Calling for ship noise to be recognised as marine pollution

South Africa joins Chile and Georgia in presenting the findings of a global gap analysis on underwater noise from shipping to the IMO's environment committee

South Africa, together with Chile and Georgia, has brought the key findings of a wide-ranging study before the International Maritime Organization (IMO), arguing that underwater noise from ships should be formally recognised as a form of marine pollution. The findings were submitted to the 85th session of the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).

The study, a gap analysis of policies and recommendations for reducing underwater radiated noise (URN) from shipping, was produced under the GloNoise Partnership, a project of the Global Environment Facility, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the IMO.

South Africa is one of six lead pilot countries in the partnership, alongside Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, India and Trinidad and Tobago. Georgia, Madagascar and Malaysia take part as regional partners. The partnership helps these countries build capacity and demonstrate practical ways of applying the IMO's revised guidelines on reducing underwater noise from commercial shipping, which aim to limit the harm that noise causes to marine life.

The researchers examined legal instruments, policies and strategies at global, regional and national level. They identified national contact points, sent questionnaires to focal points in the pilot countries and to intergovernmental secretariats, and gathered further information through meetings and literature reviews.

The national findings point to a shortage of baseline data and of specialist skills in acoustics, which makes reducing shipping noise difficult. None of the pilot countries specifically defines underwater noise as marine pollution in national legislation, although most have adopted a precautionary principle or an ecosystem-based approach in their environmental frameworks.

The countries share common challenges:

◼︎ Limited technical infrastructure for monitoring.
◼︎ Lack of skills in noise assessment and reduction technology,
◼︎ Limited coordination between maritime authorities, environmental bodies, shipowners and classification societies.

Incentives were seen as the least viable option under current national laws, which means there are no economic drivers to encourage ships to follow the guidelines.

Even so, the pilot countries have already taken steps to reduce the impact of noise. These include regulating and inspecting hulls and propellers, optimising traffic and waiting times in ports; setting environmental guidelines for assessing the effects of underwater noise; zoning maritime traffic and acoustic monitoring of marine protected areas.

The study calls for capacity-building and technical cooperation projects that address these national needs to be continued and extended, along with the transfer of marine technology.

The study's main recommendation is that underwater noise from shipping should be formally recognised as a form of marine pollution, in line with international law. It also identifies several shorter-term opportunities to strengthen existing instruments:

◼︎ Clarify what counts as an internationally designated protected area under the revised guidelines and refer to the marine protected areas and other area-based tools adopted under the new high seas biodiversity agreement.
◼︎ Build specific noise reduction measures into the Polar Code, including references to noise reduction in the Arctic and Inuit Nunangat.
◼︎ Link the revised guidelines to other relevant instruments, such as the 2023 anti-fouling guidelines and guidance under the conventions on migratory species and biological diversity.

The findings come as the IMO continues its experience-building phase for the revised guidelines, a period in which countries and industry gather practical experience of reducing underwater noise. The committee has been invited to note the information and take any action it considers appropriate.