Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References
All Topics
Environmental Science
Pollution

Managing and Regulating Underwater Noise Pollution

Profile image of Pedro Pablo Silva SánchezPedro Pablo Silva Sánchez

2017, Handbook on Marine Environment Protection

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60156-4_52
visibility

…

description

25 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Over the last decade the issue of underwater noise pollution has received increased attention from scientific bodies, the media, NGOs, and institutions at the national, supranational and international levels. This in turn, has led to the development of several regulatory initiatives that seek to mitigate the negative impact of this source of pollution. This article outlines and analyses existing legislation and management regimes that govern marine activities that generate noise. Best practices and specific mitigation measures are also addressed and assessed. Underwater noise pollution • Anthropogenic noise input • Underwater sound • Sonar • Pile driving • Whale watching • Seismic surveys • Air guns • Shipping • Off-shore constructions • Offshore infrastructures • Precautionary approach • Marine environment • Marine mammals • Marine life Management? In recent times, the issue of anthropogenic noise input to the marine environment, or "underwater noise", has received increased attention from scientific bodies (

Related papers

Report of the Workshop on International Harmonisation of Approaches to Define Underwater Noise Exposure Criteria
Gail Scowcroft

2013

The potential negative effects of high levels of underwater noise on marine life have been identified and acknowledged, and this issue has been incorporated into various international agreements over the past decade. Several countries have already issued regulations to limit the incidence and level of anthropogenic noise in the oceans. The development of regulations on noise exposure in marine environments has to date focused on two groups, marine mammals and, to a lesser extent, fishes. Nevertheless, our understanding of the complexity of acoustic and behavioural effects is improving, and it might be possible to develop existing noise-exposure criteria with scientific knowledge evolving. More importantly, new regulations, or at least the approaches taken toward regulations, could be internationally harmonised to provide better protection for marine fauna.

View PDFchevron_right
Guiding principles for assessing the impact of underwater noise
Nathan Merchant

Journal of Applied Ecology

View PDFchevron_right
Assessment of the potential for acoustic deterrents to mitigate the impact on marine mammals of underwater noise arising from the construction of offshore …
Jonathan Gordon

…, 2007

Underwater sound emitting device with source level < 185 dB re 1 µPa @ 1m often intended to deter marine mammals (usually cetaceans) from areas of danger (usually fishing nets). Acoustic Harassment Device (AHD): High source level (> 185 dB re 1 µPa @ 1m) underwater sound emitting device intended to exclude marine mammals (usually pinnipeds) from certain areas (usually fish farms). Also known as seal scarer and seal scrammer. Acoustic Mitigation Device (AMD): Underwater sound emitting device designed to exclude marine mammals from areas of exposure to high-intensity noise such as pile driving. Anti-submarine Detection Investigation Committee: Early active acoustic detection devices developed by the Royal Navy. Absorption: Conversion of sound into heat. Ambient noise: Background noise in the environment without distinguishable sources. Audiogram: Plot of the level of the quietest pure tone that an individual can detect over a range of frequencies. Bandwidth: Range of frequencies of a given sound. Decibel (dB): The logarithmic measure of the ratio between sounds intensity/pressure and an appropriate reference level.

View PDFchevron_right
The development of a policy framework to mitigate underwater noise pollution from commercial vessels
seyedvahid vakili

Marine Policy, 2020

Oceans are under severe pressure due to immense anthropogenic activities and related pollution and impacts. Although shipping is the most fuel efficient mode of transportation and, accounting for 80% of transportation of cargo by volume while playing an important role in global trade, it has negative environmental and socioeconomic externalities and threatens sustainable development. It is predicted that World seaborne trade will grow by a factor of 2.5% from 2020 to 2040. It is necessary to take appropriate actions to control and mitigate the negative impacts of international shipping. One of the newly emerging environmental issues resulting from anthropogenic activities is Under Water Noise (UWN). UWN has adverse impacts on the marine environment within and beyond national jurisdiction, and it is becoming a significant threat to both underwater life and socioeconomic status. While most of the negative externalities from international shipping have been regulated, UWN pollution has not been regulated appropriately. Although policymakers in some jurisdictions have commitment for the mitigation of this pollution, there is no international legally binding instrument to control, mitigate, and monitor. This legal gap makes stakeholders reluctant to take appropriate action to address the issue. This paper explores the policy context of underwater noise mitigation in commercial shipping to support the development of effective and efficient underwater noise management framework. The paper concludes that the multi-interdisciplinary command and control approach with consideration of multi-dimensional incentive regimes must be considered for any further action and policy decision making regarding UWN pollution from commercial vessels.

