1. Mark Tasker Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK EU TG Noise
René Dekeling
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, NL
EU TG Noise
Mark Tasker
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK
EU TG Noise

2. TG Noise Recap: why TG Noise was needed
Results of EU level cooperation
Progress in monitoring, assessment and management
Further work- main issues

3. Underwater noise Initial concern Taken up in MSFD in 2008
Sonar related strandings
Hearing damage
Taken up in MSFD in 2008
Defined as pollutant
Present main concerns
Impulsive noise of piling, seismic, sonar, explosions
Ambient noise, mainly by commercial shipping
For ecosystem/populations, subtle responses (masking, behavioural change) most relevant (low level/long ranges/large areas affected)

4. Why was TG Noise needed
One of identified emerging threats; 2010 Commission Decision: for energy, measurement of noise should have priority
Two indicators defined, addressing main concerns, based on TG11 advice:
short duration: low and mid-frequency impulsive noise
Seismic surveys, piling, sonars, explosions
long lasting: low frequency continuous noise
Commercial shipping
No existing noise monitoring at that time; clarification/guidance needed
To support MS and provide guidance  expert group formed (TG Noise) under MSCG/MD
Participants from governments, research institutes, private sector, NGO’s
Co-chaired by UK and NL

5. Status of noise monitoring in EU
TG Noise provided guidance for monitoring of underwater noise in European Waters
Initial guidance 2013, final guidance 2014 as JRC publication
EC questionnaire confirmed that EU MS and RSC adopted Monitoring Guidance
US NOAA (Ocean Noise Strategy) monitoring to be consistent with EU
Since 2014, significant progress implementation of monitoring
Combined HELCOM / OSPAR Impulsive Noise Registry operational at ICES
BIAS project for monitoring (continuous) noise in Baltic completed
New concrete initiatives:
QuietMed
JOMOPANS
JONAS
See TG Noise paper (2017) ‘Management and monitoring of underwater noise in European Seas- Overview of main European-funded projects and other relevant initiatives’ made for WG GES / MSCG

6. Conclusions on noise monitoring
At this stage, it is clear that:
Current monitoring /registration programmes can and will deliver relevant information on underwater sound levels
Joint Monitoring Programmes for underwater sound are realistic, effective and provide information for Member States that cannot be obtained by individual monitoring campaigns
Noise monitoring has started as JMP’s from onse
Result of EU level cooperation
Limitations
First data 2014 (continuous noise), 2015 (impulsive noise)
Pressure monitoring only
TG Noise advised monitoring of existing indicators to be priority

7. Progress on assessing impact
Number of MS have set up monitoring for underwater noise
will provide information on actual sound levels, trends, and relative contribution of anthropogenic noise
Pressure indicators; knowledge on relation pressure/state/impact needed to set targets/thresholds
Impulsive noise:
most relevant effect and science needs identified
knowledge base needed growing, mainly local/short term effects, but population effects mostly unclear
not sufficient for larger scale/longer term assessments in this MSFD cycle
Ambient noise
slow progress; probably insufficient for next MSFD cycle

8. TG Noise work
TG Noise organized thematic workshop on development of impact indicators in 2016
Main goal: establish a common understanding to what extent the current indicators on underwater noise can be used to assess the impacts of anthropogenic noise, whether additional indicators are useful and main orientations for such indicators
55 participants of science community, government, NGO’s, RSC’s and other regional agreements
Workshop was successful, on most topics is was possible to identify a common understanding on potential use of present indicators, and directions for further development
TG Noise paper (2017) ‘Management and monitoring of underwater noise in European Seas- Overview of main European-funded projects and other relevant initiatives’ made for WG GES / MSCG

