MSC becomes the first casualty of IMO’s Carriage Ban
We previously reported that as part of MARPOL Annex VI regulation (IMO2020), the member states of the International Maritime Organisation adopted a complementary amendment which came into effect on the 1st of March 2020..
The “Carriage Ban” as it is called, prohibits the carriage of non-compliant HSFO (Heavy Sulphur Fuel Oil) for purposes of propulsion or operation on board a ship unless the ship has been fitted with an exhaust gas cleaning system – EGCS commonly known as scrubber..
As from this date it will be considered an offense for any ship to be carrying fuel that contains sulphur content higher than 0.5% for purposes of propulsion or operation, unless the ship has a scrubber..
In the previous article, we raised a question “Will the IMO, which remained steadfast in its implementation of the IMO2020 regulation from 1st Jan 2020 also remain steadfast with the implementation of the “Carriage Ban” come 1st March 2020..??”..
Well it seemingly has..
IMO Carriage Ban comes into effect and 5 beneficial changes of IMO2020
The much reported MARPOL Annex VI regulation (a.k.a IMO2020) which was implemented to lower the current global limit for sulphur content of marine fuels from 3.50% to 0.50% came into effect on 1st January 2020..
As of 1st March 2020, the complementary International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution form ships (MARPOL) amendment (Carriage Ban) came into effect..
Carriage ban looming for ship owners and operators – IMO2020
IMO2020 – Best practices, Guidelines for Port State Controls and more
Maritime shipping has one of the lowest carbon emissions compared to other modes of transport..
Despite this, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the regulatory authority for international shipping, has been working to reduce the harmful impacts of shipping on the environment since the 1960s..
In April 2018, the IMO adopted an initial strategy on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels..
As part of this strategy, on January 1st 2020 IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI (colloquially known as IMO2020) regulated to lower the current global limit for sulphur content of marine fuels from 3.50% to 0.50% was implemented..
We caught up with Roel Hoenders, Acting Head of Air Pollution and Energy Efficiency, Sub-Division for Protective Measures, Marine Environment Division, with the IMO for his views on the implementation of the #IMO2020, and also to discuss the best practices and guidelines for Port State Controls (PSC)..
One month old VLSFO already facing issues – #IMO2020
January 1st 2020 saw the implementation of IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI (colloquially known as IMO2020) regulated to lower the current global limit for sulphur content of marine fuels from 3.50% to 0.50%.. VLSFO (Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil) is one of the options suggested by IMO to achieve this reduction..
Shipping lines and fuel companies have been trying and several blended fuels that would help achieve these levels..
But the one month old VLSFO is already facing issues relating to emissions..
Impact of IMO 2020 on the maritime landscape of South Africa
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has been working to reduce harmful impacts of shipping on the environment since the 1960s..
The regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (Annex VI) seek to control airborne emissions from ships (sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone depleting substances (ODS), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and shipboard incineration) and their contribution to local and global air pollution, human health issues and environmental problems..
In April 2018, more than 100 Member States met at the United Nations IMO in London and adopted an initial strategy on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels..
Below is a perspective from Durand Richard of Linsen Nambi Bunker Services on the impact of IMO 2020 on the South African maritime landscape..
Cost impact of IMO 2020
IMO2020 is getting serious commercially..
As everyone may have read, as of January 2020, all ships are required to use fuel with a sulphur content of 0.5% or less on all of the world’s oceans..
The ship owners have a few options to ensure compliance and meet lower sulphur emission standards, each with some pros and cons..
Let’s look at the cost impact of IMO2020..
Maersk pilots carbon-netural shipping
With #IMO2020 fast approaching – 194 days away as of this article – shipping lines, customers and ship owners are working hard on finding ways to be compliant (whether they like it or not)..
This is especially important in the wake of recent comments from IMO’s Frederick Kenney about the possibility of a postponement of the IMO2020 deadline “The chance is really zero. Procedurally, there is no mechanism that would allow the 0.50% regulation, as it stands right now, to change from 1 January 2020.”
There are still some questions over the use of open loop scrubbers which have been identified by the IMO as one of the several methods through which ships can meet lower sulphur emission standards.. Some of the main bunkering ports like Singapore and Fujairah have banned open loop scrubbers in their waters whereas some countries like South Africa have said yes to all types of approved scrubbers..
Then there are also the usage of bio fuels to power ships and shipments..
In what is termed as a first of its kind in the industry, a new carbon neutral product is being piloted by Maersk Line – the world’s largest container shipping line..
No agreement on minimum speed requirements for ships @ MEPC74
224 days to go as of this post before #IMO2020 comes into effect.. I wrote recently about an open letter to IMO Member States by NGOs which states that the shipping industry must take appropriate measures to address climate change urgently..
As an initial step, these NGOs expressed their strong support for the IMO’s proposal to regulate ship speeds across various ship type and size categories.. In the letter, the NGOs said their preference would be to set maximum annual average speeds for container ships, and maximum absolute speeds for the remaining ship types, which take account of minimum speed requirements..
Of course, this was not welcomed by all, least of all by container carriers as it would result in them having to increase their fleet size to meet the delivery schedules imposed on them by the trade.. As per the carriers, this would defeat the purpose of trying to reduce GHG (greenhouse gas emissions) emissions..
The letter said that this regulation should be implemented as soon as possible and the obligation for compliance should be placed both on shipowners and operators, including charterers and called on all parties at the forthcoming IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC74) to support this move..
Well, #MEPC74 has come and gone but there has been no agreement or deal on any of the proposals put forward to reduce GHG emissions..
Do you support mandatory regulation of ship speeds..??
As at the time of writing of this article, 244 days is what is left before ships have to comply with #IMO2020 (I actually put up a countdown on my sidebar)..
What IMO2020 is, has been discussed in detail across many articles on this blog, so I won’t repeat in great detail..
An open letter to IMO Member States by NGOs has expressed strong support for the IMO to implement mandatory regulation of global ship speeds differentiated across ship type and size categories..
Industry experts especially in container shipping seem divided on this.. Do you support mandatory regulation of ship speeds..??