View PDFchevron_right
Underwater Noise Pollution: Impacts on Cetaceans
Shreya Sethi
View PDFchevron_right
Get with the Beat! The Regulation of Underwater Noise in South Africa
Adelaide Karomo

Obiter

Anthropogenic noise in the oceans, including from shipping and seismic surveys, is of concern as it often adversely impacts marine life and biodiversity. It is considered to be the number-one ocean pollutant today. The authors review major international legal instruments regarding underwater noise as a marine pollutant and examine them in the South African context. The authors find, inter alia, that a distinction between substance-based pollution (such as chemical pollution) and energy-based pollution (such as noise) is currently lacking. It is also found that very little literature is available on the impacts of shipping and seismic noise on small fish, turtles and cetaceans, a state of affairs that calls for a precautionary approach. It is recommended: (1) South African legal instruments that regulate underwater noise should be revised and aligned with international legal frameworks; (2) more scientific research should be conducted on the cumulative impacts of shipping and seismic...

View PDFchevron_right
Underwater noise abatement: Economic factors and policy options
Nathan Merchant

Environmental Science & Policy, 2019

Underwater noise pollution is becoming globally recognised as a significant threat to aquatic ecosystems and the resources they provide. The effects of noise pollution extend from blue whales to zooplankton, impacting threatened species and affecting key industries including fisheries and ecotourism. In response, policymakers in some jurisdictions have made substantive high-level commitments to address noise pollution, however the implementation of noise reduction measures (noise abatement) remains limited. To support the development of effective noise management policies, this paper explores the economic and policy context to noise abatement in three major noise-generating industries: shipping, offshore windfarm construction, and seismic surveying for oil and gas. In each case, tractable policy options are identified which make considered use of command-and-control and incentive-based measures in light of the available noise abatement methods. Drawing on instructive examples from terrestrial noise management and other sectors, it is concluded that such measures offer the most promising long-term solution to deliver existing and future policy commitments to manage cumulative levels of underwater noise pollution.

View PDFchevron_right
Regulating Ocean Noise: Entering Uncharted Waters.
Jim Cummings
View PDFchevron_right
Mapping widespread and increasing underwater noise pollution from acoustic deterrent devices
Charlotte Findlay

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2018

Acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) are used in attempts to mitigate pinniped depredation on aquaculture sites through the emission of loud and pervasive noise. This study quantified spatio-temporal changes in underwater ADD noise detections along western Scotland over 11 years. Acoustic point data ('listening events') collected during cetacean line-transect surveys were used to map ADD presence between 2006 and 2016. A total of 19,601 listening events occurred along the Scottish west coast, and ADD presence was recorded during 1371 listening events. Results indicated a steady increase in ADD detections from 2006 (0.05%) to 2016 (6.8%), with the highest number of detections in 2013 (12.6%), as well as substantial geographic expansion. This study demonstrates that ADDs are a significant and chronic source of underwater noise on the Scottish west coast with potential adverse impacts on target (pinniped) and non-target (e.g. cetaceans) species, which requires further study and improved monitoring and regulatory strategies.

