The BIMCO biofouling survey held in 2024 confirmed there is a high level of engagement with biofouling management from shipowners.
Antifouling systems and coating strategies highlight preventative measures are key
Nearly all participants (97%) reported selecting antifouling systems (AFS) based on ship profile and service period. Other common measures include ship-specific Biofouling Management Plans (BMP) (77%), using performance monitoring (77%), and conducting regular inspections (74%). Only 39% of companies considered cost and availability (ie convenience) when selecting AFS, indicating that reliability and longevity remain the primary factor in decision-making on the AFS.
As seen in previous BIMCO surveys, biocidal coatings (e.g. self-polishing copolymer) dominate the market, used by over 80% of respondents, while fouling-release coatings and hybrid coatings are less common. A more concerning statistic was that 14 companies reported at least one AFS-related failure in the past five years—up from only three cases in the 2021 survey. Improper application was identified as the leading cause (78%), followed by environmental conditions (50%) and degradation over time (35%). This, of course, may amount to only a small number of actual failures given the number of ships represented in the survey. This trend highlights the need to gather further information in future surveys.
Cleaning playing a more integral role but with significant challenges
Reactive cleaning remains the dominant cleaning strategy, but proactive cleaning is gaining traction. 12 companies reported using both cleaning approaches, six relied solely on proactive cleaning, and ten on reactive cleaning. Most ships perform the first hull cleaning within three years of AFS application, with a quarter cleaning within one year. This could be interpreted as suggesting a trend toward earlier intervention compared to 2021 as companies strive to realise greater efficiency gains. Propeller polishing is widely practiced, with two-thirds of respondents performing it at least once per year.
Operational and regulatory challenges are present across all cleaning types. Port approvals and regulatory restrictions are the most common barriers to cleaning, especially for proactive cleaning and propeller polishing. Poor weather, high costs, plus limited availability of divers and cleaning companies also feature prominently in the list of problems. Technology readiness and effectiveness (such as robotic systems to be used underway) are currently significant obstacles for proactive cleaning. Crew burden is an emerging issue - averaging 2.33 on a 1–5 scale, with proactive-only cleaning strategies showing the highest workload (2.6) compared to reactive-only (2.0). In-water cleaning between dry-dockings further increases crew burden, underscoring the resource implications of more intensive management regimes.
Industry commitment is strong
The survey highlights strong industry commitment to biofouling management and whilst likely to be driven by economic gains, for example where regular propellor polishing leads to efficiency and fuel savings, the adoption of management measures to prevent fouling of niche areas demonstrates that the reduction of IAS is also of importance to many shipowners. More timely, however, is that the findings reveal some challenges with undertaking biofouling management, which will be necessary to take into consideration when developing any legal-binding framework in the future.
The full report of the survey will be published by the end of 2025.
