The Cruise Industry Environmental and Sustainability Regulatory Horizon
“The Horizon” / Photo - D. Smith
Here are the environmental and broader sustainability issues I see on the cruise industry regulatory horizon. Some of these issues will be addressed at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) 84 meeting that will occur 27 April to 1 May, 2026 in London.
Issue #1 - Regulation of Ship Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
Land based GHG emissions far exceed ship GHG emissions. Land based GHG emissions are much easier to regulate than ship GHG emissions. Nonetheless, IMO charged ahead with a net zero framework in 2025 even though renewable and low Carbon ship fuels to meet that ambitious goal are not available. The proposed framework included a scheme to collect non-compliance penalties with Small Islands and Developing Nations (SIDS) expecting to be the beneficiaries. The question of who would control that large pile of money was vague at best. The proposed framework was “derailed” at the October 2025 MEPC meeting – some might say that it “crashed and burned.” It will be reconsidered next fall. In the meantime a European Emissions Trading System (ETS) has come into force. It too imposes a fee on GHG emissions and transfers that cash to European states. It is always important to “follow the money.” Once a regulatory system becomes entrenched and governments become dependent on any related income, taking that away from them can be compared to pulling a bone from the mouth of a bulldog. It is hard to fathom the preemption of existing domestic or regional schemes via an IMO global program unless they are somehow incorporated. Some states have submitted MEPC 84 papers aimed at getting rid of the controversial GHG pricing mechanism. Some states refer to this as international “taxation”. The IMO and other member states define it as an economic measure or levy designed for reinvestment into the industry’s transition, rather than a general tax. “Heated” debate is expected. Here are some factors that must be addressed:
Liquified Natural Gas (LNG): While LNG is cleaner burning than both Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) with Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (“EGCS” or “Scrubbers”) and Marine Gas Oil (MGO), methane slip (the release of unburned methane), is a major regulatory concern for the IMO because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. However, LNG is plentiful and available now. There are good reasons in support of a transition from HFO and MGO to LNG. Portions of that LNG could be increasingly generated from biogenic methane sources like trash landfills and sewage and animal wastes.
Biofuels: Biofuels are produced from renewable biological sources, including organic waste such as fats, oils, used cooking grease, and food waste. Biofuels can replace fossil fuels like MGO with significantly reduced GHG emissions on a life-cycle basis. Biofuels can often be used in existing ship engines without modifications; however, they are not currently available worldwide in sufficient quantities to be a viable commercial option. DNV reports “The worldwide availability of marine biofuels is currently extremely limited, meeting less than 1% of global maritime fuel demand. While technically ready as "drop-in" solutions for existing engines, most global biofuel production is currently consumed by the road transport sector.” Nonetheless, marine biofuel bunkering is available in Singapore and Rotterdam. The use of biofuels now, might be more for testing or sustainability perception than as an actual GHG reduction strategy. Biofuel production, transport, and bunkering infrastructure is not in place to support an IMO Net Zero Framework.
Carbon Capture & Storage: Any feasible IMO Net Zero Framework must allow for compliance via Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies that capture CO2 and either store it permanently underground or repurpose it for industrial use. CCS would allow for some continued use of conventional fuels. There are two different approaches to capture. The first is to capture CO2 at the source of emission onboard and the second is to capture the CO2 anywhere on the planet to offset onboard CO2 emissions. Post-combustion capture onboard a ship would use chemical solvents like amines to remove CO2 from exhaust gases. The captured CO2 would then be liquefied and stored in dedicated cryogenic tanks onboard until it can be offloaded in a port for permanent sequestration. Onboard Carbon Capture and Storage (OCCS) is on the MEPC 84 agenda. With the offset approach, CO2 would be captured from a land-based combustion source or directly captured from the atmosphere. Direct atmospheric capture is very difficult to do because the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is low compared to a combustion exhaust stream where CO2 concentrations are high. Any opportunities to do that on shore rather than onboard a ship makes a lot of since! There are at least three options for the permanent sequestration of captured CO2. The first is geologic sequestration where the CO2 is injected into the pore space of a confined formation like a depleted oil or gas field. See https://www.energy.gov/oced/CCdemos. The second is mineralization where a CO2 solution is injected into reactive basaltic rock formations where the acidic water reacts with the basalt to form carbonate. See https://www.carbfix.com/ for an example. The third approach is to pre-purpose the captured CO2 for industrial purposes. I have toured a Carbon Capture project in China where captured CO2 from an electric power plant could be transported in tanker trucks for industrial re-use.
Wealth Redistribution Scheme: The IMO Net-Zero Framework has been characterized as a "redistribution of wealth scheme" depending on which stakeholder or government is being asked. Critics, primarily led by the U.S. government and several oil-exporting nations, argue the framework functions as a global carbon tax and wealth transfer mechanism. Some critics have labelled it as an UN “Slush Fund.”
Issue #2 - Worldwide Efforts to Ban the use of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) and Open-Loop Scrubbers (also called “Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems” or “EGCS”)
To comply with global fuel Sulfur limits without using more expensive low-Sulphur MGO, ships can install an Exhaust Gas Cleaning System (EGCS), commonly called a “scrubber.” An open-loop scrubber system sprays large volumes of seawater into the ship’s funnel to capture and remove Sulphur-Dioxide (SO2) from the rising exhaust gases and then discharges the wash water back into the sea. Scrubber wash water discharges can also contain heavy metals (Lead, Mercury, Nickel, and Vanadium) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are carcinogenic.
The use of HFO combined with open-loop exhaust gas scrubbers is receiving growing worldwide attention focused on potential adverse environmental impacts. In response to these risks, governments are increasingly banning the use of HFO and/or open-loop scrubbers.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation website shows exhaust gas scrubber discharge violations by cruise ships during 2025 and prior seasons. The Southeast Alaska Conservation Council reports that during past “cruise seasons in Alaska, companies self-reported hundreds of clean water permit violations, exceeding limits of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pH levels and particulate matter in discharges” related to open-loop scrubbers. “Studies have shown that scrubber-equipped ships using high-Sulphur HFO emit higher particulate matter, black carbon, and CO₂ emissions than ships using compliant low‑Sulphur fuels” like MGO.” See Lloyd's Register - Summary Report PPR 13 February 2026.
Efforts to ban Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) and open-loop scrubbers accelerated significantly in 2025 and into 2026, transitioning from individual port rules to large-scale regional mandates. There is currently no single global ban from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) but a "patchwork" of regional laws is making HFO and scrubber use difficult on many major cruise routes. The most significant development is the OSPAR Regional Ban where 15 Atlantic nations (including Denmark, the EU, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the UK) agreed to a phased prohibition of scrubber discharges.
Alaska Senate Bill 253 was recently introduced to restrict the use of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) and limit ship scrubber discharges in Alaska. See the PRIMARIUM Alaska Cruise Season update at https://www.primarium.co/blog-1-copy-1-2/the-2026-alaska-cruise-season
Issue #3 - Biofouling
Biofouling is no longer just a fuel-efficiency issue; it is now a primary focus of global maritime biosecurity to prevent the spread of invasive species, reduce fuel consumption, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With slow International Maritime Organization (IMO) action on mandatory biofouling requirements, nations around the world are increasingly adopting stringent domestic requirements aligned with or exceeding the IMO 2023 Biofouling Guidelines. The potential cost of a cruise ship being denied port entry due to biofouling could be significant - millions of dollars. The cost could include high-seas cleaning expenses, significant passenger compensation, flight and hotel logistics associated with disembarking passenger delays, lost revenue, and reputational damage. Research by the University of Cambridge and the British Antarctic Survey addresses potential adverse effects from biofouling in Antarctica related to the introduction of non-native species from ships. Their research advocates for measures to safeguard Antarctic ecosystems from ship biofouling threats. Biofouling risks from cruise and expedition ships should be addressed as a potential adverse environmental impact within their required Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) to comply with the Antarctic Treaty and the US Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996. Careful itinerary planning, voyage planning, ship hull & niche area cleaning before macrofouling forms, and compliance monitoring are essential risk management strategies. See the PRIMARIUM Biofouling update at https://www.primarium.co/blog-1-copy-1-2/global-ship-biofouling-regulation-amp-compliance-outlook
Issue #4 - Microplastic in Laundry Wash Water
IMO plans to achieve zero plastic pollution from ships by 2030. That cannot happen unless microplastics in ship laundry water are addressed. Under international maritime law, cruise ship laundry water is classified as grey water. Grey water is not directly regulated under MARPOL; It is defined as drainage from dishwater, galley sink, shower, laundry, bath and washbasin drains. See IMO Resolution MEPC.227(64). Grey water is regulated under MARPOL as sewage when it is mixed with drainage from toilets and urinals. See MARPOL Annex IV Regulation 1.3. While grey water is not directly regulated under MARPOL, the MARPOL Annex V prohibition on “the discharge into the sea of all plastics” must be considered when grey water contains microplastic. Laundry water may currently be discharged to the sea as grey water without onboard treatment, but research shows that laundry water from cruise ships is a significant source of microplastics. See: Folbert MEF, Corbin C and Löhr AJ (2022) “Sources and Leakages of Microplastics in Cruise Ship Wastewater.” Microplastics are generated as synthetic clothing is washed onboard. Heat and abrasive detergents promote the release of microplastics. Water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol (PVA/PVOH) laundry detergent pods may be an additional contributor to microplastic loading as the wash water cools to allow the PVA/PVOH to precipitate before discharge. See the PRIMARIUM IMO plastics update at https://www.primarium.co/blog-1-copy-1-2/imo-sharpens-plans-to-achieve-zero-plastic-pollution-from-ships-by-2030
Issue #5 - Waste Management
BBC news found “Tourism is vital for economies across the Caribbean, but record-breaking numbers of visitors, coupled with insufficient local waste facilities, are leaving many islands choking on rubbish.” The report describes horrid conditions at the Antigua island landfill where garbage has far exceeded design capacity. Without the protection of liners and a leachate control system, groundwater quality is at risk. In 2025, BBC reported “Antigua's landfill has received more than 1,200 tonnes of rubbish from cruise ships this year alone” and “The problems in Antigua are reflected across the Caribbean.” BBC News “Sun, sea and trash: The Caribbean islands struggling with managing waste.” September 2025
In Europe, most ports are responsible for managing the types and quantities of waste normally generated by ships visiting them. It is different in US ports where ships that are hazardous waste Generators, must comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act under EPA enforcement. The amount offloaded per month determines the compliance requirements. Waste generators in US ports can also become a Potentially Responsible Party under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act with joint & several liability for disposal sites making due diligence assessment of waste vendors and waste treatment, storage, & disposal facilities essential. Port-specific legal analysis of potential liabilities is a wise strategy for all ports.
When domestic legal requirements are lacking, some landfill factors to consider: proximity to groundwater, surface water, water wells, homes, people, wetlands, & sensitive ecosystems; groundwater, surface water, & air monitoring data; audit findings, permits, violations, negative media, proper design and operations; and whether you would want your own family living nearby. See PRIMARIUM update on cruise ship waste management risks https://www.primarium.co/blog-1-copy-1-2/cruise-ship-waste-management-risks.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates hazardous waste from “cradle-to-grave” or from the point of generation to ultimate treatment or disposal. The complexities of RCRA compliance can be challenging for companies located at specific geographical points, but it is a far more complicated “ball game” for cruise ships offloading hazardous waste in multiple US ports. RCRA imposes many regulatory responsibilities on hazardous waste Generators. For foreign flagged vessels, these requirements are triggered when hazardous waste is generated in a US port. Compliance requirements become more or less stringent depending on whether the generator is a Large Quantity Generator (LQG), a Small Quantity Generator (SQG), or a Very Small Quantity Generator (VSQG). Generator status is determined by the quantity of hazardous waste generated in a month. With a large fleet, a management system is essential to remain aware of each ship’s generator status to ensure compliance with the associated requirements. See PRIMARIUM update on RCRA and Cruise Ships at https://www.primarium.co/blog-1-copy-1-2/rcra-and-cruise-ships.
Issue #6 - Sustainability
Cruise companies describe their sustainability goals for local communities through a framework often called “Destination Stewardship.” These goals focus on balancing the economic benefits of tourism with the preservation of local culture and the reduction of operational impacts. While the economic benefits of cruise tourism can include jobs and revenue, port cities are increasingly concerned about ship air and water pollution, congestion, and public infrastructure burdens. In response to these sustainability concerns, many port governments are taking actions to limit cruise ship tourism impacts:
Amsterdam, Netherlands: The city plans to ban large ocean cruise ships from its central terminal by 2035. Starting in 2026, it will cap annual calls at 100 ships (down from 190) and eventually relocate the terminal out of the city center.
Venice, Italy: Large ships over 25,000 tons have been banned from the historic Giudecca Canal since 2021. Ships now dock at industrial ports like Marghera or nearby cities like Ravenna.
Barcelona, Spain: The city closed its northern city-center terminal in 2023 and plans to reduce total terminal capacity from seven to five by 2030, effectively capping daily passengers at 31,000.
Santorini & Mykonos, Greece: Santorini has capped daily visitors at 8,000 cruise passengers starting in 2025. Mykonos is implementing a similar berth allocation system to stagger arrivals.
Cannes, France: Starting in 2026, the city will limit ships to those carrying under 1,000 passengers, with an overall daily cap of 6,000 visitors.
Juneau, Alaska: The city and cruise industry reached an agreement to limit arrivals to five large ships per day starting in 2024. Beginning in 2026, daily passenger totals will be capped at 16,000 on weekdays and 12,000 on Saturdays.
Bar Harbor, Maine: Residents voted to cap daily disembarkations at 1,000 passengers total.
Key West, Florida: While local voters approved strict limits in 2020, state legislation later overturned these restrictions, allowing large ships to continue docking.
Belfast, Maine: The town has implemented a strict 50-guest limit per visiting ship, effectively banning traditional large cruise vessels.
Dubrovnik, Croatia: With only 42,000 inhabitants, tourists often outnumber residents 36:1. They receive about 1.5 million tourists per year. In 2019 it capped the number of ships that can visit to just two per day carrying a total of 5,000 visitors.
Issue #7 - Underwater Noise
Underwater noise from ships is a growing environmental concern, with sound levels in some regions, such as the Arctic, projected to dramatically increase by 2030. Ship noise can prevent marine mammals from communicating, navigating, and finding prey. The Arctic has historically been quiet; however, increasing ice-melt is opening new shipping routes and exposing vulnerable species like narwhals and bowhead whales to unprecedented noise. Acoustic masking can occur from propeller cavitation (the collapse of vacuum bubbles) and engine vibrations that overlap with the frequencies used by whales and dolphins, effectively "blinding" them in their sound-dependent environment.
Noise mitigation currently relies on a mix of requirements and voluntary guidelines. The regulatory landscape is shifting from "voluntary" to "mandatory" as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) faces pressure to treat noise with the same urgency as carbon emissions.
IMO does not currently regulate underwater radiated noise (URN); however, it has issued guidelines on reducing URN. Revised guidelines were adopted by the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in July 2023. The revised guidelines assist stakeholders in establishing mechanisms through which noise reduction efforts can be achieved. IMO has established an experience-building phase (EBP) to collect information on best practices and lessons learned from the application of the guidelines. The EBP will run until 2026, with a possible extension of two years, depending on the outcomes and lessons learned. Ref. REVISED GUIDELINES FOR THE REDUCTION OF UNDERWATER RADIATED NOISE FROM SHIPPING TO ADDRESS ADVERSE IMPACTS ON MARINE LIFE. MEPC.1/Circ.906 22 August 2023. An MEPC 84 proposal seeks to integrate underwater noise targets into the IMO Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), forcing ships to consider quietness alongside fuel efficiency.
Launched in June 2025, a coalition of nations led by Canada is pushing for international design standards that would require new ships to be "quiet by design". See: https://clearseas.org/insights/canada-mitigate-urn/
Careful voyage planning and execution monitoring are essential to ensure compliance with acoustic requirements to protect marine mammals in Antarctica, the Arctic, and other locations. See the PRIMARIUM update on Ship Whale Strike Risks at https://www.primarium.co/blog-1-copy-1-2/mitigation-of-ship-whale-strike-risks
Issue #8 -Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA)
The US Coast Guard is required to promulgate its VIDA implementation regulations by October 2026.
In December 2018, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA) was signed into law to replace the EPA 2013 Vessel General Permit under the Clean Water Act.
In October 2020, EPA published a proposed rule titled Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance to implement VIDA. In January 2023, more than two years later, EPA announced plans to issue a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Fall of 2023. EPA indicated that the Supplemental Notice was intended to clarify its proposed rule, share ballast water data compiled by the USCG, and propose additional regulatory options.
Because of further EPA delay in finalizing its performance standards, the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth filed a lawsuit in February 2023 to force EPA to finalize the performance standards. Center for Biological Diversity, et al., v. Regan, et al., No. 3:23-cv-535 (N.D. Cal. 2023). The plaintiffs sought a declaration by the court that EPA’s failure to finalize the incidental discharge standards violated the Clean Water Act and asked the court to order EPA to implement final standards within 60 days. The parties negotiated a settlement and on September 8, 2023, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Consent Decree and request for comments. The Consent Decree required EPA to finalize its performance standards by September 23, 2024.
On 9 October 2024, the EPA published a final rule, the Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance, in the Federal Register. 89 Fed. Reg. 82074 (Oct 9, 2024.) The USCG has two years after issuance of the EPA's rule to finalize the corresponding implementing regulations. The EPA’s rule included three general discharge standards – General Operation and Maintenance, Oil Management, and Biofouling Management – as well as specific standards for 20 different equipment and systems onboard vessels.
Once both the EPA and USCG regulations are final, effective and enforceable, states will be preempted from establishing more stringent discharge standards. VIDA, however, includes provisions for states to pursue additional requirements through various petition processes.
The 2018 Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA) is codified under Title 33 of the United States Code in Chapter 26, Sec. 1322. The VIDA regulatory jurisdiction includes Waters of the United States (WOTUS) and the Contiguous Zone out to 12 NM. Note that the current regulatory jurisdiction under the current Vessel General Permit (VGP) only extends out to 3 NM. It is also important to note that VIDA requires that its implementing regulations be at least as stringent as 2013 VGP requirements.
Monitoring and Managing the Environmental and Sustainability Regulatory Horizon
Effective regulatory horizon monitoring and dynamic risk management systems are essential. When you see a proposed rulemaking, do you only watch what happens and then reactively respond to the new rules, or do you get proactively engaged to shape what happens during regulatory promulgations? Better still, are you involved in the process before the initial rules are even drafted? Once there is a draft, it can be difficult to overcome regulatory momentum. Relying on the advocacy of a trade association certainly has its merits; however, additional direct advocacy can powerfully focus on your own unique factors that may not fit within the group consensus positions of a large association. Strategic and collaborative dialog with government regulators and other stakeholders can achieve a win-win-win scenario for everyone where the underlying problem is addressed in a pragmatic way.