View PDFchevron_right
NOISE SOURCES IN THE SEA AND THE IMPACT FOR THOSE WHO LIVE THERE
John R . Potter

2000

In recent years the volume and spatial extent of anthropological noise pollution of the oceans has become clearer as underwater acoustic research has matured in the open literature following the run-down of the cold war. In parallel, the range, depth and dependence of marine mammals on sound for communication and environmental sensing has been brought sharply into focus by an

View PDFchevron_right

References (65)

  1. 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1946) 62 Stat. 1716; 161 UNTS 72 1959 Antarctic Treaty (1980) 12 UST 794; 402 UNTS 71; 19 ILM 860 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter (London) 26 UST 2403, TIAS 8165; UKTS 43 (1976) Cmnd. 6486; 11 ILM (1972), 1294;
  2. B&B Docs, 174. In force on 30 August 1975. To be replaced by 1996 Protocol q.v. London Convention 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) of 1973 12 ILM 1319 (1973) TIAS No. 10,561; 34 UST 3407;1340 UNTS 184; amended by the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1340 UNTS 61; 17 ILM 546 (1978), before entry into force 1979 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) 1651 UNTS 333; 19 ILM 15 (1980); ATS 1991/32; BTS 87 (1990), Cm. 1332
  3. 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol) 30 ILM 1455 (1991) 1992 Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS) 1772 UNTS 217 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1760 UNTS 79; 31 ILM 818 (1992) 1992 Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development (Rio Declaration) UN Doc. A/ CONF.151/26 (vol. I) /31 ILM 87 (1992) 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1771 UNTS 107; S. Treaty Doc No. 102-38; U.N. Doc. A/AC.237/18 (Part II)/Add.1; 31 ILM 849 (1992) 1992 Agenda 21 Programme of Action for Sustainable Development, U.N. GAOR, 46th Sess., Agenda Item 21, UN Doc A/Conf.151/26 (1992) 1992 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) 2354 UNTS 67; 32 ILM 1069 (1993) 1992 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment Of the Baltic Sea (Helsinki Convention), 2099 UNTS (1992) 1996 Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS), November 24, (1996), 36 I.L.M. 777 1997 Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS), 36 I.L.M. 777 (1997)
  4. ACCOBAMS (2004) Resolution 2.16 Assessment and impact assessment of man-made noise ACCOBAMS (2007) Resolution 3.10 Guidelines to address the impact of anthropogenic noise ACCOBAMS (2010a) Guidelines for Commercial Cetacean Watching Activities in the ACCOBAMS area ACCOBAMS (2010b) Resolution 4.17 Guidelines to address the impact of anthropogenic noise on cetaceans in the ACCOBAMS area ACCOBAMS. (2011) A review of whale watch guidelines and regulations around the world- version 2011, ACCOBAMS-SC8/2012/Inf 12
  5. ACCOBAMS (2013a) Resolution 5.15 Addressing the Impact of Anthropogenic Noise ACCOBAMS (2013b) Methodological Guide: "Guidance on underwater noise mitigation mea- sures", ACCOBAMS-MOP5/2013/Doc.24
  6. ACCOBAMS (2013c) Anthropogenic noise and marine mammals: review of the effort in address- ing the impact of anthropogenic underwater noise in the ACCOBAMS and ASCOBANS areas ACCOBAMS-MOP5/2013/Doc.22
  7. ASCOBAN (2003) Resolution No. 5 Esbjerg, Denmark ASCOBANS (2006) Resolution No. 4. The Netherlands ASCOBANS (2009a) Resolution No. 2. Bonn. Germany ASCOBANS (2009b) Final Report of the ASCOBANS Intersessional Working Group on the Assessment of Acoustic Disturbance, Bonn, Germany ASCOBANS Terms of Reference for a Joint Noise Working Group (JNWG) of CMS, ACCOBAMS and ASCOBANS (2014a)
  8. ASCOBANS Operational Procedures for the Joint Noise Working Group (JNWG) of CMS, ACCOBAMS and ASCOBANS (2014b)
  9. ASCOBANS (2014c). Report of the Joint ACCOBAMS/ASCOBANS Noise Working Group, AC21/Doc.3.2.1 (WG)
  10. Australian National (2005) Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching Australian Government (2006) Department of the Environment and Heritage Australian Government (2008) Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1-Interaction between offshore seismic surveys and whales Baggs v United Kingdom (1985) 44 DR 13; (1987) 52 DR 29)
  11. Barcelona Traction 1970 Light and Power Company Limited Judgement, I.C.J. Reports, p 3
  12. Birnie P, Boyle A, Redgwell C (2009) International law & the environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  13. Boyle A, Chinkin C (2007) The Making of International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, IACtHR, 2008
  14. Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) Akwé: Kon Guidelines for the Conduct of Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessments Regarding Developments Proposed to Take Place on, or which are Likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) (2005) Resolution 8.22 Adverse human induced impacts on cetaceans Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) (2011) Resolution 10.24. Further steps to abate underwater noise pollution for the protection of cetaceans and other migratory species. Bergen Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) (2008) Resolution 9.19 Adverse anthropogenic marine/ocean noise impacts on cetaceans and other biota Code of Conduct for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to Marine Mammals from Seismic Survey Operations (the Code), New Zealand, 2013
