UN Agency Accused Of Risking Arctic Pollution With ‘Greenwash’ Oil Ban

The embattled UN-affiliated agency responsible for global shipping (London-based International Maritime Organization) has been under attack from environmental NGOs who have accused it of greenwashing an oil ban in the Arctic.

The ‘ban’ on ships using heavy fuel oil was announced at the IMO’s Annual Environmental Meeting in November.

However, environmental groups have said this ban would only affect 25% of ships. 75% of ships travelling through the Arctic will still be powered using heavy fuel oil, one of the most toxic forms of fuels on the planet, and posing significant risks to the pristine Arctic environment.

Not only would the ban affect a small number of vessels, but it would only come into force nine years from now in 2029.

The Arctic is currently experiencing one of the warmest periods in its history, with exceptionally low levels of sea ice cover for this time of year.

Reduced sea ice cover allows more vessels to travel through the Arctic, reducing journey times from Asia to Europe by one third (35 days to 25 days) than going through the Suez Canal. By 2050, it may be possible for non-specialized ships to regularly transit over the North Pole, increasing risks to this region.

The use of heavy fuel oil is a double-death knell for Arctic communities, by both accelerating the impact of climate change and increasing the risk of a massive heavy fuel oil spill, as experienced by Mauritius in August.

The shortcut across the North Pole

Assistant Professor at the University of Hong Kong, Mia Bennett has looked at the impact of receding ice on future shipping routes.

Her assessments, posted on Cryopolitics, imply that by mid-century, vessels may be travelling directly over the North Pole, taking the passage she describes as the Transpolar Passage.

The risk of an Arctic oil spill

Arctic nations have been calling on tighter regulations for ships using the Northern passage to cut journey times.

The Arctic passages poses three particular risks for the three and a half week journey through the ice and freezing conditions:

• There are more hazards along the Arctic passage, with rapidly changing sea ice situations from icebergs and closing ice packs posing particular dangers. This is in addition to the higher risks of engine failure posed by the colder temperatures.
• Many vessels hulls are not fully designed to withstand the impact of closing ice sheets on a grounded vessel as was seen in Mauritius with the hull rupturing after 12 days stuck on the reef).
• An oil spill in the Arctic would be particularly toxic, as colder waters will keep the chemicals used for ship fuels (especially Heavy Fuel Oil or HFO) trapped for longer, and would have a devastating impact on the pristine wildlife and nature in that region for many years.

As was seen with the Mauritius oil spill, loopholes in shipping regulations means that many shipping companies can escape responsibility for cleaning up such oil spills by chartering vessels from riskier third parties, as Japanese operator MOL had done with the Wakashio.

The ‘Greenwash’ Arctic oil ban

A coalition of 21 leading environmental organizations, called the Clean Arctic Alliance, have slammed the decision by country delegates of the International Maritime Organization late last month.

The Clean Arctic Alliance have highlighted the inclusion of loopholes – in the form of exemptions and waivers – in the ban as ‘outrageous’ as they mean a ship Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) ban would not come into effect until mid-2029.

The coalition are calling for waivers to not be granted by Arctic coastal states and for the deadline beyond which exemptions would not apply to be brought forward.

Lead Advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, Dr Sian Prior said, “By taking the decision to storm ahead with the approval of this outrageous ban, the IMO and its member states must take collective responsibility for failing to put in place true protection of the Arctic, Indigenous communities and wildlife from the threat of heavy fuel oil. In its current form, the ban will achieve only a minimal reduction in Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) use and carriage by ships in the Arctic in mid-2024, when it comes into effect. It is now crucial that Arctic coastal states do not resort to issuing waivers to their flagged vessels”.

Heavy fuel oil is a dirty and polluting fossil fuel that powers shipping throughout the world’s oceans – accounting for 80% of marine fuel used worldwide. Around 80% of marine fuel currently carried in the Arctic is HFO, with over half by vessels flagged to non-Arctic states – countries that have little if any connection to the Arctic.

With most global shipping linked to six flags of convenience nations that have lower ship inspection standards, this poses particular risks for global shipping.

Three quarters of vessels will be unaffected by ban

According to recent analysis by the International Council on Clean Transportation, the regulation approved by the IMO will only reduce the use of HFO by 16% and the carriage of HFO as fuel by 30% when it takes effect in July 2024, and will allow 74% of Arctic shipping to continue with business as usual.

The analysis found that between July 2024 and July 2029, when the ban becomes fully effective, the amount of HFO used and carried in the Arctic is likely to increase as shipping in the Arctic increases, and as newer ships replace older vessels and are able to take advantage of the exemption or change flag and seek a waiver from the ban. 

Already banned in Antarctic waters, if HFO is spilled in cold polar waters, it breaks down slowly, proving almost impossible to clean up. A HFO spill would have long-term devastating effects on Arctic Indigenous communities, livelihoods and the marine ecosystems they depend upon.

HFO is also a greater source of harmful emissions of air pollutants, such as sulphur oxide, and particulate matter, including black carbon, than alternative fuels such as distillate fuel and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Wide variety of wildlife at risk

Verner Wilson III, Senior Oceans Campaigner at Friends of the Earth US, a Siberian Yup’ik Inuit from Alaska, is particularly concerned about the impact of a Heavy Fuel Oil spill on wildlife and indigenous communities’ subsistence ways of life.

“A HFO spill in our Arctic waters, where our people have survived and depended on for thousands of years, would devastate our subsistence way of life. The sensitive marine wildlife we depend on for food, such as seals, whales, walrus, fish and birds, would be devastated. We have a major concern that the use of waivers will create a risk of transboundary HFO pollution in the Bering Straits region where my family lives between Russia and Alaska USA.”

