#mepc72

[uniballast]

Amendments to the Implementation of the Ballast Water Management Convention adopted during MEPC 72nd session

Amendments to the BWM Convention adopted MEPC 72 adopted amendments to the BWM Convention, which were approved at the last session. The amendments will enter into force on 13 October 2019.

The amendments relate to the implementation of the treaty, including the schedule for ships to comply with the requirement to meet the so-called D-2 standard (amendments to section B). In accordance with resolution MEPC. 287(71), Parties to the BWM Convention have already implemented the schedule for compliance outlined in the amendments since the entry into force of the BWM Convention.

Other amendments (to sections A and D) make mandatory the Code for approval of ballast water management systems, which was also adopted at the session. Further amendments relate to section E on survey and certification.

Since the date of entry into force, ships have been required to manage their ballast water to avoid the transfer of potentially invasive aquatic species. All ships must have a ballast water management plan and keep a ballast water record book. Ships are required to manage their ballast water to meet either the D-1 ballast water exchange standard or the D-2 performance standard, which specifies maximum limits for the discharge of viable organisms as well as specified indicator microbes harmful to human health.

Experience-building phase With the BWM Convention's entry into force, and the adoption of a first set of amendments, there is now increased emphasis on its effective implementation and enforcement.

The experience-building phase (EBP), established through resolution MEPC.290(71), will enable port States, flag States and other stakeholders to gather, prepare and submit data, the analysis of which will allow a systematic and evidence-based review of the requirements of the Convention and the development of a package of amendments to the Convention as appropriate.

MEPC 72 approved the Data gathering and analysis plan for the experience-building phase associated with the BWM Convention (BWM.2/Circ.67), which sets out the specific arrangements for data gathering during the EBP (including the interfaces through which data may be submitted to the EBP and the specific data requirements for each interface), as well as principles and organizational arrangements for analysing the data collected, and the timeline for the EBP.

Guidance for uniform implementation of the BWM Convention The MEPC approved the following circulars: Unified Interpretation of Appendix I (Form of the International Ballast Water Management Certificate) of the BWM Convention (BWM.2/Circ.66); revised Guidance on scaling of ballast water management systems (BWM.2/Circ.33/Rev.1); and revised Guidance for Administrations on the type approval process for ballast water management systems (BWM.2/Circ.43/Rev.1).

Text and photos: IMO, http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/MEPC/Pages/MEPC-72nd-session.aspx

[coldrealitycampaigns]

Fish and Ships: What's On Your Plate?

Back in early 2017, I wrote a blog, 2016 in review: What I Got Up To and What Happens Next, about what I’d been working on, and who I had been working with. It was a way of thanking everyone I had collaborated with during the year, to take stock and to get me thinking about  the future.

I also wanted to explore how people really use social media tools like LinkedIn. Despite time spent – or wasted – making connections on digital social networks, we often have no idea what our friends, and colleagues – and even family are working on. I wanted to see who was engaged, and what ideas could be fired up.

Friends and former colleagues responded; we caught up, shared stories, talked about families, and where we were living. In the maelstrom of daily life, time passes quickly – we can easily miss how our friends change careers, countries, even continents. I found that we can all end up working in silos – assuming that everyone else is too busy to talk.

A few days after I sent the message out, a message popped up from Steve Campbell, a former colleague at both the Antarctic Ocean Alliance and Greenpeace. Steve asked me if I knew someone who could help with EU Comms. I responded – yes, I did, me. Steve, a funding partner at Funding Fish, put me in touch with another ex-Greenpeacer, policy whirlwind Rebecca Hubbard.

In the following months, Bec and I developed and launched Our Fish, a rapidly expanding campaign aimed at pushing EU countries to achieve sustainable fish stocks in European waters. Put simply: stop overfishing, and stop tossing perfectly edible fish back into the sea. It’s not just a good idea, it’s actually EU law, as we keep reminding policymakers.

Our Fish has been getting up to shenanigans in Brussels, Luxembourg and Malta,  being a thorn in the side of those responsible for depleting Europe’s fish stocks in return for a quick buck. As I write, Our Fish has just had its second visit to Luxembourg for the annual AGRIFISH meeting on Baltic fish stocks, where we condemned decisions made by EU fisheries ministers for setting Baltic fishing limits at unsustainable levels.

