VIEWPOINT: Questions Remain Over OSPAR Decision to Restrict Scrubbers

The discharge of washwater from open-loop and hybrid scrubbers is set to be banned at ports and inland waters in the North-East Atlantic region from the middle of 2027. File Image / Pixabay

The recent OSPAR announcement to restrict the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS, or “scrubbers”) in the ports and internal waters of the northeast Atlantic Contracting Parties from 2027 continues to raise important questions in industry about the process and scientific rigor of this decision.

While the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the recognized competent global authority for these systems, OSPAR has acted separately, in spite of internationally agreed IMO standards, and on a scientific basis which appears incomplete and outdated.

We remain concerned by OSPAR's rush to restrict, and the precedence this sets, in the complete absence of any evidence, anywhere, of harm caused by these systems; ships with scrubbers have operated worldwide for more than 50 years without any documented damage to the marine environment. Restricting their use now without a credible demonstrated risk undermines confidence in the decision-making process.

Especially troubling is the reliance on weak scientific foundations. Among others, the 2021 report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), which was heavily referenced by OSPAR, does not provide an adequate basis for such a decision.

For example, there is no original research. 

The ICES report is a literature review only, reaching selectively back 25 years. It contains no new experimental data, field observations, or direct toxicity testing, and ignores credible studies which
conclude scrubbers are no risk to the marine environment.

It uses incomplete and outdated data. The dataset is small, non-representative, with data gaps and inflated values and does not compare with larger, more comprehensive and recent datasets collected during real-world ship operations.

And it relies on toxicology reports using non-standard methods, referencing studies previously criticized by IMO’s GESAMP for failing to follow accepted ISO or EPA protocols.

In contrast, those toxicology tests conducted by others with standard methods and protocols are far more credible and broadly supported.

A critical scientific preview by OSPAR or any OSPAR Contracting Party would have identified these
same shortcomings, and similar ones in other OSPAR references, but this seems absent from the decision process.

Such references fall short of sound science and even combined with use of the “precautionary principle” are not an acceptable basis for restrictions when the scientific capability exists to conduct proper assessments.

As trust from industry follows evidence-based policymaking, it is important that OSPAR member states conduct their own formal risk assessments, with their own scientists, and in their own waters, before implementing any EGCS restrictions.

IMO Guidelines (MEPC.1/Circ.899, 2022) already recommend this, but to date very few assessments have been initiated by OSPAR members.

It’s also important to recognize the breadth of independent scientific work not included in OSPAR’s review, much of which can be accessed via https://cleanshippingalliance2020.org/egcs-studies. A number of data-rich, peer-reviewed studies from reputable sources reinforce the conclusion that scrubber discharges do not represent an environmental risk.

Among them is recent research by Dr Patritsia Stathatou, of MIT and the Georgia Institute of Technology, who notes that: “Claims about environmental hazards and policies to mitigate them should be backed by science. You need to see the data, be objective, and design studies that take into account the full picture to be able to compare different options from an apples-to-apples perspective.”

To responsibly safeguard the marine environment, policies should rest on sound data and standardized research—not selective literature reviews.

In the end the IMO remains the appropriate forum for evaluating EGCS, and to ensure consistent, science-based decisions its processes – not regional initiatives -- should be what guides us forward.