There are ways to safeguard nature from underwater noise pollution, we just need the political will

© Chris Parker / Flickr

From 23 to 27 January, representatives from 175 countries that make up the UN International Maritime Organization – the regulatory body for shipping globally– will meet in London at the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Construction (SDC) meeting to continue their review of IMO guidelines to reduce impacts of underwater noise from shipping.

The review commenced in January 2022, six years after the IMO guidelines were first released. In those six years, and even over the past 12 months, we have learned much more about the contribution of ship noise to the world’s oceans and its impacts on marine life. It’s high time for political will to catch up.

This global issue is a hot topic for the Arctic

One of the last oceans on the planet unpolluted by underwater noise, climate change is melting the Arctic sea ice. This means Arctic shipping is on the rise, and with it, underwater noise. Between 2013 and 2019, the number of ships entering Arctic waters grew by 25% and the distance sailed jumped by 75%.

While the absolute amount of shipping is still lower than in other oceans, the special properties of the Arctic Ocean mean that a small number of ships can have a disproportionate effect on its underwater soundscape. Cold Arctic waters help sound travel long distances at shallow depths compared to other oceans. The ice that blankets the ocean for much of the year also makes it a naturally quiet environment.

The recent rise in shipping has already caused a doubling of underwater noise in some parts of the Arctic. This has equated to a shrinking of communication space for animals such as narwhal, beluga and bowhead whales, walrus and seals. These species rely on underwater sound to live and losing the ability to receive sound is a serious threat to their survival. Already under severe pressure from climate change, and central to the cultures, livelihoods and food security of many Indigenous Peoples across the Arctic, these and other marine species must be safeguarded from underwater noise pollution.

The guidelines have been sidelined up until now

During the review, multiple governments identified the non-mandatory nature of the guidelines as a major barrier to implementation. In other words, the guidelines are not compulsory and have been sidelined by other pressing matters including reducing greenhouse (GHG) emissions from ships.

There is an easy solution here: make it mandatory to manage underwater noise. At the SDC meeting next week, WWF, together with other environmental NGOs and the Inuit Circumpolar Council, will advocate that mandatory measures be recognised as a solution to overcome barriers to uptake. 

A predictable response to this has been to caution against rushing into regulation until we know more about the impacts of underwater noise. However, this argument is anything but cautious and would allow the shipping industry meanwhile to carry on with business as usual, while adding to its already oversized underwater noise footprint.

Do we really not know enough? Of the more than 100 species systematically reviewed, every one of them shows negative responses to underwater noise. Knowledge gaps that remain have not stopped the European Union from taking strong action on underwater noise. The EU has formally recognised underwater noise as a pollutant, and last month EU marine directors endorsed evidence-based noise limits. These limits will form the basis for EU member states to implement measures to protect their marine environments, including by reducing ship-generated noise. 

We need a rulebook on underwater noise for healthy oceans

Following revisions to the guidelines over the past year, several new sections are proposed, including measuring baselines of ship noise and setting goals and targets for underwater noise. If governments agree on these revisions at the SDC meeting, the new version of the guidelines will be an improvement on the original, but at this stage, the guidelines will remain just that – non-mandatory, with implementation on a voluntary basis only.

The revision also proposes to explore the co-benefits of reducing GHG emissions and underwater noise from ships. While some governments are not in favour of combining these issues, it is a missed opportunity if the global shipping fleet addresses one problem at considerable effort and expense, only to realise it has worsened another or could have fixed both at the same time.

With the container shipping industry turning record profits in the past two years, the sector might be able to afford to waste time and money, but the world’s oceans and species cannot afford to keep paying the bill for delayed and soft action by the IMO. Technical solutions to reduce ship noise exist. There is an urgency to put mandatory measures in place, paying special attention to sensitive regions such as the Arctic. What’s missing are the political decisions to act. We’ll continue making noise about underwater noise at the IMO until this happens.