You are on page 1of 2

E

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION MEPC 72/11/4


COMMITTEE 16 February 2018
72nd session Original: ENGLISH
Agenda item 11

DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES TO REDUCE RISKS OF USE AND CARRIAGE


OF HEAVY FUEL OIL AS FUEL BY SHIPS IN ARCTIC WATERS

Comments on document MEPC 72/11/1 on measures to reduce risks of use and


carriage of heavy fuel oil as fuel by ships in Arctic waters

Submitted by Canada and the Marshall Islands

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This document provides comments on document MEPC 72/11/1,


which proposes a way forward for managing risks associated with
the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil (HFO) as fuel on ships in Arctic
waters. The co-sponsors are of the view that, while considering the
document MEPC 72/11/1 and the risk of HFO in the Arctic, actions
should be informed by the principles agreed to at MEPC 71 and that
possible economic and other impacts on Arctic communities must be
considered.

Strategic direction, if 6
applicable:

Output: 6.1

Action to be taken: Paragraph 7

Related documents: MEPC 69/20/1, MEPC 69/21 (paragraphs 20.3 to 20.4);


MEPC 70/14/4, MEPC 70/17/9, MEPC 70/17/11, MEPC 70/18
(paragraphs 17.18 to 17.20); MEPC 71/14/4, MEPC 71/17
(paragraphs 14.12 and 14.13) and MEPC 72/11/1

Introduction

1 This document is submitted in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6.12.5 of


the document on Organization and method of work of the Maritime Safety Committee and the
Marine Environment Protection Committee and their subsidiary bodies (MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.5)
and comments on document MEPC 72/11/1.

2 As noted in document MEPC 71/14/4, the threat of an accidental oil spill in Arctic
waters remains the most significant threat from ships to the Arctic marine environment. While
spill response activities can be carried out in the Arctic, several factors such as ice conditions,

I:\MEPC\72\MEPC 72-11-4.docx
MEPC 72/11/4
Page 2

weather and seasonal darkness can impede the efficacy of such operations. Consequently,
the Committee invited Member States, the maritime shipping industry and other interested
parties to "…use their collective expertise to develop a pragmatic solution that effectively
addresses environmental concerns, considers impacts on Arctic communities and economies,
and facilitates transition for industry" (MEPC 71/14/4, paragraph 11). The co-sponsors agree
that taking steps to mitigate the risk of oils spills and harm to the Arctic environment is the
overall goal of this work.

3 With this in mind, the co-sponsors have read with interest document MEPC 72/11/1
(Finland et al.), which calls for a ban on heavy fuel oil (HFO) use and carriage as fuel by ships
in Arctic waters. The objectives in the document are consistent with the desire of Canada and
the Marshall Island to protect the Arctic from the impacts of HFO by shipping.

Considerations

4 The co-sponsors are of the view that when developing measures to achieve
environmental objectives, potential impacts of the measures on Arctic communities and
economies should be taken into account. The co-sponsors note similar work has been
undertaken by the Arctic Council.

5 MEPC 71 agreed to consider impacts, such as those outlined in document


MEPC 71/14/4, paragraph 12. The co-sponsors are of the view that Arctic communities and
economies will benefit from reduced risks associated with spills. Additionally, the co-sponsors
are of the view that economic and other impacts to Arctic communities associated with the
restriction or phase out of heavy fuel in Arctic waters, should also be included in the scope of
work undertaken at the PPR Sub-Committee.

Scope of work at PPR

6 Taking into account the above, the co-sponsors propose that the scope of work for
the PPR Sub-Committee on this output should include an assessment of impacts and take into
consideration the elements outlined in document MEPC 71/14/4, paragraph 12.

Action requested of the Committee

7 The Committee is invited to consider these comments and to take action as


appropriate.

___________

I:\MEPC\72\MEPC 72-11-4.docx