1. Progress in the implementation of D11
René Dekeling
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, NL
EU TG Noise
Mark Tasker
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK
EU TG Noise

2. Progress 2017-2018 Establishing threshold values at Union level
Work planned by TG Noise for 2018/2019
Priorities/issues

3. Work done by TG Noise on threshold values
TG Noise meeting / workshop in Madrid 9-10 Nov 2017
> 30 participants, (government, research, NGO, RSC)
Implementation of monitoring, identified issues
Consistency with noise mapping by NOAA-US
QuietMed project representation
EMODNET, EUROGOOS participation
Workshop: Towards thresholds for underwater noise. Common approaches for interpretation of data obtained in (Joint) Monitoring Programmes
work on concept identified in 2016 Hamburg TG Noise workshop to address habitat degradation
EU-wide concept to be readily understood and implemented by multiple regulators (incl. non-specialists)
methodology to be usable for multiple (types of) species, not only marine mammals

4. Work done by TG Noise on threshold values
Main outcomes
Impulsive noise:
5 different methodologies suggested by experts/MS
Identification pros/cons underway
If methodologies broken down most methods do stepwise approaches where some of the steps are very similar between methods (but terminology is different)
E.g. all methods carry out ‘exposure assessment’ very similar to approaches used in ‘traditional’ risk assessment techniques for hazardous substances
Similarities between methodologies identified and (likely) will be basis for possible common methodology

5. Work done by TG Noise on threshold values
Main outcomes
Continuous (ambient) noise:
(only) 3 different methodologies suggested by experts/MS
Knowledge on effects much less developed compared to IN
Identification pros/cons underway (but less clear than for IN)
Agreed common methodology not likely at short term
Approach taken in BIAS-project (Life+) likely to be basis for follow-on projects (like JOMOPANS (North Sea), JONAS (Atlantic Arch))

6. Work done by TG Noise on threshold values
TG Noise aiming to provide WG GES proposals for methodology that can be used at European scale
Work unlikely to be finished by next WG GES meeting (fall 2018)
Impulsive noise further developed than continuous noise
TG Noise will seek advice of WG GES when developing next steps
Yet unsolved concern - role of EU CIS group TG Noise and RSC’s
Brought up in meeting of TG Noise;
TG Noise will work as proposed by EC and work with (rely on) WG GES

7. Main work planned by TG Noise 2018-2019
Support MS/RSC’s in implementation of operational monitoring programs
Continued active coordination between new initiatives in different regions to ensure coherence and complementarity
Work on the development of threshold values as provided for under the revised GES Decision
TG Noise will prepare report with advice of assessment methodologies for discussion at annual meeting in 5-6 June 2018 Bucharest, Romania
To consolidate further advice to MSCG, TG Noise will organise meeting + workshop 6-8 November 2018 in Brussels
Review TG NOISE Guidance: update of monitoring guidance (published 2014)
Depending people/capacity available for this work; 2018 questionnable
Evaluate TOR 2nd half of 2018 and report to MSCG meeting

8. Main priorities / issues
Member States still in the phase of setting up JOINT monitoring projects for underwater
Need for longer-term programmes remains, TG Noise contributes to consistency
Substantial knowledge gaps remain, these gaps problematic at level of agreeing over methodology
Impulsive noise further developed than continuous noise
TG Noise has started work on methodology as expert technical group; when starting on options for thresholds foresee role change
Relative roles of RSC groups and EU CIS groups to further develop
TG Noise will rely on advice of other groups, e.g. WG GES

10. SPARE
From presentation of Sep 2017 brief for WG GES/ MCSG

11. Conclusions on noise monitoring/registration
Progress 
Current monitoring /registration programmes can and will deliver relevant information on activities / sound levels
Joint monitoring realistic, effective and provides information that cannot be obtained by individual MS monitoring campaigns
Limitations 
First data 2014 (continuous noise), 2015 (impulsive noise)
Pressure monitoring only
Trends not known
No long-term continuous noise monitoring

12. Progress on assessing impact
Some MS monitoring/registering underwater noise
will provide information on sound levels, trends, and relative contribution of anthropogenic noise
Pressure indicators only
Impulsive noise:
Limited # species 
Population effects?
Local/short term effects 
Insufficient for agreed regional scale assessments in 2018
Ambient noise
slow progress; probably insufficient even for next MSFD cycle

13. Possible work flow – e.g. for threshold values
4 6 1
Scope the work 2
Present evidence e.g. current state, trends, reference condition 7
Define methodology
e.g. data processing for indicator
Principles and options for setting thresholds
Agreed thresholds 3 5
Agreement by WG GES/MSCG as basis for next
Agreement
by WG GES
as basis for next steps
steps

14. Decision-making process
Technical work
Technical agreement
Policy
adoption
Agreed proposal
led by JRC,
Proposal
ICES, TG
Litter or TG
- in WG GES
- in MSCG
Noise
involving MS, RSC and CIS stakeholders