Report of an International Workshop: Policy on Sound and Marine Mammals, 28–30 September 2004, London, England
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Report of an International Workshop: Policy on Sound and Marine Mammals, 28–30 September 2004, London, England Erin Vos and Randall R. Reeves 23 December 2005 Suggested citation: Vos, E., and R.R. Reeves. 2006. Report of an International Workshop: Policy on Sound and Marine Mammals, 28–30 September 2004, London, England. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, Maryland. 129 pp. Special thanks to Zoë Crutchfield and Colleen Corrigan, without whom this meeting would not have been possible Workshop graphic design by Dave Johnston Available online: http://www.mmc.gov/sound Print copies available from Marine Mammal Commission 4340 East-West Highway, Room 905 Bethesda, MD 20814 United States Joint Nature Conservation Committee Dunnet House 7 Thistle Place Aberdeen AB10 1UZ United Kingdom Foreword: A Brief Summary from the Workshop Conveners The U.S. Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and the U.K. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) sponsored an international policy workshop on sound and marine mammals in London, U.K., 28–30 September 2004. More than 100 participants from more than 20 countries attended. The Commission and JNCC gratefully acknowledge all those who assisted in organizing and carrying out the workshop. The workshop goals were to: • Determine the range of efforts to manage, mitigate, and prevent impacts of human- generated sound on marine mammals; • Determine how various legal and regulatory frameworks have been or could be used to address acoustic impacts on marine mammals; • Identify cross-boundary or multilateral issues; and • Identify innovative management strategies and policies that might be incorporated within national and international frameworks. The workshop included individual and panel presentations as well as small-group and plenary discussion sessions. It focused on promoting contacts and dialogue among expert scientists, industry representatives, policy-makers, and administrators from around world to share information and perspectives about managing the interactions between anthropogenic (human generated) sound and marine mammals. The organizers did not set out to produce recommendations. Nevertheless, a number of information and institutional gaps, as well as means to address these gaps, emerged as themes from the workshop. We provide our brief summary below. 1. Basis for Concern and State of Knowledge • Recent mass strandings of beaked whales and other cetacean species have raised international awareness and concern about the impacts on cetaceans from exposure to loud, episodic anthropogenic sounds in low- and mid-frequency ranges. • Seismic airguns, military sonar, commercial ships, and sound projectors used in large- scale ocean research produce some of the most powerful and pervasive anthropogenic sounds in the oceans. • Because of the nature of sound propagation in water and the high mobility and wide distribution of marine mammals, managing marine mammal exposures to anthropogenic sound is transboundary in scope and requires international cooperation. • A wide variety of human activities (e.g., shipping, oil and gas exploration and development, construction, ocean research, and military defense) undertaken by virtually every coastal nation introduce anthropogenic sound into the oceans and seas. • Different species respond differently to various types and levels of anthropogenic sound. When responses occur, documented effects range from short-term behavioral change to physical injury, stranding, and death. • In most developing (and many developed) countries, baseline information on marine mammals and underwater sound is far from adequate, and few or no monitoring programs are in place. Foreword–i Foreword: A Brief Summary from the Workshop Conveners • Policy-makers, scientists, and the general public need a better understanding of the effects of sound on marine mammals at both individual and population levels. • The levels and other characteristics of human-generated underwater sounds from different sources need to be better documented at local, regional, and global levels. • Scientists and policy-makers need a much better qualitative and quantitative understanding of the mechanisms that link underwater sound to behavioral and physiological responses by marine mammals. Such understanding should include knowledge of dose-response relationships and thresholds of exposure that trigger given effects. • The biological significance of marine mammal reactions to anthropogenic sounds needs further elaboration. Scientists and policy-makers need to understand the type and scale of effects that would have long-term or irreversible consequences for an individual or a population. Biological significance likely depends, at least in part, on population status. For example, displacement of a few animals belonging to an endangered population could be highly significant, whereas it might be unimportant for a large, healthy population. • The immediate, acute, or observable effects of underwater sound on marine mammals are important. However, the potential cumulative, synergistic, and long-term effects, although much more difficult to detect, characterize, and measure, may be as important, or even more important, to marine mammal populations. 2. Managing Risk in the Face of Uncertainty • Risk assessment and environmental impact assessment processes are not used universally, and are not used in relation to some sources of noise. When such tools are used, the potential impacts on marine mammals from anthropogenic sound are frequently overlooked. Use of these tools and consideration of these potential impacts should become routine. • Best practices in risk assessment and environmental impact assessment involve: (a) Recognizing and quantifying risks and uncertainties; (b) Incorporating a precautionary approach; (c) Assessing potential impacts early in project design so that the results can be used during implementation; and (d) Making use of all available relevant data. • Modifying the spatial and temporal scope of a sound-producing activity may be one of the most effective ways to reduce its risk to marine mammals. 3. Mitigation Strategies • In managing the risks of sound to marine mammals, strategies must be tailored to particular situations such that appropriate mitigation tools are employed to address particular types and levels of sound and to protect particular species from harm. In other words, a mitigation strategy that is appropriate for one situation may not be appropriate for another: one size does not fit all. • The most promising mitigation strategies are those that reduce sound output and those that separate sound-generating activities, spatially and temporally, from marine mammals. This separation may be accomplished through, for example, seasonal or year- round avoidance of areas that may include concentrations of marine mammals, areas of Foreword–ii Foreword: A Brief Summary from the Workshop Conveners special importance to marine mammals (e.g., locations used for calving/pupping, resting, feeding), or areas used preferentially by species known or thought to be especially vulnerable to harmful effects of particular types of sound (e.g., beaked whales and naval sonar). • Mitigation strategies that change sound output or constrain operations may be the most expensive or disruptive for the sound producers. • The shipping industry is a major contributor to the sound budget of the oceans. Shipping is an international enterprise, with many aspects regulated through the International Maritime Organization. Technologies are available for making quieter ships, and the industry’s own interests may converge with the conservation imperative to employ those technologies through, for example, a “green shipping” certification initiative. Many ship owners may be willing to work with scientists and conservationists to develop and implement a strategy for managing ship noise, particularly if the risks of ship noise to marine mammals are clearly communicated. • The effectiveness of many tools currently used to mitigate the effects of human-generated sound on marine mammals (e.g., soft-start/ramp-up, onboard observers to detect marine mammals) is unproven. Monitoring and experimentation should be conducted to test the effectiveness of these and other mitigation techniques. 4. International Cooperation • Although no existing international legal instrument directly and explicitly addresses underwater sound as a threat to marine mammals, several multilateral agreements contain language that some interpret as applying to this issue (e.g., International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). • A few multilateral legal instruments and regional bodies are in early stages of addressing this issue. For example, two regional cetacean protection agreements under the Convention on Migratory Species (ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMS) have passed resolutions and commissioned research related to the effects of sound. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Undersea Research Centre supports a major program of mitigation and research, focused on reducing the risks to beaked whales from military sonar during research exercises. • In the absence of an existing international legal instrument with an explicit mandate to address the effects of sound on marine mammals, it will be necessary to decide among three main options for further action: (1) Focus on national and/or regional approaches and abandon a global approach; (2) Seek to modify or re-interpret an existing international legal framework;