mcbem-2014-01-submission-wwf-en

eviewed. If a species is not listed under SARA, there are relatively few tools that can be used to require
mitigation. These existing tools are described in the background document in Appendix 4, An overview
of ocean noise regulation in Canada.
There was consensus that strategies to manage underwater noise should be area based, rather than
species based, and that such strategies should focus on overall noise reduction targets, recognizing that
many species of marine animals are vulnerable to the impacts of noise. The EU’s Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (see Weilgart’s abstract, this report) approach, with modifications, may be
appropriate. Within critical habitat for SARA-listed species, threshold targets should be set even lower
within the sound frequencies of interest (i.e., where frequencies of underwater noise overlap with those
of listed species).
Important to this discussion was the recognition that in general, the faster a ship travels, the more noise
it makes. Speed reduction targets may make sense, particularly when linked with real-time acoustic
monitoring of individual vessels (e.g., so that inbound vessels can be required to slow to their quietest
operating speed, or address noise-generating problems such as a damaged propeller). ‘Sound credits’,
like carbon credits, may be a good incentive, although the general drawbacks identified for carbon
credits may also apply here. Incentive based programs can complement the enforcement of regulations
with penalties. Regulations are usually necessary to motivate the small proportion of users who choose
not to comply with voluntary guidelines.
For the purposes of this discussion, it was important to appreciate that that commercial vessels use
different economic models: container ships pay for anchorage, so they tend to slow down to delay
arrival and avoid paying excess port fees, whereas bulk carriers are individual charters with arrival time
commitments, so they don’t slow down to fit berth schedules. As they travel at higher speeds, bulk
carriers are therefore unnecessarily noisy, and spend more time at anchor, where fouling can become
an additional source of underwater noise through the generation of a source of increased drag on the
hull. An indirect way to address this is through provision of ship-specific information on fuel efficiency
that shows the cost savings inherent in slower operating speeds, along the lines of one of the
environmental ratings offered by RightShip (www.rightship.com). Similarly, the individual real-time
noise monitoring mentioned above would provide information that would allow for port-based financial
incentives around noise reduction. Such incentives should be set to discourage the increased noise of
faster vessel travel.
The IMO has standards for airborne noise levels for ships, and energy efficient design requirements, as
well as proposed voluntary guidelines for underwater radiated noise levels. The latter are likely to be
approved in March 2014 (see Nowlan’s abstract, this report). Because there is a direct physical link
between vessel noise generation and energy efficiency (e.g., hull drag both decreases efficiency and
generates noise; damaged propellers work less efficiently and cavitate more), there is motivation for
ship owners to be proactive and reduce their underwater noise footprint. Voluntary standards such as
these IMO Guidelines can help reduce noise quickly. In North America, the Green Marine program has
potential to be a leader in this initiative as this association is considering adoption of a criterion on
underwater noise reduction. The IMO Guidelines could provide an initial benchmark for this criterion.
Regulations often evolve from guidelines and are needed to motivate the vessel owners or operators
that are not participating voluntarily. This is how the air emissions standards evolved. Within Section 5
of Canada’s Shipping Act, ports are able to issue tickets around air emission violations, and enforcement
falls within the jurisdiction of the Port, as well as under Transport Canada. This model could eventually
be applied to address noise emissions from individual ships.
55