer ships with protected fuel tanks replace them. This is simply not good enough, it doesn’t provide the Arctic, its ecosystem, wildlife and communities with the protection it so desperately needs. The Clean Arctic Alliance is calling for the draft regulation to be strengthened and for exclusions and waivers to not be allowed.”
“We share the concerns of Arctic communities about the potential socioeconomic costs of banning the use and carriage of HFO in the Arctic, but believe that there are clear socio-economic benefits of eliminating HFO spills in the Arctic, so the Clean Arctic Alliance calls on national governments to support the transition from HFO to alternative fuels to mitigate any negative socio-economic impacts for northern communities.”
“The Climate Crisis is having a direct impact on the Arctic, and will have serious repercussions further south. With temperatures hitting 38 degrees Celcius north of the Arctic Circle in June, summer sea ice at its lowest extent ever through July and the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s Arctic coastline open in July for the first time ever, and scientists predicting summers with no sea ice by 2050, the Clean Arctic Alliance is calling on the International Maritime Organization to put in place an effective and credible ban on the use of carriage of heavy fuel oil from Arctic shipping”, claimed Prior.
Country Specific Findings
Russia
The ICCT Report exposes that Russian- flagged ships made use of 287 kt of HFO, standing for concerning two-thirds of HFO made use of in the Arctic in 2019. Based on 2019 information, just 7 kt of Russian- flagged ships’ HFO usage would certainly be prohibited if the HFO restriction guideline is taken on consisting of exceptions as well as waivers– greater than 97% of the present HFO usage by Russian- flagged ships would certainly still be allowed the Arctic.
Denmark
The ICCT Report exposes that Danish- flagged ships made use of 16 kt of HFO, standing for 4% of the overall HFO made use of in the Arctic in 2019. Based on 2019 information, just 1 kt of Danish- flagged ships’ HFO usage would certainly be prohibited if the HFO restriction guideline is taken on consisting of exceptions as well as waivers– 94% of the present HFO usage would certainly still be enabled.
Canada
The ICCT Report exposes that Canadian- flagged ships made use of 15 kt of HFO, standing for 3% of the overall HFO made use of in the Arctic in 2019. Based on 2019 information, just 1 kt of Canadian- flagged ships’ use HFO would certainly be prohibited if the HFO restriction guideline is taken on consisting of exceptions as well as waivers– 93% of present HFO usage would certainly still be enabled.
Norway
The ICCT Report exposes that Norwegian- flagged ships made use of 1.5 kt of HFO, standing for much less than 1% of the overall HFO made use of in the Arctic in 2019. Based on 2019 information, 0.6 kt of Norwegian- flagged ships’ HFO usage would certainly be prohibited if the HFO guideline is taken on consisting of exceptions as well as waivers– 60% of present HFO usage would certainly still be enabled.
United States
The ICCT Report exposes that United States- flagged ships made use of much less than 1 kt of HFO, standing for much less than 1% of the overall HFO made use of in the Arctic in 2019. Based on the 2019 information, 0.6 kt of U.S.-flagged ships’ HFO usage would certainly be prohibited if the HFO guideline is taken on consisting of exceptions as well as waivers– 30% of the present HFO usage would certainly still be enabled.
