Heavy fuel oil banned in the Arctic after years of struggle from NGOs
The tar-like fuel is particularly dangerous in remote polar regions, and on July 1st it was officially banned. But the Clean Arctic Alliance that fought for a ban for more than a decade took no time to celebrate, they told Polar Journal AG.
Heavy fuel oil is thick and pitch-black.
It contains compounds like aromatics, sulfur, and nitrogen which makes it particularly polluting when combusted and which would make a spill disastrous for the environment.
In the world’s polar regions, these risks are heightened. Here, the dark soot-like particles it emits lingers in the snow and ice, forming a dark layer on top that speeds up the already accelerating melting process. And should a spill happen here, distances are so vast that a clean-up operation could become impossible.
For this reason, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has banned the fuel-type starting July 1st. The ban comes after years of struggle from environmental organizations who have long recognized the danger it posed.
“Heavy fuel oil is the dirtiest of oils around today. It’s been banned in terrestrial uses for many years now,” Dr Sian Prior, Lead Advisor at the Clean Arctic Alliance told Polar Journal AG.
“In the Arctic, the particles it emits are even more damaging than elsewhere, and if it’s spilled, it’s virtually impossible to clean up,” she said.
Banned in Antarctica in 2011
The Clean Arctic Alliance consists of 23 not-for-profit organizations united to protect the Arctic environment. Members of the alliance include Greenpeace, the WWF, and a number of national and regional environmental organizations.
Together, they have fought for a ban of heavy fuel oil for a long time. Back in 2011 already, the use of it was banned in Antarctica, where risks are similar to the Arctic. Back then there were also calls to extend the ban to the Arctic but, as Dr Sian Prior recalls, it was considered to be premature at the time.
“We felt that was not true, and that the case had already been made back then,” she said.
The reason that the Arctic was not considered 13 years ago, she guessed, is that the types and amount of ships that sail in the Antarctic are vastly different from the Arctic.
Near Antarctica, the traffic is made up mostly of vessels used for military purposes, tourism, and research. In the Arctic, on the other hand, there is a lot more commercial shipping which includes cargo ships, tankers, and bulk carriers; ships that tend to use more polluting fuel-types and be more numerous.
This meant that a long fight waited ahead for proponents of a clean Arctic, and in 2016 the Clean Arctic Alliance was formed for exactly this purpose. Quickly, they managed to get a lot of the Arctic countries on board with introducing a ban on heavy fuel, even the USA under the Trump administration.
Only Denmark and Russia ‘sat on the fence’, according to Dr Sian Prior. Denmark was convinced when uncertainty of whether a ban would be under Greenlandic jurisdiction was resolved. Eventually Russia, too, was persuaded after some caveats were included in the agreement; caveats that allowed Arctic countries to issue waivers that would exempt certain ships from the ban.
Since then, all countries involved began implementing the ban into their national legislation, but Russia, eventually, even with the caveats they had added, ended up not following through on its commitment.
“It was very frustrating that having got the clause they wanted, Russia still hasn’t taken the legislation into their domestic laws,” Dr Sian Prior said.
Another caveat that was added was an exemption for ships with protected fuel tanks.
These ships were typically built more recently, so as Arctic fleets are renewed, more and more heavy fuel oil might start being used in the Arctic again. Ships with protected fuel tanks might be in less danger of causing spills, but their contribution to pollution and climate acceleration remains the same.
No champagne opened
In spite of Russia’s wavering, Dr Sian Prior expects the ban to have an immediate effect. Norway, who introduced the ban early, has already fined an Irish shipping company for using heavy fuel oil near Svalbard, so she expects that shipping companies will change course immediately.
She expects heavy fuel oil to be substituted mostly with diesel oil. This means an immediate reduction in black carbon emissions of around 50-80 percent from individual ships, according to Dr Sian Prior. Comparing that to the total number of ships sailing the Arctic, she expects a total reduction of black carbon emissions in the Arctic of around 45 percent.
A victory for the Clean Arctic Alliance and the environmental movement to be sure. Without them, according to Dr Sian Prior, the ban would not have come about, or at least not yet.
“When we launched the campaign back in 2016, it wasn’t even on the agenda of the International Maritime Organization. But because of our campaign we got it back onto the agenda and we got a group of countries to support it,” she said.
However, no champagne bottles were opened at the Clean Arctic Alliance when the ban came into effect on Monday, July 1st.
“It was a huge milestone to see the ban finally implemented. But we also had mixed feelings, because yes, we will start to see a reduction of heavy fuel oil used in the Arctic but we are still worried about the exemptions and possible waivers,” Dr Sian Prior said. “Now our job is to get as many ships as possible to move to cleaner fuels. There is still a lot of work for us to be done,” she said.
Ole Ellekrog, Polar Journal AG
More on the topic:
