© NOAAS’s National Ocean Service / Flickr
Features
The IMO considers “polar fuels” to reduce black carbon in the Arctic
- Shipping
Last week, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)convened the 12th session of its Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) Committee in London. Among the key topics discussed was the urgent need to reduce black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping.
Why black carbon matters in the Arctic
Black carbon is a potent short-lived climate pollutant that has a disproportionally harmful impact on Arctic ice and snow environments, Indigenous and local communities, and wildlife. In the shipping sector, the main source of black carbon emissions is the use of residual fuels – biproducts of crude oil refining left over after the extraction of distilled products. Among these, heavy fuel oils (HFOs) are the most polluting.
Although the IMO implemented a ban on the use and carriage for use of HFOs in the Arctic on July 1, 2024, the numerous waivers and exemptions have allowed many vessels to continue to use these fuels. As a result, black carbon emissions in the region remain a significant concern.
© NASA ICE / Flickr
A new approach: polar fuels
One of the key objectives at PPR 12 was to explore regulatory measures to reduce black carbon emissions – an issue that has been on the IMO agenda for years. Due to increasing pressure from civil society and several member states, the Committee agreed to initiate discussions on a new fuel category, termed “polar fuels”. These fuels would be considered suitable for use in the Arctic, aiming to reduce the environmental impact of shipping on marine and coastal ecosystems.
To define what qualifies as a polar fuel, the IMO member states will need to agree on clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. The process will require additional conceptual work, including identifying relevant parameters, conducting impact assessments, and performing cost-benefit analyses. The core criteria proposed by the environmental non-governmental organizations at PPR-12 was a significant reduction in black carbon emissions. Additionally, the discussion may extend to the adoption of cleaner, zero-carbon fuels that help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
Norway’s holistic approach to polar fuels
Norway has advocated for a broader definition of polar fuels, proposing that they should not only have low emissions but also be less harmful on the environment in the event of an oil spill and easier to clean up.
This is a critical consideration. For example, low and ultra low sulphur residual fuel oils (LSFOs and ULSFOs), which are commonly used due to their compliance with sulphur emission regulations, pose serious environmental risks. These fuels have a high pour point – the temperature at which oil loses its fluidity. In cold Arctic waters, these fuels can solidify immediately when spilled, making clean up efforts extremely difficult. To address this, Norway has proposed an upper pour point limit of 0°C, along with viscosity and density requirements. These criteria would help predict how spilled oil behaves in Arctic conditions, determining whether it persists, dissipates, or can be effectively removed.
What’s next?
At the next PPR meeting, planned for early 2026, IMO members will likely decide on the best approach for defining polar fuels. Currently, the two main perspectives under consideration are:
- A narrow approach, focused primarily on reducing black carbon emissions while potentially including criteria for improving energy efficiency and lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
- A holistic approach, incorporating both emissions reduction and spill behavior considerations to minimize environmental risks.
Regardless of which definition prevails, one conclusion is becoming increasingly clear: residual fuels, including but not limited to HFOs, should be phased out as Arctic shipping fuels.
© Chris Parker, Flickr
Immediate alternatives and a way forward
Although the official definition of polar fuels is still under discussion, two fuels types that already meet the core requirement of reducing black carbon emissions are widely available: marine distillate fuels DMA and DMZ. These fuels not only generate low black carbon emissions but are also easier to clean up in the event of a spill.
As Arctic shipping continues to grow, so does the urgency of implementing fuel-based restrictions. Without decisive action, black carbon emissions will rise, accelerating ice and snow melt and posing increasing risks to human health. Establishing clear and enforceable regulations on polar fuels will be essential to protecting this fragile environment.