  15. Compton R, Goodwin L, Handy R, Abbott V (2008) A critical examination of worldwide guide- lines for minimising the disturbance to marine mammals during seismic surveys. Mar Policy 32:255-262
  16. Johnson LS (2004) Coastal state regulation of international shipping. Oceana, New York Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) UK Government (2015) Marine Strategy Framework Directive consultations-Programmes of Measures
  17. Dolman SJ, Weir CR, Jasny M (2009) Comparative review of marine mammal guidance imple- mented during naval exercises. Mar Pollut Bull 58:465-477
  18. Dolman SJ, Evans PGH, Notarbartolo-di-Sciara G, Frisch H (2011) Active sonar, beaked whales and European regional policy. Mar Pollut Bull 63:27-34
  19. Dotinga HM, Elferink AGO (2000) Acoustic pollution in the oceans: the search for legal standards. Ocean Dev Int Law 31:151-182
  20. Erbe C (2013) International regulation of underwater noise. Acoustics Australia 41:12-19
  21. European Commission. (2010) Decision 477/2010/EU on Criteria and Methodological Standards on Good Environmental Status of Marine Waters OJ L232/14
  22. European Parliament Resolution on the environmental effects of high-intensity active naval sonars, 14.07.2005 ABl. 2005 Nr. C174 E/186
  23. EU Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle (COM (2000) 1 final of 2 February 2000)
  24. EU Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 estab- lishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), Directive 2008/56/EC, OJ 2008 No. L164/19. (MSFD)
  25. European Commission, Report, European Marine Strategy Framework Directive Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG-GES) Guidance for setting up underwater noise monitor- ing in European Seas. 2013
  26. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN), Development of Noise Mitigation Measures in Offshore Wind Farm Constructions. 2013
  27. Firestone J, Jarvis C (2007) Response and responsibility: regulating noise pollution in the marine environment. J Int Wildlife Law Policy 10:109-152
  28. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997
  29. Gillespie A (2006) Establishing reliable foundations for the international scientific investigation of noise pollution in the oceans. RECIEL 15(2):211-226
  30. Gillespie A (2007) The precautionary principle in the twenty-first century: a case study of noise pollution in the ocean. Int J Mar Coastal Law 22:61-87
  31. Horowitz C, Jasny M (2007) Precautionary management of noise: lessons from the U.S. marine mammal protection act. J Int Wildlife Law Policy 10:225-232
  32. Hubert AM (2011) The new paradox in marine scientific research: regulating the potential environ- mental impacts of conducting ocean science. Ocean Dev Int Law 42:229-355
  33. International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2008) Document MEPC 57/INF.22. "Comment on document MEPC 57/INF.4" International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2014) Document MEPC.1/Circ.833, "Guidelines for the Reduction of Underwater Noise from Commercial Shipping to Address Adverse Impacts on Marine Life"
  34. Inkelas D (2005) Security, sound, and ceataceans: legal challenges to low frequency active sonar under U.S. and international environmental law. Wash Int'l L Rev 37:207-249
  35. International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) (2005) Report of the Ad-hoc Group on the Impacts of Sonar on Cetacean and Fish (AGISC). Kopenhagen. CM 2006/ACE:06
  36. International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) (2008) Ocean noise: turn it down. Port, Yarmouth International Whaling Commission (IWC) (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries. Yearbook of the international law commis- sion. 2001. vol. II International Whaling Commission (IWC) (1996) General Principles to minimise the risks of adverse impacts of whalewatching on cetaceans International Whaling Commission (IWC) (1998) Resolution 1998-6 for the Funding of Work on Environmental Concerns Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2010a) Statutory nature conservation agency pro- tocol for minimising the risk of injury to marine mammals from piling noise Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2010b) JNCC guidelines for minimising the risk of injury and disturbance to marine mammals from seismic surveys Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2010c) JNCC guidelines for minimising the risk of injury to marine mammals from using explosives
  37. Markus T, Schlacke S, Maier N (2011) Legal implementation of integrated ocean policies: the EU's marine strategy framework directive. Int J Mar Coastal Law 26:1-32
  38. Markus T (2013) Changing the base: legal implications of scientific criteria and methodological stan- dards on what constitutes good marine environmental status. Transnation Environ Law 1:1-21
  39. Markus T, Huhn K, Kai B (2015) The quest for sea-floor Integrity. Nat Geosci:163-164
  40. Mauermann D (2008) Rechtsgrundsätze im Völkerrecht am Beispiel des Vorsorgeprinzips Molenaar EJ (1998) Coastal state jurisdiction over vessel-source pollution. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
  41. Miller PJO, Biassoni N, Samuels A, Tyack PL (2000) Whale songs lengthen in response to sonar. Nature 405:903-903
