Home โ€บ Shipping News โ€บ Environmental Groups Urge IMO To Reject Toxic At-Sea Ammonia Discharge From Ships

Environmental Groups Urge IMO To Reject Toxic At-Sea Ammonia Discharge From Ships

ammonia ship
Image for representation purposes only

A group of environmental and technology NGOs is urging the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to reject emerging proposals that would allow ships to routinely discharge ammonia at sea. Instead, the group is calling for a simpler safeguard: retain ammonia effluent onboard and offload it at port reception facilitiesโ€“so shipping can cut pollution without adding a new source of toxic marine pollution.

The statement follows a week of discussions at the IMOโ€™s Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) Sub-Committee in London (9โ€“13 February), where governments, for the first time, considered approaches to managing ammonia effluent generated from ammonia-fueled ships.

โ€œShipping needs to decarbonize fast, and green ammonia could play an important role,โ€ said Dr James Kershaw, Scientific Officer at Opportunity Green. โ€œBut we must not reduce climate pollution while normalizing ocean discharge of toxic waste. The IMO must ensure green fuels are adopted with safeguards that protect marine ecosystems, coastal communities, and seafarers.โ€

What is ammonia effluent โ€” and why it matters

Ammonia gas is extremely toxic and harmful to human health. On ammonia-fueled ships, leftover ammonia gas (for example, when crews purge fuel lines during routine operations) must be captured and contained, often by absorbing it into water. This produces a high-strength liquid waste known as ammonia effluent.

At PPR this week, some Member States discussed a framework that would allow conditional discharge of ammonia effluent into the ocean if certain operational and dilution conditions are met.

NGOs warn: focusing only on short-term toxicity misses bigger risks

Supporters of discharge argue that sufficient dilution can avoid immediate harmful effects on marine life. But the group cautions thatโ€™s only one part of the environmental risk:

Chronic, long-term impacts from repeated low-level exposure are an evidence gap that short-duration studies cannot resolve, and more research is urgently needed.

Discharging ammonia introduces reactive nitrogen pollution to marine environments, contributing to eutrophication, oxygen depletion, and ocean acidificationโ€”pressures already straining ocean health.

In a fully decarbonized maritime future, 35โ€“50% of ships are projected to run on green ammonia. If tens of thousands of vessels are periodically discharging ammonia waste, โ€œconditional dischargeโ€ could quickly become routine, with consequences that are still unknown for long-term ocean health.

โ€œThe nitrogen cycle is already beyond safe planetary boundariesโ€”we cannot afford to normalize another source of reactive nitrogen pollution as shipping decarbonizes. The industry has an opportunity to get ammonia fuel right from the start by retaining waste onboard and landing it ashore, rather than defaulting to ocean discharge. This isnโ€™t just about toxicityโ€”itโ€™s about preventing further disruption to a critical planetary system thatโ€™s already under stress,โ€ said Dr Lucy Gilliam, Co-executive Director of One Planet Port.

The alternative: retain onboard, offload in port, and enable reuse

NGOs urge the IMO to adopt a precautionary approach that prohibits discharge at sea and instead requires ships to retain ammonia effluent onboard and offload it at port reception facilitiesโ€”where it could be reused by other ammonia users, such as the chemical or fertilizer industries, supporting a circular economy.

The group also calls for the IMO to ensure decisions are based on transparent evidence. Concerns have been raised that exclusive shore disposal could be burdensome, but the NGOs note that cost and storage impacts must be quantified, and available examples suggest effluent volumes from routine operations may be small relative to ship capacity. It is vitally important that the IMO considers the various options for fully managing ammonia effluent, including quantifying the full range of challenges and risks associated with each.

NGOs call on IMO Member States to:

  • Prohibit routine or conditional discharge of ammonia effluent at sea, consistent with the precautionary principle.
  • Ensure guidelines address long-term, chronic ecosystem impacts and the broader consequences of reactive nitrogen pollutionโ€”not only acute toxicity.
  • Advance a global pathway for onboard retention and port offloading, paired with coordinated scaling of port reception facilities.
  • Establish a transparent, science-based work program through PPR14 and beyond to close key evidence gaps and deliver enforceable measures.

โ€œThe ocean should not be a testing ground for routine disposal of toxic ammonia waste,โ€ said Marie Cabbia Hubatova, Director, Global Shipping at Environmental Defense Fund. โ€œThe risks go beyond short-term toxicity to long-term ecosystem damage and added pressure on a global nitrogen cycle that is already out of balance. Until these impacts are fully understood, the precautionary principle demands a strict prohibition on discharge at sea and a clear requirement for onboard retention and unloading at ports.โ€

โ€œAmmonia cannot become shippingโ€™s next pollution problem. Real climate action starts with cutting shipsโ€™ energy demand through efficiency and wind propulsion. If ammonia is used, its waste must stay out of the sea. Ocean health quite simply cannot be collateral damage,โ€ said Anaรฏs Rios, Senior Shipping Policy Officer and Clean Shipping Coalition Board Member.

โ€œShippingโ€™s fuel transition is a chance to reduce harm to the ocean,โ€ said Madadh MacLaine, Secretary General of ZESTAs. โ€œIndustry first movers stand ready to enable that transition, but this opportunity will be missed if the lowest-cost option becomes the default. The IMO must set clear regulations, pre-deployment.โ€

โ€œThe fuel transition must be both fast and durable. Pathways that shift risk from the atmosphere to the ocean will ultimately slow deployment by eroding public trust. Getting ammonia right from the start is how we ensure zero-emission fuels scale globally,โ€ said Davina Hurt, California policy director with Pacific Environment.

Press Release

Disclaimer :
The information on this website is for general purposes only. While efforts are made to ensure accuracy, we make no warranties of any kind regarding completeness, reliability, or suitability. Any reliance you place on such information is at your own risk. We are not liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of this website.

Disclaimer :
The information on this website is for general purposes only. While efforts are made to ensure accuracy, we make no warranties of any kind regarding completeness, reliability, or suitability. Any reliance you place on such information is at your own risk. We are not liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of this website.

Subscribe To Our Daily Newsletter

    By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy  you can unsubscribe anytime.