WITH LESS THAN 12 MONTHS LEFT TO PREPARE FOR THE BAN THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES FACING THE INDUSTRY...
IMO’S MARPOL ANNEX VI The IMO’s position regarding the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI which are expected to enter into force later this year is clearly set out on its website (click here and here):
currently) on sulphur in ships’ fuel oil will be in force from 1 January 2020, under IMO’s MARPOL treaty, health.
The complementary MARPOL amendment will prohibit the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship - unless the ship has an exhaust means to meet the sulphur limit requirement. The complementary amendment is expected to enter into force on 1 March 2020. The amendment does not change in any way the entry into force date of as an additional measure to support consistent implementation and compliance and provide particularly port State control”.
The statement clearly states that scrubbers must to continue to use HSFO from 1 January 2020. The IMO’s FAQ further stipulates that “ships may also meet the SOx emission requirements by using approved equivalent methods, such as exhaust gas cleaning systems or “scrubbers”, which “clean” the emissions before they are released into the atmosphere. In this case, the equivalent arrangement must be approved by the ship’s .” (our emphasis). There is therefore no suggestion at international level that simply commissioning a scrubber or any for compliance purposes. Given that the overarching objective of the IMO measure is aimed at reducing sulphur emission in international shipping, it is anything less than the actual, approval and use of scrubbers by vessels.
European Directive 2016/802/EC concerning the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels (the “Sulphur Directive”). The relevant provisions regulating the use of scrubber systems are contained in Article 2 Article 8 (Emission abatement methods). Scrubbers are treated as or compliance method, used as an alternative to low sulphur marine fuel meeting the requirements of the Directive” (our emphasis)
confusion in question suggesting that merely planning or intending compliance. However, a fundamental principle of European law is that it must be read purposively and not literally with consideration of the spirit of the IMO, namely, to reduce harmful emissions from ships.
As we apply the principle of purposive interpretation to Article 8 (Emissions abatement methods) it is clear that the focus of the requirement is on the “use” of the EAMs as an “alternative” to using HSFO. Article 8(2) provides: “Ships using the emission abatement methods referred to in paragraph 1 shall continuously achieve reductions of sulphur dioxide emissions that are at least equivalent to the reductions that would be achieved by using marine fuels that meet the requirements of Articles 6 and 7” (our emphasis. Conversely, if EAMs are merely commissioned and not used, then the requirements of Article 8(2) would be rendered meaningless. Furthermore, Article 9 requires the EAM to be formally approved before they can be used. Thus, there are two key steps that need to be met in order to achieve reference to “commissioning” in the Directive but the commissioning stage is referenced in the guidance produced by European Maritime and Safety Agency (EMSA), as addressed below.
25 | ADMISI - The Ghost In The Machine | January/February 2019
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
