E

4 ALBERT EMBANKMENT
LONDON SE1 7SR
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7735 7611 Fax: +44 (0)20 7587 3210

MEPC.1/Circ.811
13 June 2013

GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATING THE 2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE CONTROL

AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS' BIOFOULING TO MINIMIZE
THE TRANSFER OF INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its sixty-fifth session

(13 to 17 May 2013), approved the Guidance for evaluating the 2011 Guidelines for the control
and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species
(see MEPC 65/22, paragraph 11.14), developed by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and
Gases at its seventeenth session (4 to 8 February 2013), as set out in the annex.

2 Member Governments are invited to bring the circular to the attention of all parties
concerned.

***

I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\811.doc
 MEPC.1/Circ.811
Annex, page 1

ANNEX

GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATING THE 2011 GUIDELINES FOR THE CONTROL

AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS' BIOFOULING TO MINIMIZE
THE TRANSFER OF INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

1 Context

1.1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), at its sixty-second session,
adopted, by resolution MEPC.207(62), the 2011 Guidelines for the control and management of
ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species, (the Guidelines). The aim
of the Guidelines is to provide a globally consistent approach to managing biofouling
by providing useful recommendations on general measures to minimize the risks associated
with biofouling for all types of ships.

1.2 MEPC 62 requested that members take urgent action in applying the Guidelines,
including: disseminating the Guidelines to the shipping industry and other interested parties,
taking the Guidelines into account when adopting measures to minimize the risk of introducing
invasive aquatic species via biofouling, and reporting to the MEPC on any experience gained in
their implementation. MEPC agreed to keep the Guidelines under review based on experience
gained in their implementation. This would include consideration as to whether the voluntary
Guidelines are effective in influencing biofouling management practices.

1.3 This Guidance is provided to assist Member States and observers who wish to collect
information needed to undertake future reviews of the Guidelines, and to do this in a more
consistent way. The Guidance identifies the types of performance measures (section 3) that
could help to assist in evaluating the different recommendations in the Guidelines. A party
wishing to collect information may do so for all or only some of these measures.

1.4 It is anticipated that the information needed to review the Guidelines could be collected
by Member States and/or observers and submitted to the appropriate Sub-Committee.

2 Evaluation process

2.1 A process for evaluating the information collected could include annual reviews of the
implementation of the Guidelines by the Sub-Committee with a more comprehensive review
undertaken after the Guidelines have been in place for five years. The first review of available
information could occur in a meeting of the Sub-Committee in early 2014 with a more
comprehensive review at a meeting of the Sub-Committee in early 2017. It may also be useful
to take stock of available information at year three (2015) to determine whether sufficient
information is likely to be available to undertake a more comprehensive review after five years.
If it is determined that further information is likely to be required, the Sub-Committee could
actively encourage collection of the necessary information. The proposed process is further
detailed in the appendix.

The focus of the review is likely to change over time. Initially the information available is likely to
be on the level of dissemination and awareness of the Guidelines: whether there are any
impediments (including omissions and errors) to the implementation of the Guidelines that need
to be addressed and evidence of early implementation, e.g. use of biofouling management plans
and record books or in-water inspection. In subsequent reviews, the focus could shift more
towards evaluating the extent and level of implementation and evidence of change in the extent
of biofouling on ships. New research and/or technology developments related to the Guidelines
would be relevant for all reviews. If, as a result of the review, modifications to the Guidelines are
considered necessary, the Sub-Committee could recommend these to the MEPC.

I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\811.doc
MEPC.1/Circ.811
Annex, page 2

2.2 The comprehensive review of all available information at year five could help determine
whether the Guidelines are having sufficient impact on biofouling management using the
performance measures outlined in this guidance. If the Guidelines are determined to have
sufficient impact, they could continue to be implemented in their current form with
the Sub-Committee determining the nature and regularity of ongoing reviews. If the Guidelines,
or elements of the Guidelines, are determined to have insufficient impact the Sub-Committee
could provide advice to MEPC on whether other actions may need to be taken to enhance the
effectiveness of the Guidelines in preventing the transfer of invasive aquatic species.

3 Performance measures

3.1 Performance measures can help to evaluate whether the 2011 Guidelines for the
control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species
are improving biofouling management practice in the maritime industry, and thereby reducing the
likelihood of invasive aquatic species being transferred through ships' biofouling. It is not
considered feasible at this time to directly measure the environmental benefits of the Guidelines,
i.e. to assess whether the Guidelines result in fewer biological invasions by aquatic species as a
result of transfer via biofouling of ships.

3.2 The following types of performance measures could be used to help evaluate the
different recommendations in the Guidelines:

.1 Awareness and dissemination of the Guidelines – have the Guidelines been

disseminated to relevant parties and are they aware of the Guidelines?

.2 Impediments to implementation of the Guidelines – are there any omissions

and errors with the Guidelines that need to be corrected and/or are
appropriate facilities and tools available to effectively implement
the Guidelines?

.3 Application of the Guidelines – is there evidence of use of the Guidelines?

.4 Change in level of biofouling – is there evidence of changes in the level of

biofouling from in-water or dry-dock inspections and/or data on the net
benefits from managing biofouling?

.5 Extent of research and development – what research and technology

development, related to the Guidelines, is available?

3.3 Performance measures for the different components of the Guidelines are outlined
in table 1. Each performance measure consists of the criteria being considered, an indicator
for the criteria and a goal that the Guidelines are trying to achieve. Note that the "Year(s)"
column in table 1 refers to the year following implementation when information is likely to be
available for the relevant performance measure. Table 2 outlines a questionnaire that could be
used to provide a uniform, but voluntary, approach to collecting information.

3.4 In collecting information for performance measures it is useful to collect information not
only on progress towards the specified goal but also information on why a particular goal is or is
not being achieved. This would help the Sub-Committee to determine if actions, such as
modifying the Guidelines, are required.

3.5 The high level goal across all performance measures is to see an increase in the
uptake of the recommendations of the Guidelines over time.

I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\811.doc
 MEPC.1/Circ.811
Annex, page 3

Table 1: Performance measures

Part 1: Awareness and dissemination of the Guidelines

Criteria Indicator Goal Year(s)
1.1 The Guidelines, or Number and Most Member Year 1
communications based on proportion of Member States and Year 2
the Guidelines, have been States and Recognized
disseminated to: shipowners and Recognized Organizations have
operators and shipping agents; Organizations that disseminated the
maintenance/recycling facility have disseminated the Guidelines or
owners and operators; in-water Guidelines or communications
inspection and cleaning service communications based on the
providers; ship designers, naval based on the Guidelines.
architects and builders; anti-fouling Guidelines.
coating companies; Harbour
Masters; and organizations
involved in maritime/seafarer
education and training.
1.2 The following are known to be Number and Most ships/ Year 1
aware of, and understand the proportion of facilities are aware Year 2
Guidelines: shipowners and ships/facilities/etc. that of the Guidelines.
operators and shipping agents; are known to be
maintenance/recycling facility aware of the
owners and operators; in-water Guidelines.
inspection and cleaning service
providers; ship designers, naval
architects and builders; anti-fouling
coating companies; Harbour
Masters; and organizations
involved in maritime/seafarer
education and training.
1.3 Biofouling management is known Number and Most relevant Year 2
to be included in relevant training proportion of known programmes Year 3
and education programmes for: relevant training and include biofouling
shipowners and operators and education management
shipping agents; programmes that content.
maintenance/recycling facility include biofouling
owners and operators; in-water management content.
inspection and cleaning providers;
ship designers, naval architects
and builders; anti-fouling coating
companies; Harbour Masters; and
organizations involved in
maritime/seafarer education and
training.
1.4 Member States are notifying the Information related to Member States and Year 3
Organization of other measures other biofouling the maritime Year 4
being applied for biofouling management industry are aware
management. For example, measures being of other biofouling
national regulations or emergency applied by Member management
measures. States is being measures being
provided to, and undertaken by IMO
disseminated by, the Member States.
Organization.

I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\811.doc
 MEPC.1/Circ.811
Annex, page 4

Part 2 Impediments to implementation of the Guidelines

Criteria Indicator Goal Year(s)
2.1 The Guidelines can be Feasibility issues, Feasibility issues, Year 1
implemented by: shipowners and omissions and errors omissions and Year 2
operators; maintenance/recycling are identified in the errors are Year 3
facilities; in-water inspection and use of the Guidelines. addressed in the
cleaning providers; and ship review and revision
designers, naval architects and of the Guidelines.
builders. Number and Availability of Year 1
proportion of facilities and tools Year 2
ships/facilities/etc. that addressed through Year 3
have indicated lack of market demand Year 4
facilities or tools as and research
reasons for not initiatives.
aligning their practices
with the Guidelines.
2.2 Use of the Guidelines does not Any safety issues or Safety issues are Year 2
present a safety issue for: ship's concerns raised by addressed in the Year 3
crew; maintenance and recycling use of the Guidelines review and revision
workers; in-water service are identified in the of the Guidelines.
providers; and any other entities use of the Guidelines.
directly applying the Guidelines.

Part 3 Application of the Guidelines

Criteria Indicator Goal Year(s)
3.1 Ships have biofouling Number and Most ships have Year 1
management plans and are proportion of ships biofouling Year 2
maintaining biofouling record known to have management plans
books or equivalent biofouling and record books.
documentation. management plans
and maintaining
biofouling
management record
books.
3.2 Ships are conducting the following Number and Most ships are Year 2
activities in line with the proportion of ships conducting in-water Year 3
Guidelines: known to be inspections, and
- in-water inspections conducting in-water in-water cleaning,
- in-water cleaning, if inspections and, if appropriate.
appropriate. if appropriate, in-water
cleaning.
3.3 Facilities are adopting appropriate Number and Most facilities have Year 2
measures for capture of waste. proportion of facilities adopted Year 3
that have waste appropriate waste
capture measures in capture measures.
place aligned with the
Guidelines.

I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\811.doc
 MEPC.1/Circ.811
Annex, page 5

Part 3 Application of the Guidelines

Criteria Indicator Goal Year(s)
3.4 The following are known to have Evidence that Most ships, Year 2
practices that follow, or are practices follow, or are facilities, etc. are Year 3
aligned with, the Guidelines: substantially aligned implementing the Year 4
shipowners and operators and with the Guidelines. Guidelines.
shipping agents;
maintenance/recycling facility
owners and operators; in-water
inspection and cleaning providers;
ship designers, naval architects
and builders; anti-fouling coating
companies; and organizations
involved in maritime/seafarer
education and training.
3.5 In-water cleaning technologies are Number and In-water Year 2
able to capture most of the availability of in-water technologies, able Year 3
macrofouling debris from in-water cleaning technologies to capture most of
cleaning. that incorporate the macrofouling
capture of debris for debris, are widely
all ship types. available and
sufficient to meet
demand.
3.6 The Guidelines are being taken Whether other All other biofouling Year 2
into account by Member States biofouling measures management Year 3
that apply other measures for take into account the measures take into
biofouling management. For Guidelines. account the
example, national regulations or Guidelines.
emergency measures.

Part 4 Change in level of biofouling

Criteria Indicator Goal Year(s)
4.1 Ships are maintaining submerged Number and Most ships, Year 3
surfaces and internal seawater proportion of ships adhering to the
cooling systems in accordance known to have Guidelines, have
with the Guidelines to ensure they submerged hull submerged hull
are as free of biofouling as is surfaces that are as surfaces as free of
practical. free of biofouling as is biofouling as is
practical. practical.
Number and Most ships,
proportion of ships adhering to the
known to have niche Guidelines have
areas and internal niche areas and
seawater cooling internal seawater
systems that are as cooling systems as
free of biofouling as is free of biofouling
practical. as is practical.
The effectiveness of The effectiveness Year 3
control measures of measures is Year 4
applied are evaluated verified.
at dry dock.

I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\811.doc
 MEPC.1/Circ.811
Annex, page 6

Part 4 Change in level of biofouling

Criteria Indicator Goal Year(s)
Net costs attributable Net costs Year 2
to implementing the attributable to Year 3
Guidelines (i.e. cost implementing the
minus benefit, Guidelines are
e.g. reduced fuel understood.
consumption) as a %
of total operating
costs.
4.2 Indirect or consequential benefits Any known indirect or Indirect or Year 3
obtained from implementing the consequential benefits consequential
Guidelines. (such as proven benefits of
reduced GHG implementing the
emissions or improved Guidelines are
energy efficiency) understood.
from the use of the
recommendations in
the Guidelines.

Part 5 Research and Development

Criteria Indicator Goal Year(s)
5.1 Research and development of Information on Current status of Year 1
technologies to improve biofouling research and research and Year 2
management is being undertaken. technology technology Year 3
development, relevant development, Year 4
to the Guidelines, can relevant to the
be identified. Guidelines, is
understood.

5.2 Research into the indirect or Research into indirect Indirect or Year 3
consequential benefits of or consequential consequential Year 4
implementing the Guidelines is benefits of benefits of
being undertaken. implementing the implementing the
Guidelines can be Guidelines are
identified. understood.

4 Performance measure questionnaire

4.1 These questions are provided as guidance for those who may be interested in
collecting information on the implementation of the biofouling Guidelines. It is recognized that
not all those using the questionnaire will have authority or linkages with all listed audiences.

4.2 The purpose of this voluntary questionnaire is to gather information regarding the
implementation of the Guidelines based on the respondent's experience. Specifically, the
respondent is asked to provide information regarding a range of issues that include but are not
limited to: the clarity of the Guidelines, dissemination and inspection strategies, educational
products, inspection, biofouling management plans, etc. The respondent's information will be
used to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures within the Guidelines for the control and
management of ships' biofouling.

4.3 Where relevant and if possible, additional details and quantitative data should be
provided rather than simply yes/no answers.

I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\811.doc
 MEPC.1/Circ.811
Annex, page 7

Table 2: Questionnaire for data collection

Question Audience
Have you disseminated the Guidelines, or communications Member States
based on the Guidelines, to relevant parties including:
shipowners and operators and shipping agents;
maintenance/recycling facility owners and operators;
in-water inspection and cleaning service providers; ship
designers, naval architects and builders; anti-fouling
coating companies; Harbour Masters; and organizations
involved in maritime/seafarer education and training?
Response (additional comment/explanation)
Question Audiences
Are you aware of the Guidelines? Shipowners and operators and
Is the information in the Guidelines clear? shipping agents; maintenance/
recycling facility owners and
operators; in-water inspection
and cleaning service providers;
ship designers, naval architects
and builders; anti-fouling coating
companies; Harbour Masters;
organizations involved in
maritime/seafarer education
and training; recognized
organizations.
Response (if not clear, please provide details)
Question Audience
Are you aware of any information being included in Member States.
relevant educational programmes?
Response (if yes, please provide details)
Question Audience
Have you developed biofouling management measures Member States.
in addition to the Guidelines, e.g. national regulations?
Are these measures based on the Guidelines?
Has this additional information been provided to IMO?
Response (please provide details)
Question Audiences
Are there any feasibility issues, omissions or errors that Shipowners and operators;
have meant that the Guidelines are difficult to maintenance/recycling facilities;
implement? in-water inspection and cleaning
providers; ship designers, naval
architects and builders;
recognized organizations.
Response (if yes, please provide details)
Question Audiences
Are facilities and/or tools available to support the Shipowners and operators;
implementation of the Guidelines? maintenance/recycling facilities;
in-water inspection and cleaning
providers; and ship designers,
naval architects and builders;
recognized organizations.
Response (please provide details)

I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\811.doc
MEPC.1/Circ.811
Annex, page 8

Question Audiences
Have any safety issues been identified in implementing Ship's crew; maintenance and
the Guidelines? recycling workers; in-water
service providers; and any other
entities directly applying the
Guidelines.
Response (if no, please provide details)
Question Audience
Are ships developing biofouling management plans and Member States; Shipowners and
maintaining their biofouling record books? operators.
Response (please provide details)

Question Audiences
Are you undertaking in-water inspections and in-water Shipowners and operators and
cleaning? shipping agents; maintenance/
Are these activities in line with the Guidelines? recycling facility owners and
operators; and in-water inspection
and cleaning service providers.
Response (please provide details)
Question Audience
Does your facility capture hull cleaning waste to minimize Maintenance/recycling facility
the risk of it entering the water? owners and operators.
Response (please provide details)
Question Audiences
Do your practices follow, or align with, the Guidelines? Shipowners and operators and
shipping agents; maintenance/
recycling facility owners and
operators; in-water inspection and
cleaning providers; ship
designers, naval architects and
builders anti-fouling coating
companies; and organizations
involved in maritime/seafarer
education and training.
Response (please provide details)

Question Audience
Is your in-water cleaning technology able to capture most In-water inspection and cleaning
of the macrofouling debris from in-water cleaning? providers.
Response (please provide details)
Question Audience
Are the submerged hull surfaces of ships as free of Member States; maintenance/
biofouling as is feasible? recycling facility owners and
operators; anti-fouling coating
Have you seen a decrease over time in the amount of companies.
biofouling on submerged hull surfaces?
Response (please provide details)
Question Audience
Are the niche areas and internal seawater cooling Member States; maintenance/
systems of ships as free of biofouling as is feasible? recycling facility owners and
operators; anti-fouling coating
Have you seen a decrease over time in the amount of companies .
biofouling in niche areas and internal seawater cooling
systems of ships?
Response (please provide details)

I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\811.doc
 MEPC.1/Circ.811
Annex, page 9

Question Audiences
Have you collected information about the effectiveness of Member States; shipowners and
specific measures in the Guidelines through dry dock operators; and maintenance/
inspections of ships? recycling facility owners and
operators.
Response (please provide details)
Question Audience
Do you have any information on the direct or indirect Shipowners and operators.
benefits associated with implementing with the
Guidelines, e.g. reduced fuel consumption as a % of total
operating costs?
Response (if yes, please provide details)
Question Audience
Do you have any information on the additional costs Member States; and shipowners
associated with implementing the Guidelines? and operators.
Response (if yes, please provide details)
Question Audiences
Are you aware of any research and/or development of Member States; organizations
technologies to improve biofouling management? involved in maritime/seafarer
education and training; and
research organizations.
Response (if yes, please provide details)
Question Audiences
Are you aware of any research into indirect or Member States; organizations
consequential benefits of implementing the Guidelines? involved in maritime/seafarer
education and training; and
research organizations.
Response (if yes, please provide details)

***

I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\811.doc
MEPC.1/Circ.811
Annex, page 10

APPENDIX: AN OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS

Awareness of Impediments to Application of Reduction in Research and

Guidelines implementation Guidelines level of Development
biofouling
Revision of
Sub-Committee to review information from Member States and observers on level of dissemination and Guidelines, if
awareness, impediments to implementation, extent of implementation, and evidence of reduced necessary
biofouling

Sub-Committee or MEPC decision to undertake review depending on level of information available on

the implementation and effectiveness of the Guidelines

Comprehensive review:
To determine if the Guidelines are sufficiently influencing biofouling management practices and
therefore reducing the risk of transfer of invasive aquatic species

Action:
If impact is considered sufficient Guidelines remain under review.
If impact is considered insufficient then advise MEPC of possible alternative actions that may be
considered to improve the control of biofouling on ships

___________

I:\CIRC\MEPC\01\811.doc