9. TG Noise work programme
2017: TG Noise expanded to > 50 members, representation of (almost) all MSCG members/observers (experts and policy makers)
Short term: EU TG Noise as expert group will make next steps
CIS WP , Commission Decision of 2017
to assist Member States and RSC in the implementation of operational monitoring
to develop advice to Member State on future assessment and target-setting
to develop work on environmental impacts of noise and noise pressure indicators.
to organise workshop on impacts
to ensure regional coherence (and complementarity)
Combined meeting TG Noise/workshop November2017 (Spain) to further explore and use the existing (and new) data of monitoring programmes
Gap in continuation of (essential) support contract for TG Noise; now solved
Mainly make use of present core group / network of experts

10. Establishing thresholds /Union level cooperation
For longer term:
TG Noise to develop advice on threshold setting
Commission Decision requires cooperation at Union level
Consensus of 2016 workshop, that assessments may be done at (sub)regional level, larger scale assessment and target setting is not feasible
Find out the roles of TG Noise and of RSC groups
If work on proposing thresholds taken up by TG Noise character of group would change (now ‘independent’ expert group)

11. Different roles TG Noise members
Short term (2018-….) actions for development of consistent methodology
Medium term actions, providing examples of thresholds
Longer term actions, setting thresholds
Experts
Lead
Support
Policy
Little role
Stakeholder

12. Main messages/dilemma’s threshold settings
Member States have set up/ are setting up JOINT monitoring programmes for underwater noise  pressure data will become available at large scales, in many regions
Substantial knowledge gaps remain that are problem for setting targets / thresholds at short term
TG Noise able to bring this further for short term (EU level cooperation)
For longer term (e.g. post-2018), will need to explore to what extent EU-level (concrete threshold proposals?) works best and what would be for e.g. RSC’s

14. Conceptual basis of indicators
There is general consensus about the usability and need for further implementation of the present pressure indicators.
A step-by-step approach is recommended as the way forward, e.g.: description of the relevant impacts for indicator species including disturbance, masking, hearing impairment, definition of relevant level in terms of population displacements (although this will be hard to reach in the short term), and finally definition of GES.
It is recommended to build upon existing scientific understanding, to learn from past examples and other descriptors approaches (e.g. D5 and D8) and to consider the involvement of policy makers in the process.

15. Indicators of impacts of impulsive sound
The impulsive noise register at ICES is ready for use and data collection has started; this will initially provide information on temporal and spatial distribution of impulsive noise sources, through the year, across activities and throughout regional seas (OSPAR and HELCOM at least).
To enable assessment of possible cumulative impacts of displacement on marine species at the population level, more parameters could be considered, such as noise propagation modelling and species distribution. Such a step-by-step approach might enable an assessment of exposure of populations of animals, description of the scale of potential for disturbance, and some suggestions for assessing (G)ES.
Once cumulative impacts on disturbance are assessed, the next step could be to consider cumulative impact across noise impact categories (e.g. disturbance, impairment and injury), and possibly even wider outside the underwater sound effects (e.g. bycatch).
• Further assessments and target setting may be done at the regional or sub-regional level (depending size of regions), larger scale assessment and target setting is not feasible or sensible.

16. Indicators of impacts of increased ambient sound
For future assessment and target setting, implementation of monitoring of the current indicator (11.2.1: continuous noise) remains essential.
Actual monitoring of continuous low frequency noise (ambient noise) was taken up first in the HELCOM area by the BIAS project (Life+). The noise maps developed in the BIAS project enable determination of the anthropogenic component of the total environmental sound.
There are large seasonal and likely annual variations in ambient noise levels. Identifying statistically significant trends (if they exist) in ambient noise levels remains challenging and probably will take many years.
Noise maps may be used to identify changes of the acoustic habitat; development of an impact indicator addressing habitat changes (deterioration including from acoustic masking) look promising.
• Assessments and target setting may be done at the regional or sub-regional level (depending size of regions), larger scale assessment and target setting is not sensible.

17. Indicators of impacts of underwater noise on fish and invertebrates
Currently most attention is given to impacts on marine mammals. For potential effects at the ecosystem level other species may be of more relevance as there are known effects of underwater noise on fish and invertebrates.
Development and implementation of impact indicators on these groups is not feasible in the short term.