Thread by @CleanArctic

Environmentalist NGO @CleanArctic has slammed the decision by @IMOHQ to approve a ban which it says is ridden with of loopholes on use & carriage of HFO in the #Arctic. #mep75

https://twitter.com/shipinsight/status/1330826247774097410

The ban was approved during the virtual #MEPC75 meeting despite widespread opposition from Indigenous groups, NGOs. shipinsight.com/articles/imos-…

Following PPR7, the Clean Arctic Alliance called the inclusion of loopholes – in the form of exemptions and waivers – in the draft regulation “outrageous” as they mean a HFO ban would not come into effect until mid-2029. shipinsight.com/articles/imos-… @shipinsight

@CleanArctic– a coalition of 21 non-profit organisations, called for waivers to not be granted by Arctic coastal states and for the deadline beyond which exemptions would not apply to be brought forward. shipinsight.com/articles/imos-… @shipinsight

“By taking decision to storm ahead with approval of outrageous ban @IMOHQ & member states must take responsibility for failing to truly protect of #Arctic Indigenous communities & wildlife from heavy fuel oil threat” @Sian_Prior9 shipinsight.com/articles/imos-… @shipinsight

“In its current form, ban will achieve only minimal reduction in HFO use & carriage by ships in Arctic in mid-2024, when it comes into effect. It is crucial Arctic coastal states do not issue waivers to their flagged vessels”. @Sian_Prior9 shipinsight.com/articles/imos-… @shipinsight

According to recent analysis by @TheICCT @BryanComerPhD regulation will only reduce the use of HFO by 16% & carriage of HFO as fuel by 30% when it takes effect in July 2024, and will allow 74% of Arctic shipping to continue with biz as usual theicct.org/publications/a…

“The ban @IMOHQ has approved today will mean that a full 3/4 ships using HFO today will be eligible for an exemption to ban, because their fuel tanks are ‘protected’, or because they can apply to Arctic coastal state for a waiver from ban” @Sian_Prior9 theicct.org/publications/a…

“As a result, use of HFO in Arctic is likely to continue to grow until the ban takes full effect in 2029 - so not only does ban not sufficiently protect Arctic, it’s actually contributing to a greater exposure to risks of HFO” @Sian_Prior9 theicct.org/publications/a… @shipinsight

“@cleanarctic urges @IMOHQ Member States to seriously consider how ban can be strengthened ahead of formal adoption next year & for individual states to examine domestic options for providing protection required for Arctic from risks of HFO" @Sian_Prior9 theicct.org/publications/a…

‘All Arctic states need to eliminate HFO use by 2024 to ensure HFO ban fulfils original intent. Food security & livelihoods of local & Indigenous communities is dependent upon success of ban to protect from pollution & spills" Andrew Dumbrille @WWFCanada shipinsight.com/articles/imos-…

“@ArcticCouncil should build on Norway’s proposal for #Svalbard assert Arctic stewardship role & scale up ambition of @IMOHQ ban of Arctic countries without waivers & exemptions - this should be reflected in Ministerial Declaration May 2021 Icelandic chairmanship” @ArcticPeterW

“A ‘ban’ that affects just a quarter of ships is not a ban at all”, said John Maggs, Senior Policy Advisor at @SeasAtRisk. "The IMO’s new regulation fails to treat all flags equally" theicct.org/publications/a… @shipinsight

"The IMO’s new regulation fails to treat all flags equally, allowing the five central Arctic coastal states to issue waivers that will allow all ships flying their flag to continue to use HFO" - John Maggs @SeasAtRisk theicct.org/publications/a… @shipinsight

"Because waivers would weaken the protection of the marine environment in these areas, it raises important legal questions” John Maggs @SeasAtRisk theicct.org/publications/a… @shipinsight

@threadreaderapp unroll