Our Fish and Maltese street artist Twitch create a spectacular light painting, depicting a swordfish leaping from of the waters surrounding Valletta while being consumed by humans. Twitch, in collaboration with Our Fish and Dancing Fox and has created the artwork to send a message to 20017 Our Ocean conference delegates that they must help protect Mediterranean sea life. Photo: Dave Walsh Photography

The Our Fish team has expanded to include Dutch, German and Danish campaigners; we’ve got a petition calling on EU fisheries ministers to #EndOverfishing (with help from More Onion). We’re producing a series of cool animations in partnership with filmmaker and animator Daniel Bird, and a new website built by Barcelona-based web cooperative Jamgo.

Our Fish campaigners offers chocolate herring and satirical newspaper The Daily Catch to delegates attending AGRIFISH meeting in Luxembourg, 15 October 2018, where EU fisheries ministers will decide on Baltic fishing quotas for 2018. Our Fish is calling on EU governments to fulfill their commitment to end overfishing and the discarding of fish in EU waters. The fishmonger stand was accompanied by pictures of German and Danish actors from the Fishlove campaign. Photo: Dave Walsh

Our Fish has collaborated with many NGOs across Europe, as well as creative troublemakers Brian, Tommy and co at Dancing Fox, and Camille at Green Exchange (who is based near me here in Barcelona), and Fishlove, along with many other artists and doers and fixers and experts. You can follow Our Fish on Twitter: @our_fish

Another person who noticed my blog post was Maike Nicolai at GEOMAR, the German marine science institute in Kiel. I met Maike in Svalbard back in 2010, when GEOMAR collaborated with Greenpeace on an ambitious ocean acidification research project; Greenpeace had provided its ship, the Esperanza to ferry tonnes equipment from Kiel to the Arctic and back; I was on board to provide communications support.

Seven years, and a massive body of research later, the BIOACID project was near completion, so Maike, and Ulf Riebesel – who had led the initiative from the outset – drafted me in help edit the final project brochure (which was presented at COP23) and to get the story into the media (check out this BBC story and this Guardian story: in short, CO2 in the ocean is not a good thing, as it tends to play havoc with food webs. Action required? Quit burning fossil fuels. Maike has since departed GEOMAR and is clearly busy shaking things up, with the recent, devastating 1.5C report from the IPCC – the call to action the world needs.

When not doing fishy stuff, I’m working on shipping – as communications advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, which brings together organisations stretching from Alaska to Brussels to Moscow. We’re campaigning for a ban on the world’s dirtiest marine fuel, heavy fuel oil (HFO) from Arctic shipping, because of its black carbon emissions, and the risk of oil spills – basically impossible to clean up in Arctic conditions.

The campaign has chalked up considerable success. Although HFO is already banned from Antarctica and Svalbard, a year ago, the idea of an Arctic HFO ban could barely be spoken about in the shipping world, never mind within the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – the UN body that governs shipping. Yet this April, the IMO’s Maritime Environment Protection Committee (MEPC72) in London, a number of countries pushed forward with a ban, with backing from many other member states. They sealed this agreement in October 2018, by sending the ban for development to a technical meeting early next year.

Along with my colleague, Dr Sian Prior, I wrote this article about the campaign win – what it means, how it was achieved, how the ban will come about. More recently, Sian and I co-authored an article for the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. The article, A Vision for a Heavy Fuel Oil-Free Arctic goes deeper into why heavy fuel oil must be banned in the Arctic.

I also wrote What Does a Communications Advisor Do All Day?, also examines how communications played a role shifting the narrative on the heavy fuel oil issue – and how it can contribute to change on other matters too:

“To do this, I have had to pull the HFO issue out of the rarefied environment of the IMO into public discourse, so that it could be discussed in shipping, environmental and Arctic media not just as a nice to have (that we might phase it out) but as a must have – then continuing the discussion so that the inevitability of a ban becomes rooted in people’s minds. Decision-makers and their advisors – hopefully – come to see the ban, not as some weird fringe topic being wielded by a bunch of polar-bear-loving-hippies, but as a win-win solution; as something achievable, politically desirable and quite simply, a good thing.”

