As Arctic heavy fuel oil ban comes into force, critics want more

A long-awaited ban on heavy fuel oil in the Arctic is now in force, but not without criticism from some environmental and Indigenous groups.

The United Nations International Maritime Organization, or IMO, adopted the ban in 2021, prohibiting the use or carriage of heavy fuel oil in Arctic waters with the aim of reducing the risk of dangerous spills.

The ban came into effect on July 1 this year.

Canada announced it would be implementing a domestic ban through an interim order on July 1, until it amends relevant regulations under the Canada Shipping Act.

“Banning heavy fuel oils will protect the Arctic environment and northern communities from the disastrous effects of heavy fuel oil spills,” Pablo Rodriguez, Canada’s transport minister, said in a statement. “Canada will always work with other countries, northern residents and marine stakeholders to keep our environment protected for future generations.”

Heavy fuel oil, or HFO, is used to power big marine vessels – such as tankers and large cruise ships – because it is cheap and readily available. But there are concerns about its environmental impacts.

When burned, it emits black carbon, particulate matter that studies suggest is contributing to the accelerated melting of Arctic sea ice. HFO also does not evaporate as quickly as other fuels, meaning it is more likely to be trapped under the ice if spilled in Arctic waters.

HFO has been banned in Antarctica since 2011 and in waters around the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard since 2022.

‘Simply not good enough’

The Clean Arctic Alliance, a group of 20 not-for-profits campaigning for Arctic protection, argues exemptions under the IMO’s ban create “significant loopholes” that will not adequately reduce HFO in the Arctic for years.

“Governments and NGOs fought long and hard to achieve the ban on the use and carriage of HFO in the Arctic – yet [to] see that it will be half-implemented is quite simply not good enough”, Sean Prior, lead advisor to the alliance, said in a statement.

According to research by the International Council on Clean Transportation, a non-profit think tank, the ban could eliminate just 30 percent of HFO carriage and 16 percent of its use, based on 2019 shipping data, until it is fully implemented in 2029. The ICCT said that would result in a five-percent reduction in black carbon emissions.

IMO members agreed to exempt ships built as of 2017 with protected fuel tanks from the ban until July 2029.

They also allowed IMO member countries with Arctic coastlines to provide waivers to domestic ships operating in their waters until July 2026. Canada has decided to give Canadian-flagged ships involved in community resupply the option to apply for waivers, with the aim of negating the cost impact to communities of switching to cleaner fuel.

In a 2019 submission, Canada estimated the ban could result in a $248 to $679 increase in annual expenditures for Nunavut households.

‘We shouldn’t have to choose’

The Clean Arctic Alliance’s Andrew Dumbrille said the exemption also means resupply vessels can use and carry “the world’s dirtiest fuel” to communities, which he said “is exactly where you don’t want it.”

“It’s an imperfect solution,” he said. “What the solution should be is for some kind of cost mitigation strategy to be put in place so that these costs aren’t transferred to communities that didn’t cause or create the climate crisis, and aren’t responsible for the shipping industry using the world’s dirtiest fuels.”

Dumbrille urged shipping companies who qualify for exemptions to instead switch to distillate fuels earlier, which he said are easier to clean up and produce less black carbon.

“They could switch overnight and have a dramatic impact on the risk of spills,” he said.

Lisa Qiluqqi Koperqualuk – president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, which represents Inuit from Canada, Alaska, Greenland and the Chukotka region of Russia – shared concerns about exemptions to the ban.

“The fuels that are being used are already causing damaging effects to the environment, poisoning marine mammals and seafood that Inuit access,” she said, adding she worries about the risk of future spills.

Qiluqqi Koperqualuk agreed communities shouldn’t bear the cost of switching to cleaner fuels and said the federal government should continue to discuss cost mitigation strategies with Inuit.

“When ship owners or operators hint that the cost of transitioning to alternative fuels will go to communities, it is not acceptable to us,” she said.