  42. McCauley RD, Fewtrell J, Popper AN (2003) High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears. J Acoust Soc Am 113:638-642
  43. McCarthy EM (2001) International regulation of transboundary pollutants: the emerging challenge of ocean noise. Ocean Coastal Law J 6:257-292
  44. National Research Council (NRC) (2005) Marine mammal populations and ocean noise: determin- ing when noise causes biologically significant effects. NRC, Washington, DC ORDEN PRE/969/2008, de 3 de abril, por la que se publica el Acuerdo de Consejo de Ministros, por el que se adoptan medidas para la protección de la zona marina "El Cachucho", Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE), núm. 86 Nr. 6287, p 19331
  45. Parsons ECM, Dolman SJ, Jasny M, Rose NA, Simmonds MP, Wright AJ (2009) A critique of the UK's JNCC seismic survey guidelines for minimizing acoustic disturbance to marine mam- mals: best practice? Mar Pollut Bull 58:643-651
  46. Patenaude NJ, Richardson WJ, Smultea MA, Koski WR, Miller GW, Würsig B, Greene JR, C.R. (2002) Aircraft sound and disturbance to bowhead and beluga whales during spring migration in the alaskan beaufort sea. Mar Mamm Sci 18:309-335
  47. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010) Real Decreto 1629/2011 por el que se declara como Área Marina Protegida y como Zona Especial de Conservación el espacio marino de El Cachucho, y se aprueban las correspondientes medi- das de conservación, Boletín Oficial del Estado múm.295
  48. Rehbinder E. (1991) Das Vorsorgeprinzip im internationalen Vergleich Sands P (2012) Principles of international environmental law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  49. Scott KN (2004) International regulation of undersea noise. Int Compar Law Q 53:287-324
  50. Scott KN (2007) Sound and cetaceans: a regional response to regulating acoustic marine pollution. J Int Wildlife Law Policy 10:175-199
  51. Schachten, C. (2011) Akustische Meeresverschmutzung (2011)
  52. Southall BL, Scholik-Schlomer A (2008) Final report of the NOAA International Conference: "Potential Application of Vessel-Quieting Technology on Large Commercial Vessels," 1-2 May, 2007, Silver Spring, MD, USA Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (provisional measures) ITLOS Nos 3&4 (1999) The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) (2004) Undersea Noise Pollution, Gland United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (1989) 15th Governing Council Session, Decision 15/27-Precautionary approach to marine pollution, including waste-dumping at sea (decision 15/27)
  53. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2008) UNEP/CMS/Resolution 9.19/2008 on Adverse Anthropogenic Marine/Ocean Noise Impacts on Cetaceans and Other Biota, Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the CMS, at its Ninth Meeting (Rome 1-5 December 2008)
  54. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2012) UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XI/18 on "Marine and coastal biodiversity: sustainable fisheries and addressing adverse impacts of human activi- ties, voluntary guidelines for environmental assessment, and marine spatial planning". 2012
  55. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2014) UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XII/23 on "Marine and coastal biodiversity: Impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity of anthropogenic underwater noise and ocean acidification, priority actions to achieve Aichi Biodiversity Target 10 for coral reefs and closely associated ecosystems, and marine spatial planning and training initiatives". 2014
  56. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region, Joint NTL N° 2012-G02, Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program 2014
  57. US Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) 2005 Advisory committee on acoustic impacts on marine mammals, report to the marine mammal commission, Washington, DC United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2005) Resolution "Oceans and the Law of the Sea", A/RES/60/30
  58. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2014) Resolution Oceans and the Law of the Sea, A/ RES/69/245
  59. Van der Graaf, A.J., Ainslie, M.A., André M., Brensing, K., Dalen J. Dekeling RPA, Robinson S, Tasker, ML, Thomsen, F. Werner, S (2012) European Marine Strategy Framework Directive- Good Environmental Status (MSFD GES): Report of the Technical Subgroup on Underwater noise and other forms of energy
  60. Van Dyke JM, Gardner EA, Morgan JR (2004) Wales, Submarines, and active Sonar. Ocean Yearbook 18:330-363
  61. Weir CR, Dolman SJ (2007) Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation guide- lines implemented during industrial seismic surveys, and guidance towards a worldwide stan- dard. J Int Wildlife Law Policy 10:1-27
  62. Whale & Dolphin Conservation Society (WDC) (2004) Ocean of Noise-a WDCS Science Report, Chippenham (WDC 2004)
  63. World Health Organisation (WHO) 2016 Health topics, noise. http://www.euro.who.int/en/health- topics/environment-and-health/noise/noise. Accessed 30 Mar 2016
  64. World Medical Association (WMA) (1992) Statement on Noise Pollution. World Medical Journal 54:7
  65. Zirbel K, Balint P, Parsons ECM (2011) Navy sonar, cetaceans and the US Supreme Court: a review of cetacean mitiation and litigation in the US. Mar Pollut Bull 63:40-48