During the recent MEPC73 meeting in London, the Clean Arctic Alliance hosted a photography exhibition: The Arctic on Our Watch, to remind delegates of what’s at stake in the Arctic. The exhibition featured  several of my images:

_psEmbed("https://davewalshphoto.photoshelter.com");

I’ve been keeping up with other polar work –  I continue to serve on the board of The Arctic Institute, a Washington DC-based think tank, and have been getting involved in, CER-Arctic, a new Arctic Research Centre at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Finally, my partner, Nathalie Parès, launched her website, The Ingredient, as part of her organic food consultancy – and has dragged me out of the oceans, and into the world of food and farming. Check out her interview on Spanish newswire EFEAGRO, about the performance of Spanish organic sector and details of her forthcoming appearance on Catalonia’s TV3.

So what happens next? Our Fish has a busy couple of months coming up, with a major fisheries meeting coming up in December. I’m also busy developing communications plans for clients, and laying out some new projects for 2019. What’s on your plate? Let me know, and perhaps we can find a way to collaborate!

Fish and Ships: What’s On Your Plate? was originally published on Dave Walsh

[margheritagagliardi]

This is the front cover of the brochure designed for the Clean Arctic Alliance who organised a side-event at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) MEPC72 meeting. The aim of the Alliance is to increase awareness about the local and global consequences of the current changes taking place in the Arctic, and to demonstrate the necessity for IMO to agree an ambitious strategy to reduce greenhouse gases from shipping globally and a regional ban on heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the Arctic.

[hudsonespie]

IMO Member States Must Back Ban On Heavy Fuel Oil From Arctic Shipping

As a meeting of the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee opens today in London (MEPC72), the Clean Arctic Alliance called on IMO member states to support a proposal to ban heavy fuel oil (HFO) from Arctic shipping.

Representation Image – Credits: DAMEN

The proposal, co-sponsored by Finland, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the US, calls for a ban on HFO, and is one of several papers on HFO use in the Arctic to be discussed at MEPC as it considers “development of measures to reduce risks of use and carriage of heavy fuel oil as fuel by ships in Arctic waters”.

“The Arctic is under pressure – with climate change driving unseasonably high temperatures and extensive sea ice melt, IMO member states must act now to protect the region from the risk of heavy fuel oil spills and the damaging impacts of black carbon emissions. As a ban on the use and carriage of HFO as marine fuel in Arctic waters is the simplest and most effective mechanism for achieving this, the Clean Arctic Alliance commends the eight IMO member states that have co-sponsored a proposal calling for such a ban – and we urge other countries to support the proposal for during this week’s MEPC meeting,” said Dr Sian Prior, Lead Advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of 18 non-governmental organisations working to end HFO use as marine fuel in Arctic waters.

At its July 2017 meeting (MEPC71), the IMO agreed to embark on a body of work aimed at mitigating the risks of HFO. The Clean Arctic Alliance welcomed the move, emphasising that a ban on the use and carriage as fuel by ships operating in the Arctic is the simplest and most effective way to mitigate the effects of HFO.

Heavy fuel oil is a dirty and polluting fossil fuel that powers ships throughout our seas and oceans – accounting for 80% of marine fuel used worldwide. Around 75% of marine fuel currently carried in the Arctic is HFO; over half by vessels flagged to non-Arctic states – countries that have little if any connection to the Arctic.

The Arctic is under pressure – climate change is fuelling high winter temperatures and driving sea ice melt, opening up Arctic waters to shipping. As the sea ice recedes, larger, non-Arctic state-flagged vessels running on HFO are likely to divert to Arctic waters in search of shorter journey times. This, combined with an increase in Arctic state-flagged vessels targeting previously non-accessible resources, will greatly increase the risks of HFO spills.

Already banned in Antarctic waters, if HFO is spilled in cold polar waters, it breaks down slowly, proving almost impossible to clean up. A HFO spill would have long-term devastating effects on Arctic indigenous communities, livelihoods and the marine ecosystems they depend upon. HFO is also a greater source of harmful emissions of air pollutants, such as sulphur oxide, and particulate matter, including black carbon, than alternative fuels such as distillate fuel and liquefied natural gas (LNG). When emitted and deposited on Arctic snow or ice, the climate warming effect of black carbon is up to five times more than when emitted at lower latitudes.

Press release: hfofreearctic.org

Report an Error

from Storage Containers https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/imo-member-states-must-back-ban-on-heavy-fuel-oil-from-arctic-shipping/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[wisdomras]

The 72nd session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC72)

The 72nd session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC72)

IMO – the International Maritime Organization

  Bacground:

IMO – the International Maritime Organization – is the United Nations specialized agency with responsibility for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships.

  why in news?

