Biofouling Regulation After MEPC 83: What Comes Next And Why it Matters Now

The 83rd session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 83) marked a turning point for biofouling regulation. For years, the issue has remained below the surface, literally and figuratively. Now, with formal agreement to develop a legally binding global framework, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has elevated biofouling from a guideline-driven concern to a central regulatory priority.

At the center of this effort is Dr. Anita Mäkinen, Chair of the IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response Sub-Committee (PPR). As the body now tasked with drafting the new framework and presenting it for adoption by the MEPC, the PPR will play a critical role in shaping the future of global biofouling regulation. Dr. Mäkinen’s leadership and perspective are central to turning this mandate into an enforceable reality.

“Our globe is suffering from two major environment crises: loss of biodiversity and climate change, which are also, unfortunately, interlinked developments,” Dr. Mäkinen explains. “A legally binding biofouling framework would protect marine biodiversity by reducing significantly the spreading risk of hull-attached invasive alien species. In addition, biofouling management is efficient way to reduce a ship’s green-house-gas emissions”

The road ahead will not be simple. But the direction is now clear.

Four milestones to 2029

The decision at MEPC 83 represents the first milestone in a four-stage process. As Dr. Mäkinen outlines, the goal is to have a full regulatory instrument adopted by 2029. The journey begins with formalizing the work programme, followed by decisions on the legal structure, the development of technical content, and finally, ratification by IMO member states.

Work will begin in earnest at the thirteenth session of the PPR Sub-Committee (PPR 13) in 2026. Between now and then, the scope and format of the new instrument should be considered and clarified. One option under consideration is a standalone convention. Another is to incorporate the new rules under an existing instrument, such as the Ballast Water Management Convention. The choice of format will shape how enforcement is structured and how quickly the regulation can be implemented.

A particularly demanding phase will be developing the regulation’s technical content. While the existing 2023 biofouling guidelines provide a starting point, they are not seen as sufficient for a legally binding framework. Topics such as ship surveys, inspections, compliance monitoring, certification, and enforcement procedures will need to be defined with far greater clarity.

Dr. Mäkinen stresses that regional conditions must also be accounted for. “Areas such as the Baltic Sea present unique operational challenges,” she notes. “Seasonal constraints and hard ice-resistant coatings are just two examples that need to be considered.”

By 2029, the goal is to have a final instrument ready for adoption. This would trigger a new era of consistent, enforceable global standards for managing biofouling risk.

Operational pressure from early adopters

For some operators, the challenges of biofouling management via regulation are already very real. In countries like New Zealand and Australia, enforcement frameworks are no longer aspirational but active and escalating.

In New Zealand, the Craft Risk Management Standard (CRMS) requires vessels to arrive with clean hulls or face offshore cleaning at their own expense. “This process is weather dependent, expensive, and logistically complex,” notes one representative from 37 South, a yacht agency and Cathelco distributor that supports superyachts entering the country. “Non-compliance adds stress for the crew and financial risk for the owner.”

The consequences are tangible. In the last season alone, 11 cruise ships were flagged for non-compliance and required to divert for offshore cleaning. The resulting impact on itineraries has already led to a projected 42 percent drop in cruise activity for the 2025–2026 season. Local businesses that rely on marine tourism are bracing for a difficult year.

Beyond the economic hit, there is also a growing sense that regional alignment is tightening. “Neighbouring island nations in the South Pacific are adopting similar biosecurity controls,” the 37 South team explains. “It is no longer possible to simply move to another jurisdiction for cleaning. Operators are running out of fallback options.”

In Australia, Bryan Little, General Manager at Marine Plant Systems, has observed a similar tightening of expectations. “There is greater emphasis on transparency, proactive risk management, and accurate pre-arrival reporting,” he says. “Operators need to understand niche areas, cleaning restrictions, and biofouling thresholds that may differ from previous assumptions.”

Shifting from awareness to preparedness

Biofouling has long been viewed as a technical issue, one step removed from core operations. But this view is becoming increasingly risky.

The build-up of organisms on the hull affects far more than appearance. It can increase fuel consumption, cause drag, disrupt voyage planning, and introduce non-native species to sensitive ecosystems. Yet many vessels still rely on periodic cleaning and outdated assumptions about what compliance entails.

“The industry has treated biofouling as a problem to solve after it causes disruption,” the 37 South team points out. “But reactive cleaning is expensive, time-consuming, and often makes the problem worse.”

Both Bryan Little and the New Zealand interviewees note that industry-wide understanding of inspection thresholds remains inconsistent. Some operators assume that light fouling is acceptable, or that coatings alone are enough to ensure compliance. These assumptions do not hold up under modern enforcement. “A little slime doesn’t matter” is one of the most persistent and dangerous myths in circulation.

To avoid future disruptions, the recommended shift is clear. Vessel operators must incorporate biofouling into their planned maintenance systems. That includes maintaining a biofouling record book, performing inspections on a regular schedule, and documenting preventive measures. For international routes, photographic surveys and pre-arrival condition reports can make the difference between smooth entry and costly delay.

Practical preparation, not future speculation

The move from guidelines to regulation is no longer a hypothetical development. With MEPC 83, the direction is now set. And for those operating in high-scrutiny ports, the gap between current practices and future expectations is already closing.

The upcoming regulation will ask more of shipowners. It will ask them to treat biofouling not as a compliance exception but as part of daily operational planning. It will ask them to demonstrate maintenance discipline and record-keeping. It will also expect them to consider regional restrictions when planning itineraries, even for ports where enforcement may not yet be active. And it will ask them to take a more proactive approach, investing in systems, processes, and technologies that support continuous biofouling management as a normal part of vessel operations.

“Transparency with authorities is key,” says the 37 South representative. “When a vessel can show clear inspection history and a structured maintenance plan, the conversations are easier and the outcomes are more predictable.”

For Dr. Mäkinen, the path forward is clear. “My message to shipowners and operators is that the time to include biofouling management as a part of your ship’s everyday operation is already now,” she says. “Prepare and develop a biofouling management plan for your ships and further, keep a biofouling record book.”

As the regulatory framework develops, the window to be an early mover is still open. But it is narrowing. Proactive planning is a prerequisite for access, efficiency, and credibility in an industry that is shifting around its blind spots.