“We shouldn’t have to choose between a healthy environment and affordable access to food and the community resupply.”

How many ships use HFO?

The Clean Arctic Alliance noted that shipping traffic in the Arctic is increasing as melting sea ice opens up new shipping routes.

A report by the Arctic Council found that the number of unique ships entering the Arctic increased 37 percent between 2013 and 2023, while the distance travelled had increased 111 percent during that period.

A University of Ottawa study found that between 2010 and 2018, approximately 37 percent of ships in Canadian Arctic waters used HFO. Nearly all were general cargo, bulk carrier and tanker ships.

The majority of HFO use occurred in specific areas like Baffin Bay, near Pond Inlet, and the Hudson Strait, the study said.

A report by FedNav, Canada’s largest bulk shipping company, indicates nearly 60 percent of its carbon emissions in 2023 were from HFO, up from 33 percent in 2022.

The NWT government has said Marine Transportation Services, which delivers cargo to communities by barge, does not use HFO.

Dumbrille said fishing vessels, barge operations and smaller cruise ships tend to use cleaner distillate fuel.

Industry response to ban

Daniel Dagenais, president and chief executive officer of Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping, a major resupplier in the Canadian Arctic, said the ban’s phased approach allows for a “smooth transition” away from HFO.

“All initiatives that aim at reducing GHG emissions and black carbon from our industry are welcomed by NEAS. I think any responsible and sustainable organization needs to take aim at that,” he said.

“It’s business as usual to a certain degree for us but now we have a timeline and really a set goal for the future.”

Dagenais said the company is looking at the 2029 deadline, which gives it time to complete analysis, adapt its strategy on serving the Arctic and procure distillate fuels.

He said the exemptions will also prevent any drastic price impacts.

“We’re definitely working with Transport Canada and all the different groups in order to mitigate the impact,” he said. “We have to strike a balance between protecting the environment, servicing the community at the right price, and figuring out a way to really get the goods and the material up north at a lowest cost.”

Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation, which owns the Mary River Mine in Nunavut and ships millions of tonnes of ore from the site every year, said it does not oppose banning burning HFO in the Arctic and is “committed to reducing emissions and safeguarding this fragile region.” The company said, however, it has concerns with the new ban, particularly the prohibition on carrying HFO in vessels’ fuel tanks but not as cargo on tankers.

Company spokesperson Peter Akman said in a statement that fuel tanks in all of Baffinland’s ships are positioned high above the waterline and inward on the vessel. He said that significantly reduces the risk of spills compared to carrying HFO as cargo in the holds.

“We believe with appropriate regulations and modern safety measures, it is possible to mitigate the risks associated with transporting HFO in vessels’ fuel tanks,” Akman wrote. “We advocate for policies that both protect the Arctic environment and ensure the economic viability of responsible businesses operating in the region.”

Chamber of Marine Commerce spokesperson Jason Card said members are working to make adjustments to transition from HFO to alternative fuels in the Canadian Arctic, which he said involves discussions with customers and Transport Canada. He said industry needs to work with the federal government on strategies to reduce the costs of transitioning to more expensive fuels.

“Whenever significant regulatory decisions are implemented to change the requirements for these ships, it is always necessary to allow the industry an adaptation period, as immediate implementation of new regulations is generally just not feasible,” he wrote. “This is why exemptions and multi-year deadlines are established, and our industry diligently works toward full compliance.”

Beyond the IMO ban, Card said the federal government has proposed an emission control area, which would limit the sulphur content of fuel that vessels would be allowed to use in the Canadian Arctic. It could come into force as early as March 2026.

Transport Canada said it is consulting Inuit and northern communities as well as industry on planned changes to shipping regulations. It said interested groups can review and comment on the proposed amendments, which are expected to be released late this year or early next year.

The federal department said it will also engage with northern communities to determine if any mitigation measures are needed beyond the initial two-year waiver period for resupply vessels.