Ocean Conservancy’s Arctic Program manager, Sarah Bobbe is particularly concerned about how the weak regulations could lead to major devastation from a Heavy Fuel Oil spill.

“Instead of an effective and ambitious ban on use of heavy fuel oil in Arctic waters, the IMO has committed Arctic shipping to a course of action that may lead to a devastating spill of the world’s dirtiest fuels. The IMO’s lackluster decision is beyond belief considering it has already been ten years since the Arctic Council identified an oil spill as the biggest threat from ships, with heavy fuel oil by far the most detrimental, to Arctic waters.”

Countries may explore bans in national waters

Dr Sian Prior is now calling for Arctic nations like Norway to ban Heavy Fuel Oil from their waters.

Norway

“The Clean Arctic Alliance urges IMO Member States to seriously consider how the ban can be strengthened ahead of formal adoption next year, and for individual states to examine domestic options for providing the protection required for the Arctic from the risks of HFO use and carriage, such as Norway’s recent proposal to ban HFO from the waters around Svalbard.”

“It is important to recognize that issuing waivers to ships to exempt them from the requirements of the ban is not mandatory, the central Arctic coastal states have a choice. But if waivers are issued there should be full transparency and reporting,” said Danielle Fest Grabiel, Wildlife Team Lead, U.S. office of the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). “We urge the five central coastal Arctic states to choose not to issue waivers in order to ensure that the use and carriage of HFO in the Arctic ends by 2024.”

Iceland

Chair of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA), Árni Finnsson, has called for the Government of Iceland to also step up.

“The Government of Iceland should take note of the leadership demonstrated by Norway in its proposal to ban heavy fuel oil from the waters around Svalbard by putting forward a plan for similar protection in Iceland’s waters. Arctic nations are facing unprecedented changes in the marine environment. There is not much time to act and Iceland must forge ahead with a total ban on HFO within Icelandic waters, and along with other Nordic countries must take a strong stand within the IMO to speed up the adoption and entry into force of a ban on HFO in Arctic waters.” 

Higher port fees as a partial solution

Senior adviser at Green Transition Denmark, Kare Press-Kristensen, is calling for higher port fees.

Denmark

“Grøn Omstilling (Green Transition Denmark) recommends Denmark and Greenland to introduce high port fees for ships using HFO in Arctic waters, thereby motivating companies to use the less polluting distillate fuel, which will better protect the Arctic population and unique ecosystems against global warming, air pollution, and catastrophic oil spills.”

“This is yet another sad day for the Arctic”, said Sigurd Enge, Manager Shipping, Marine and Arctic Issues, of environmental organization, Bellona. “The Arctic environment is threatened from all sides, from climate change, toxic contamination, plastic pollution, oil exploration and other extractive industries.

What the Arctic needs now is better protection and bold politicians. There are no technological barriers, no shortage of alternatives to heavy fuel oil, and the shipping industry needs in any case must switch from fossil fuels to fulfill the IMO’s own Greenhouse gas – strategy and Arctic waters are the place to start. The Norwegian government’s proposal to ban HFO in waters around Svalbard proves that this is feasible. The coming decade is crucial to the future health of the arctic environment and the IMO’s decision today is just not acceptable.”

A move toward regional shipping regulations

The failure of the IMO to set strong international regulations to protect the environment is forcing many countries to explore regional solutions as an alternative to the ‘greenwashed oil ban.’

“The IMO’s decision to approve this weak HFO ban will force us to find other ways to protect the Arctic”, said Alexey Knizhnikov, Responsible Industry Programme Leader at WWF Russia.

Russia

“In Russia, this kind of action is needed even more than in other Arctic regions, due to the huge increase in shipping traffic expected to occur in upcoming decades, and this year’s massive oil spill on Taymyr has highlighted the cost to nature of using oil-based fuels in the Arctic. There is a little room for optimism – in October 2020, Russia’s new national Arctic strategy was adopted, which priorities the switch from oil based fuels to alternatives in the Russian Arctic”.

Under the new regulations, five central Arctic coastal States – Russia, Norway, Denmark (Greenland), Canada and the United States – will have the option of issuing waivers to their own flagged ships while they are operating in their own waters.

Canada

“All Arctic states need to eliminate the use of HFO by 2024 to ensure an HFO ban fulfils its original intent. The food security and livelihoods of local and Indigenous communities is dependent upon the success of this ban to protect them from pollution and spills. Any benefits of the IMO decision today will be cancelled out by projected increases in shipping, leaving Indigenous and local communities facing larger risks and impacts in the future,’ said Andrew Dumbrille, Senior Sustainable Shipping Specialist at WWF Canada.

“The Arctic Council should build on the example of Norway’s proposal for Svalbard, assert its Arctic stewardship role, and scale up the ambition of the IMO ban within the jurisdictions of Arctic countries, without waivers and exemptions. Such commitment should be reflected in the Ministerial Declaration concluding the Icelandic chairmanship in May 2021”, said Peter Winsor, director of WWF’s Arctic Programme.

IMO failing to control greenhouse gas emissions

The decision on Heavy Fuel Oils in the Arctic comes on the back of the IMO failing to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from shipping.

In a decision at the same Japan-chaired Environment Meeting in November, the IMO voted to approve regulations that would see emissions rise by almost 15% compared with the global need to reduce emissions by 40% to meet Paris Climate Agreement goals.

With the IMO and the shipping industry continuing to breach international scientific advice, there are question whether the organization is still fit for purpose.

With the United States being an Arctic nation and influential member of the IMO, it will be interesting to see what steps the new Biden Administration could call for to reign in global shipping.