Related papers

Marine noise pollution – increasing recognition but need for more practical action
Andrew J Wright

Over the last two decades, marine noise pollution has become increasingly recognized as an issue of major significance. The issue has become a primary focus of marine mammal research, but is also of concern to the public and policy makers. The result has been efforts involving a variety of disciplines, and relevant legislation and associated guidance are now in place in many parts of the world. Most current mitigation efforts are directed at reducing the risk of injury from exposure to intense noise, although the effectiveness of such mitigation measures in terms of risk reduction has rarely been quantified. Longer-term chronic impacts of noise including disturbance or masking of sounds critical for feeding and reproduction have received substantially less attention in management. New technologies are being developed for a number of activities which can substantially reduce noise inputs into the marine environment. As with other forms of pollution, reducing input at source is likely...

View PDFchevron_right
Response and Responsibility: Regulating Noise Pollution in the Marine Environment
Jeremy Firestone

Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
Marine noise pollution – more recognition but need for more practical action
Chris Parsons
View PDFchevron_right
International Regulation of Undersea Noise
Karen N. Scott

International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2004

In September 2002 seventeen whales were stranded off the coast of the CanaryIslands at a time when NATO was testing its active sonar system designed to detect silent enemy submarines.1The suggestion has been made that the use of sonar caused these whales to strand. In fact, sonar is just one of a variety of anthropogenic undersea sounds which, scientific research increasingly suggests, impacts negatively on marine biodiversity. Pollution of an acoustic nature is currently omitted from traditional works on the protection of the marine environment and is as yet the subject of very little jurisprudential discussion.2However the topic, which has received scientific attention for over 30 years, has recently been identified as acause for concern and consequently, for action, within the parameters of a number of global and regional environmental instruments.