At the 72nd session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC72) Shipping and Climate Summit,…

[uniballast]

Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), 72nd session at IMO Headquarters in London

From 9-13 April the 72nd session of the MEPC is being held at IMO Headquarters in London. One of the highlights of this session is the Implementation of the Ballast Water Management Convention

The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (BWM Convention), entered into force in September 2017 and has, to date, been ratified by 69 countries, representing 75.11% of world merchant shipping tonnage.

Adoption of amendments to the BWM Convention MEPC 72 is expected to adopt amendments to the BWM Convention, which were approved at the last session. The draft amendments relate to the implementation of the treaty, including the schedule for ships to comply with the requirement to meet the so-called D-2 standard (draft amendments to section B). Other draft amendments (to sections A and D) make mandatory the Code for approval of ballast water management systems, which will also be adopted at the session. Further draft amendments relate to section E on survey and certification.

Since the date of entry into force, ships have been required to manage their ballast water to avoid the transfer of potentially invasive species. All ships must have a ballast water management plan and keep a ballast water record book. Ships are required to manage their ballast water to meet the D-1 ballast water exchange standard; or the D-2 standard, which requires ballast water management to restrict to a specified maximum the amount of viable organisms allowed to be discharged and to limit the discharge of specified indicator microbes harmful to human health.

Experience-building phase With the BWM Convention's entry into force, and the approval of a first set of amendments at MEPC 71, there is now increased emphasis on its effective implementation and enforcement. The experience-building phase, (established through a resolution adopted at MEPC 71 (MEPC.290(71)), will enable port States, flag States and other stakeholders to gather, prepare and submit data, the analysis of which will allow a systematic and evidence-based review of the requirements of the Convention and the development of a package of amendments to the Convention as appropriate. MEPC 72 is expected to finalize the associated data gathering and analysis plan.

Guidance for uniform implementation of the BWM Convention As at every session, the MEPC will consider the development or revision of various guidelines and guidance documents. MEPC 72 is expected to, inter alia, finalize and approve revised guidance on scaling of ballast water management systems (BWMS) and on the type approval process for BWMS; consider matters related to surveys under the BWM Convention following the incorporation of the Interim Survey Guidelines under the BWM Convention into the Harmonized System for Survey and Certification; and consider the application of the BWM Convention to certain specialized ship types. MEPC 72 will also consider whether to review the Procedure for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of Active Substances (G9).

Source: http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/IMOMediaAccreditation/Pages/MEPC72.aspx

[coldrealitycampaigns]

Which Shipping Companies Are Ready for the Coming Arctic Heavy Fuel Oil Ban?

First published on the shipping news website Splash 24/7 on 13/9/2018

In April this year, a meeting of the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC72) in London agreed to move forward on developing a ban on heavy fuel oil – for use and carriage as fuel from Arctic shipping. My colleague Dr Sian Prior and I wrote about how the world’s dirtiest shipping fuel would be banned from the Arctic – why it should be banned, and how the ban was going to take place.

Heavy fuel oil is a dirty and polluting fossil fuel accounting for 80% of marine fuel used worldwide. Around 75% of marine fuel currently carried in the Arctic is HFO. With climate change fuelling high winter temperatures and driving sea ice melt, Arctic waters are opening up to increased shipping in search of shorter transit times – and greatly increasing the risks of HFO spills.

Already banned in Antarctic waters, if HFO is spilled in cold polar waters, it breaks down slowly, proving almost impossible to clean up. A HFO spill would have long-term devastating effects on Arctic indigenous communities, livelihoods and the marine ecosystems they depend upon. HFO is also a greater source of harmful emissions of air pollutants,  such as black carbon, than alternative fuels, such as distillate fuel and liquefied natural gas (LNG). When emitted and deposited on Arctic snow or ice, the climate warming effect of black carbon is up to five times more than when emitted outside the Arctic, such as in the tropics.

Now, with the northern hemisphere winter and next month’s MEPC73 approaching, the Clean Arctic Alliance has publicly called on shipping companies already carrying cargo across the Arctic to be transparent about their choice of fuel. While the IMO’s Polar Code already recommends ship operators “not to use or carry heavy fuel oil in the Arctic”, it is not binding. With an Arctic HFO ban on the way, the Clean Arctic Alliance wants to know – which shipping companies will become flagships for a HFO Free Arctic?

We are going to keep asking – companies using the Arctic “shortcut” bear the burden of responsibility for ensuring that their transits neither risk devastating the already beleaguered Arctic environment with an oil spill, and that their emissions do not further contribute to the Arctic melt.

As a communications advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance – and one that has handled crisis communications for a number of organisations, I finding the responses – or lack thereof – intriguing. Some of the Arctic shippers have failed to respond either publicly or privately; some respond with some good information, showing a willingness to move in the right direction, but do not seem to clearly understand or engage with the issue. Perhaps they are just hoping that the Arctic/HFO issue will go away… which it will not.   

We recently challenged the world’s biggest container shipping company, Maersk, to come clean about how it plans to fuel the Venta Maersk on its trial run across the northern sea route. To its credit, Maersk responded, directly, privately and via shipping media and social media. The answer, however was a little ambiguous, with Maersk simply saying it planned to use “low sulphur fuel”. When we pointed out that such a fuel could be low in sulphur, and still a viscous residual fuel, Maersk responded on Twitter, saying that “The Ultra Low Sulphur Fuel that we will use for this trial is on spec with Marine Distillate Fuels, if not better. On this trial journey it is the best choice of fuel to use from both an operational and environmental point of view.”

Acknowledging that this particular fuel will result in lower emissions of sulphur and particulates, but that it still falls between the description of a residual fuel and a distillate fuel, the Clean Arctic Alliance quizzed Maersk about what would happen to such a fuel if spilled in the cold waters of the Arctic – would it evaporate, or would it emulsify? We’re looking forward to hearing more from Maersk on this.

We want to know what the potential environmental impact of a spill of Maersk’s choice of fuel would be on Arctic wildlife and communities. Elsewhere, we noticed that Maersk has fitted a vessel – albeit a product tanker – in Rotterdam with Flettner rotors, in an effort to reduce fuel consumption, so we are heartened to see that the company is taking some progressive steps towards decarbonisation.

Following news that the Australia’s Ironbark Zinc will charter the world’s largest icebreaking bulk carrier, the Nunavik – owned by Canadian shipping company Fednav – for its zinc mining operations in northern Greenland, the Clean Arctic Alliance laid down a similar challenge to Fednav. While there was no public statement from Fednav, in a press statement regarding its operations in Greenland, Ironbark did state that it “ensured that the Nunavik made this journey consuming low sulphur marine diesel oil instead of conventional heavy fuel oil (HFO) while in Greenland waters.”

Ironbark’s statement is, to some degree, laudable, but it opens up several questions. The Nunavik is reportedly using heavy fuel oil while in the open ocean. Obviously when it enters the Arctic waters around Greenland, it will presumably still have HFO on board for the return journey unless it has all been used on the outward journey. By not burning HFO in Greenland’s waters, Fednav is avoiding emissions of black carbon, which speed up Arctic melting. However black carbon emissions from burning HFO while the ship is operating on the open ocean can also contribute to the ice melt. Furthermore, by carrying HFO on board, Fednav is flirting with a disaster of unimaginable proportions, with potential long term impacts for Greenland’s communities and livelihoods. Perhaps neither Fednav or Ironbark have read the small print – the forthcoming discussions on a ban on heavy fuel oil will cover a ban not just on use, but on its carriage for use as marine fuel oil. In other words, you cannot sail into the Arctic with HFO on board, while burning something else and claim that it’s all good.

Last week, the Clean Arctic Alliance made a public request to China’s COSCO, the world’s fourth largest container ship company, about its use of HFO in the Arctic, following the voyage of the Tian’en across the Northern Sea Route to Rouen, in France. At the time of publishing this article, COSCO had not yet responded. We’re hoping that COSCO, and China, can come on board and support an Arctic HFO ban. A note to COSCO – we appreciate you were transporting wind turbines to Europe, but this nod to the global energy transition doesn’t get you off the hook.

Back at MEPC72 in April, Russia was one of the laggards when it came to supporting a ban on HFO. So it’s heartening to see that during a recent summit, both President Vladimir Putin  and  Finland’s President Sauli Niinisto agreed to work on moving towards “more environmentally friendly fuels in the Arctic” with the Kremlin suggesting that the prohibition of residual fuel use and carriage, and simultaneously reducing black carbon emissions could be a first step.

Although President Putin had vowed earlier this year to increase Northern Sea Route (NSR) shipping tenfold, the NSR has already seen 81% increase in transport volume for the year to date – 9.95m tonnes, compared to the 5.5 million tonnes in the whole of 2017. While the vast majority of this tonnage is destinational shipping – bound for Russian ports and not transit shipping – crossing between the Pacific and Atlantic – a Russian move towards cleaner fuel – albeit still a fossil fuel  – is an important step. While the Clean Arctic Alliance recognise LNG as a transitional fuel for the Arctic, we believe that is in the interest of the global shipping industry to decarbonise entirely. DNV-GL’s Energy Transition Outlook 2018, released this week,  has called for “carbon robust ships, and states that “decarbonization will be one of the megatrends that will shape the maritime industry over the next decades, especially in light of the new IMO greenhouse gas strategy” – and has found that fossil fuel demand will peak globally around 2023.

At October’s MEPC73, we’re also asking member states to renew their commitment to making the Arctic HFO free, while pressing the naysayers and fence-sitters to think again . Getting the international politics right is key – but we need brave shipping industry leaders to bring pressure to bear national governments, and to drive the momentum towards a HFO Free Arctic.

Dave Walsh is Communications Advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, made up of not-for-profit organisations committed to a ban on use of HFO as marine fuel in the Arctic.

First published on the shipping news website Splash 24/7 on 13/9/2018

  Which Shipping Companies Are Ready for the Coming Arctic Heavy Fuel Oil Ban? was originally published on Dave Walsh

[coldrealitycampaigns]

Doing Comms: What does a Communications Advisor Do All Day?

Photo: Shadows from the Tailenguak Cliffs fall on Iceberg from Humboldt Glacier, Kane Basin, Nares Straight, Greenland.© Dave Walsh – More details

  I do comms and strategy. That is, I write and communicate, mostly on environmental campaigns and science issues, as well devising ways to help organisations achieve their ambitions. As people – friends, family, even clients – are often perplexed as to what this involves, I thought I’d have a go at actually communicating about what I do all day.

When I say action, I’m not necessarily demanding that everyone takes to the streets – but I do want pressure where it can foment change – ideally for the better- ideally one for the better. If it helps contribute to a narrative that needs pushing in the right direction (“we need to end fossil fuel use”, “the EU must end overfishing”, “plastic bags are bad for the environment” etc.) that’s good. If a policymaker or company executive feels the weight of media – and by extension, public – pressure from a story, even better. If they digest, consider and then act to do the right thing – job done.

But wait. Before all that there’s the strategy, a way of setting course for an ambitious but reachable destination, supplied with whatever time and resources are available – ideally to stop a bad thing happening, or to kick start a process that will do some good in the world.

To get the results that an organisation or campaign needs, like get a ban on something at the forthcoming international meeting; X percent reduction in carbon emissions by Y date; or convince company A to end doing something bad by date B, a range of activities need to be wheeled out.

Every situation is different – but it may include lobbying of politicians and bureaucrats, enabling citizens through petitions and protests, and getting press coverage. Making sure a story is spread throughout national, international and social media not only helps highlight a problem, but can encourage ordinary people, business leaders and policy makers that change can and will happen, through determination and harnessing of political will. By taking political discourse into the public sphere, decision makers – such as a reluctant government minister – can realise that the cat is out of the bag – a matter previously discussed only in rarefied political environments is now in the public domain, and has to be faced up to – and ideally dealt with. So they might as well be part of the solution.

The communications that drive this kind of political change or broader scientific understanding must not only be clear, and ethically and scientifically rock-solid, they must illustrate the overall  importance and political, national or other context of the issue, in language that non-experts can understand. The signal can be honed and polished, but the message must never be be lost or dumbed-down. There’s a knack to layering information so that a reader, viewer or listener can learn about a subject, while they’re consuming the story.

#HFOFreeArctic

In April, I visited the International Maritime Organization’s Headquarters in London (IMO), the UN body that governs global shipping, for a meeting of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC72). Amongst the issues on the agenda was a proposal to ban heavy fuel oil (HFO) – the world’s dirtiest transportation fuel – from Arctic shipping. I was there as communications advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of 18 NGOs campaigning for a ban on HFO.

Pancake Ice and floes – on Arctic Sea Ice, Fram Strait, between Greenland and Svalbard, September 2009. In August 2012, Arctic sea ice hit a record minimum – this will affect weather and the global climate, as the ice cap reflects much of the sun’s solar energy back into to space. With sea ice melting away, the dark water below absorbs more solar energy, which in turn causes more melting.

  The challenge of illustrating the environmental risks posed by an Arctic shipping disaster is relatively easy. It’s not difficult to conjure up images of the cataclysmic outcome of thousands of tonnes of black oil spreading across an ocean, clinging to sea ice and icebergs.

Telling the story of how burning fossil fuels in the Arctic accelerates the ice melt is more complex, but at least can be visualised. Imagine black carbon particles, puffed out of ship exhausts, before falling on snow and ice. Instead of bouncing the solar radiation back into space, this black stuff absorbs the heat of the sun, melting the ice and exposing the dark waters below, which in turn absorbs yet more heat, which warms up the ocean even more, melts more ice, and potentially opening up more routes for yet shipping.

The fix for this is cinch. Ban ships from carrying and burning HFO in the Arctic.

However, the path to achieve this fix is not so straightforward, and hard to explain (never mind tweet). When someone – say, a journalist, or a friend – asks me about how to get a ban on HFO, do they really want to hear jargon-packed monolog on how “the IMO first needs to agree on setting forth on a work plan regarding the mitigation of the risks of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic, then it goes to the scientific committee and…”

Are you still reading?

When I started helping develop communications around the need to ban heavy fuel oil back in 2016, it was necessary to find a balance between broadly communicating the risks around the very real potential of an Arctic oil spill, focussing on the technical aspects of regulatory and economic outcomes of a ban to shipping media, and convincing environmental journalists that the ban is both necessary and politically achievable.

To do this, I have had to pull the HFO issue out of the rarefied environment of the IMO into public discourse, so that it could be discussed in shipping, environmental and Arctic media not just as a nice to have (that we might phase it out) but as a must have – then continuing the discussion so that the inevitability of a ban becomes rooted in people’s minds. Decision-makers and their advisors – hopefully – come to see the ban, not as some weird fringe topic being wielded by a bunch of polar-bear-loving-hippies, but as a win-win solution; as something achievable, politically desirable and quite simply, a good thing.

This time last year, we could talk about a “phase out” of HFO from the Arctic – any mention of a ban was unpalatable politically, or within the shipping world. But by July 2017, when IMO member states supported “a proposal to identify measures which will mitigate the risks posed by the use of heavy fuel in Arctic waters”, the idea of a ban starting becoming relatively mainstream. When national governments begin to make stronger demands than NGOs, you know you’re on to something.

The discourse – with help from the network of organisations that make up the Clean Arctic Alliance, and progressive elements within national governments and the shipping industry – transformed from “this can’t be done” to “a phase out is possible”, to “a ban is the best way to mitigate the effects of HFO in the Arctic to, finally, “a ban is the only way forward”.

Before the April meeting, the HFO ban was proposed by Finland, Germany, Iceland, Norway, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the US. During the meeting, supported for the ban came from Australia, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Estonia, Ireland, Japan, the League of Arab States, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK.

I can’t claim that all of these countries support a ban on heavy fuel oil from the Arctic simply because they read a quote from us, but I do believe that our communications work helped pave the way. Perhaps it was just the right time – a HFO ban was discussed a meeting when IMO member states were debating ways to start cleaning the shipping industry’s greenhouse gas emissions, and our team was busy talking to country representatives during the coffee breaks.  Perhaps they were persuaded by the scientists, campaigners, shipping industry representatives and indigenous leaders who spoke up – and spoke strongly in favour of a HFO ban during the two well-attended side events at the IMO, not least Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an environmental, cultural and human rights advocate from Canada, who delivered a powerful and moving speech:

“Everyone benefits from a frozen Arctic and that everything is connected and we can no longer separate the importance and value of the Arctic from the sustainable growth of economies around the world. Everything is connected through our common atmosphere, not to mention our common spirit and humanity. What affects another, affects us all. We know that as the Arctic melts, other places such as the Small Island Developing States are sinking.”

Read more in our blog about the heavy fuel oil ban – The World’s Dirtiest Fuel will be Banned from Arctic Shipping. Here’s How – By Sian Prior and Dave Walsh

Dave Walsh is an communications and strategy consultant based in Barcelona. He advises a number of campaigns and institutions, including the Clean Arctic Alliance and Our Fish, and is board member of The Arctic Institute.  

  Doing Comms: What does a Communications Advisor Do All Day? was originally published on Dave Walsh