/>iHeavy fuel oil (“HFO”), commonly known as bunker fuel or residual fuel oil, has been widely used by vessels for decades due to its low cost and ready availability. However, due to its high sulfur and heavy metal content, the International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) has steadily enacted regulations to limit the sulfur content in fuels, and the ability to burn or carry HFO in sensitive areas, such as the Arctic.
Recently, on July 1, 2024, an international ban on the use of HFO in the Arctic went into effect. This ban, implemented by resolution MEPC.329(76), was adopted on June 17, 2021, by the IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee. The resolution amended Annex 1 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”), adding Regulation 43A, “Special requirements for the use and carriage of oils as fuel in Arctic waters.” Regulation 43A prohibits the use and carriage for use as fuel of oils having a density at 15°C higher than 900 kg/m3 or a kinematic viscosity at 50°C higher than 180 mm2/s in Arctic waters.[1] However, there are several exemptions and waivers to the HFO ban. First, ships engaged in securing the safety of ships, or in search and rescue operations, and ships dedicated to oil spill preparedness and response are exempt. Additionally, ships that meet certain construction standards[2] for fuel oil tank protection, must comply on or after July 1, 2029. Lastly, a Party to MARPOL with a coastline bordering Arctic waters may temporarily waive the requirements for ships flying its flag while operating in waters subject to that Party’s sovereignty or jurisdiction through July 1, 2029.
With increasing geopolitical tensions affecting shipping lanes in the Middle East, the possibility exists more ships may consider using the Northern Sea Route through Arctic waters to avoid risks near areas in conflict. In fact, according to the Arctic Council Working Group on the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (“PAME”), “[t]he number of unique ships entering the Arctic Polar Code area from 2013 to 2023 increased by 37%, [to] around 500 ships.”[3]
The Northern Sea Route, most commonly used in September between the western part of Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region, is shorter than the journey through the Suez Canal, or detour around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope. Yet that route presents its own regulatory and operational considerations. In particular, as discussed above, ship owners and operators must ensure their vessels meet the construction standard requirements of Regulation 43A to use HFO or use alternative fuel to remain compliant. Additionally, the sensitive Arctic environment imposes more stringent requirements in other MARPOL Annexes, such as Annex II, control of pollution by noxious liquid substances in bulk; Annex IV, sewage; and Annex V, garbage. Vessel owners and operators should also ensure compliance with the operational and structural requirements of the Polar Code when operating in this region.
Notably, due to the harsh weather conditions, and limited aid in the region, operating in the Arctic requires specific compulsory vessel documentation and certificates, training and manning, and life-saving appliances, among other prerequisites. As political forces shift maritime trading patterns, vessel owners and operators should exercise added due diligence in evaluating their vessels’ ability to meet the regulatory and operational requirements for transiting the Northern Sea Route, which, while now open, at times remains an unforgiving realm.
[1] Arctic waters are defined in MARPOL Annex 1 Regulation 46.2.
[2] MARPOL Annex I, Regulation 12A; or Polar Code Chapter 1, part II-A, Regulation 1.2.1.
[3] PAME, Arctic Shipping Update: 37% Increase in Ships in the Arctic Over 10 Years, (Jan. 31, 2024), available at: https://arctic-council.org/news/increase-in-arctic-shipping/.
