N° 7 2021 
Finally, industry has addressed the issue by forming working groups 
(CEDA, 2011; WODA, 2013) and providing funds for research on all 
aspects of the risk framework (see Figure 1). An example is the Joint 
Industry Programme for Sound and Marine Life. This programme, 
which has been running for over a decade and has funded research 
on noise effects from the oil and gas industry. Another example 
is the UK Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme*® which 
funds environmental research with the aim of reducing the risks 
linked to gaining consent for offshore wind and marine energy 
projects, and it has funded other noise related projects. 
4.1.2 Regional 
The adoption of the Directive on conservation of natural habitats 
and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive) in 1992 (European 
Commission, 1992), the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 
Directive (European Commission, 1985, updated in 2011) and the 
Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (European 
Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001), all aim 
at the protection of species and habitats from disturbance. Whilst 
they do not mention noise specifically, they include provisions for 
avoiding harm and disturbance, which includes noise. They provide 
the environmental impact assessment frameworks in which 
potential impacts from projects need to be assessed. However, 
it was not until 2008 with the adoption of the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive (MSFD) that underwater noise appeared 
explicitly in European legislation. The MSFD requires EU Member 
States to achieve or maintain 'good environmental status‘ (GES) 
of their marine waters. It identifies 11 descriptors of GES, with the 
11 aimed at ensuring that: 'the introduction of energy, including 
underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the 
marine environment‘. An international expert group (Task Group 
11 — Noise and later TG Noise) defined indicators for noise which 
were adopted by the European Commission. In 2010, the first 
Commission Decision on indicators of GES further described these 
indicators and the need to monitor underwater noise. This Decision 
focused on the ‘distribution in time and space of loud, low- and 
mid-frequency impulsive sounds’ and ‘trends in continuous low 
frequency noise (as generated by shipping)’ (European Commission, 
2010). The MSFD broadened Europe’s marine conservation 
commitments to a more ecosystem-based approach, reflected in 
the focus on the cumulative effects of noise and potential effect 
on all marine animals (not just protected species) and populations. 
Following a Commission Decision in 2017 (European Commission, 
2017) Member States are now required to set threshold values for 
levels of underwater noise that do not adversely affect the marine 
environment. 
Given that underwater noise can propagate across borders and 
affect populations of marine organisms with wide home ranges, 
the MSFD requires a regional, collaborative approach to monitoring, 
assessment and noise management through existing regional sea 
conventions such as OSPAR and HELCOM. This is currently being 
implemented and should be maintained. As mentioned in Chapter 
2, the OSPAR/HELCOM impulsive noise registers were established in 
20157 as the first of their kind, collating data on where and when 
impulsive noise events occur in order to inform one of the MSFD 
underwater noise indicators. 
3 http://www.soundandmarinelife.org/ 
S http://www.orjip.org.uk/ 
7 https://www.ices.dk/data/data-portals/Pages /underwater-no0ise.dSDY 
38 httns //uuyyuy ascahans ara / 
"wo regional conservation agreements under the auspices of the 
CMS (The Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of 
the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas? (ASCOBANS) 
and the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the 
Mediterranean and Black Seas? (ACCOBAMS)), are specifically aimed 
at the protection of cetaceans. In the last decade, they have also 
acknowledged the potential threat caused by underwater noise. In 
addition, several initiatives have emerged, such as the Impulsive 
Noise Register for the Mediterranean (INR-MED) developed 
under the QUIETMED project, and continued under QUIETMED2. 
ACCOBAMS, through cooperation between industry, scientists and 
NGOs, also published guidance on underwater noise mitigation 
measures for impulsive and continuous noise (ACCOBAMS, 2019). 
OSPAR and HELCOM are continuing work to develop an indicator 
of the risk of disturbance from impulsive noise, and the ‘EU 
Harmonize’ project, which started in 2021, aims to standardize 
and harmonize impulsive noise assessments in Europe. Continuous 
noise monitoring has also begun in several European sea regions 
(see Chapter 2). These monitoring programmes and associated 
indicators will inform policy and regulation in Europe. 
In 2016, HELCOM adopted the Regional Baltic Underwater Noise 
Roadmap 2015-2017 (HELCOM, 2015), identifying steps to avoid 
harmful effects from noise on marine animals. Supporting the 
roadmap are the outputs of the BIAS® project that produced 
standards for noise measurements and signal processing and a tool 
to generate soundscape maps (see Chapter 2). 
For a full review of the main European-funded projects and other 
relevant initiatives of the past decade see Ferreira & Dekeling (2019). 
4.1.3 National 
In Europe, regulations and national plans/strategies transpose 
che requirements set out in EU Directives. Prohibitions relating to 
killing, disturbing and injuring cetaceans are now embedded into 
the regulations of Member States. In addition to these prohibitions, 
important habitats for species such as bottlenose dolphins, 
harbour porpoises, and harbour and grey seals are protected by 
law from significant disturbance including from noise. Prevention 
and precaution lie at the heart of these regulations in line with 
guidance from the European Commission*.. Certain activities can 
go ahead under licence even if they carry the risk of such impacts, as 
long as there are no satisfactory alternatives and there is no effect 
on a species’ conservation status. In addition, mitigation measures 
are usually required for example to meet impulsive noise threshold 
levels, such as those adopted as statutory requirements in Germany, 
the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium (see review in Thomsen 
°t al., 2015; Thomsen & Verfuss, 2019). There are nevertheless 
potential discrepancies between member states in how Directives 
are interpreted and transposed to national level, and also in the 
level of human resources and knowledge available to regulators, 
which can hinder effective and proportionate management. 
A timeline of milestones in underwater noise regulations and 
management, publications and initiatives of relevance to Europe 
can be found in Figure 7 on page 28. 
39 https://accobams.org/ 
“© https://biasproject.wordpress.com/ 
+1 https'//ec.euronag.eu/enviranment/nature/conservation/species /auidance /pdf/auildance en.Dd*