View PDFchevron_right
Best practices in management, assessment and control of underwater noise pollution
Marta Solé Carbonell

2009

The origin of this work can be found in the project ‘Effects and Control of Anthropogenic Noise in Marine Ecosystems’ in the part relative to legal initiatives. In the first phase of the Report on this Project (December 2008) it was concluded that the level of complexity of marine issues, united by the fact that wide scientific gaps and difficulties still need to be covered and resolved, counseled against the immediate drawing up of legal projects concerning underwater acoustic pollution. Nevertheless, it was suggested that a document of ‘Best Practices’ be elaborated to focus on the ‘state of the art’ of this issue, and that it be used by public administrations and promoters of projects that will cause acoustic pollution, as much within the framework of environmental impact assessments as in management development plans in protected marine areas. It is of vital importance that activities, which generate acoustic pollution in the oceans, be monitored. Accordingly, this document coul...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Business
  • Pollution
  • Noise Pollution

    • Cited by

    Bridging the Science-Policy Gap – Toward Better Integration of Decision Support Tools in Coastal and Marine Policy Implementation
    Berit Hasler

    Frontiers in Marine Science, 2020

    Decision support tools (DSTs), like models, GIS-based planning tools and assessment tools, play an important role in incorporating scientific information into decision-making and facilitating policy implementation. In an interdisciplinary Baltic research group, we compiled 43 DSTs developed to support ecosystem-based management of the Baltic Sea and conducted a thorough review. Analyzed DSTs cover a wide variety of policy issues (e.g., eutrophication, biodiversity, human uses) and address environmental as well as socio-economic aspects. In this study, we aim to identify gaps between existing DSTs and end-user needs for DSTs for supporting coastal and marine policy implementation, and to provide recommendations for future DST development. In two online surveys, we assess the awareness and use of DSTs in general, as well as policy implementation challenges and DST needs of representatives of public authorities from all Baltic countries, in particular. Through a policy review we identify major policy issues, policies, and general implementation steps and requirements and develop the synthesis-matrix, which is used to compare DST demand and supply. Our results show that DSTs are predominantly used by researchers. End-users from public authorities use DSTs mostly as background information. Major obstacles for DST use are lacking awareness and experiences. DST demand is strongest for the policy issue eutrophication. Furthermore, DSTs that support the development of plans or programs of measures and assess their impacts and effectiveness are needed. DST supply is low for recently emerging topics, such as non-indigenous species, marine litter, and underwater noise. To overcome existing obstacles, a common database for DSTs available in the BSR is needed. Furthermore, end-users need guidance and training, and cooperation between DST developers and end-users needs to be enhanced to ensure the practical relevance of DSTs for supporting coastal and marine policy implementation. To fill existing gaps, DSTs that address impacts on human welfare and link environmental and socio-economic

    View PDFchevron_right
    Influence of Biometric and Seasonal Parameters on the Metal Content of Scomber colias in Northwestern African Waters
    Gonzalo Lozano

    Biological Trace Element Research, 2020

    Studies of the content of heavy metals and trace elements in fish and other marine organisms are of great importance to know the state of the marine ecosystem. This study has been carried out in northwestern African waters, Scomber colias being the target species, sampling a total of 345 specimens over 2 years. For the determination of metals and trace elements (Al, B, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Li, Ni, Pb, V, and Zn) in the muscle, the ICP-OES (inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry) was used. In the statistical study, the factors (oceanographic and maturity in the seasons, size of the specimens) were used. The samples sampled in the cold season that had high concentrations of metals may be due to the influence that African upwelling has on the Canary Islands. The metallic contents of our samples are lower than those found in the studies in Mauritania and Morocco due to the greater influence that upwelling has in these areas.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved