Who Can Ban Scrubber Discharges? IMO Must Decide

As the number of scrubber-equipped ships grows, the IMO's Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response is set to address the increasingly fraught issue of scrubber wash-water discharges when it meets in January 2027. At the centre of the debate is whether to amend Marpol Annex VI to allow Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas to independently decide on bans, or to leave the decision with the IMO. Two opposing submissions are already before the committee, reflecting sharply divergent industry and regulatory views.

 

The Central Question

 

The IMO faces a fraught decision. Its pollution sub-committee will meet in January 2027. It must address scrubber discharges. This concerns wash-water from these systems. The issue has grown increasingly contentious.

The core question concerns authority. It is whether to amend a Marpol annex. This would let sensitive areas decide bans. The alternative leaves the decision with the IMO. This distinction is central to the debate.

 

The Scientific Backdrop

 

A study informs the debate. An NGO study is before the sub-committee. It claims scrubbers are less clean than thought. These systems remove sulphur and particulates. This allows burning cheaper heavy fuel.

The study raised environmental concerns. It agreed scrubbers reduce sulphur emissions. Yet it found other emissions higher. These include CO2 and particulates. Wash water also discharged acidified waste with heavy metals.

 

The Two Submissions

 

Two submissions are before the committee. One opposes a fixed ban mechanism. The other strongly favours it. The latter would allow near-automatic bans. This would bypass IMO approval.

The submissions reflect opposing views. One camp wants case-by-case decisions. The other wants a standard framework. These positions are sharply divergent. They frame the coming debate.

 

Read More: https://oceaneconomist.com/articles/hercules-star-seafarer-death-uae

 

The Case Against Standardisation

 

Industry bodies oppose a standard mechanism. These include shipping councils and associations. They raise several objections. One is that it removes IMO authority. It would give this to sensitive areas.

They cite further concerns. Compliant ships could face new rules. This would nullify scrubber investments. A mechanism would also depart from established procedures. They argue APMs should stay case-by-case.

 

The Case for Amendment

 

The EU firmly favours amendment. All 27 member states support it. The European Commission joins them. They argue the case is largely proved. They cite ample scientific material.

They stress the need for clarity. Over 45 countries have applied restrictions. This has created confusion. They want a uniform framework. They believe amending the annex is the right approach.

 

The Growing Context

 

The debate occurs amid a growing fleet. Scrubber-equipped ships have skyrocketed. Nearly 7,000 ships now have them. These are mostly bulk carriers and tankers. Discharge volumes are rising steadily.

Bans are also mounting. Several Scandinavian nations have prohibited discharges. A North-East Atlantic convention will follow. Campaign groups continue to press the issue. They warn discharges seriously affect marine life.