What the North Atlantic Emission Control Area means for shipping in the Arctic

The adoption of the world’s largest emission control area is a welcomed boost towards a more environmentally friendly shipping in the Arctic region. But there is much more work to be done.

Promoting sustainable shipping practices in the Arctic is a test of patience and a matter of persistence. At the 84th meeting of the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee parties agreed to formally designate the North-East Atlantic as an Emission Control Area.

Stricter requirements coming

For years, WWF has called for implementing Emission Control Areas (ECA) to help protect people and nature from shipping pollution. The new Atlantic ECA will connect other recently established ECAs in the Canadian Arctic and the Norwegian Sea. This will help form a continuous corridor of protection across a large swath of the Arctic and adjacent waters.

ECAs are designed to reduce atmospheric pollutants from ships, including sulphur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). In the Atlantic ECA, new ships will face stricter engine requirements as of 2027, and by 2028 all ships must meet the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) 0.1% fuel sulfur limit.

“The Atlantic ECA will improve air quality and public health while benefitting marine protected areas, marine mammal habitat, and UNESCO sites across the region by reducing pollution and acidification from ship emissions,” says Sam Davin, WWF’s IMO Lead.

More direct regulations needed

These measures are also intended to reduce particulate matter, including black carbon, a powerful climate pollutant produced by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. This marks an important step toward improving air quality and fighting climate change in the Arctic region.

However, ECAs do not directly regulate particulate matter or black carbon. Instead, reductions depend on the use of lower-sulphur fuels. As a result, outcomes vary depending on how ships choose to comply.

In practice, some ships use scrubbers to meet SOx limits while continuing to burn heavy fuel oil—the world’s dirtiest marine fuel—discharging contaminated washwater into the ocean in a process that transforms air pollution into water pollution. These ships can also emit higher levels of particulate matter and black carbon than those using cleaner fuels.

Others comply with lower-sulphur blended fuels, which can still produce relatively high level of black carbon compared to cleaner distillate fuels and emerging alternatives.

 

If ships comply using scrubbers or fuels blended with heavy fuel oil, the ECA’s air quality benefits will be reduced.

Sam Davin, WWF IMO Lead

Making polar fuels mandatory

To ensure ECAs deliver on their intended benefits and to reduce shipping pollution more broadly, WWF is calling for measures to close the scrubber loophole, alongside a mandatory shift to what experts call “polar fuels”, which are known to produce less black carbon.

“The adoption of cleaner fuels is an important step to reduce black carbon emissions; it is imperative that this measure applies to the whole and wider Arctic region disproportionally impacted by these emissions,” says Elena Tracy, Senior advisor to WWF’s Global Arctic Programme.

For the switch to happen, the IMO will need to adopt a new regulation under the air pollution annex of the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI).

2027 an important year

The next major opportunity to advance work on polar fuels will be at the IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response sub-committee (PPR 14) in early 2027. That is when a more fully developed Member State proposal on the concept is expected.

With the need for polar fuels increasingly clear, the focus now turns to the details. Member States will need to converge on key elements of the measure, including a geographic scope that is as broad as possible to maximize benefits for the Arctic and sub-Arctic.

This intersessional period is an important window, particularly for Arctic states, to set aside geopolitical differences to address black carbon emissions, which continue to have significant impacts on the climate, ecosystems, and human health.