Try to have a conversation in a noisy bar – that‘s the situation a whale is constantly living in

CCB • June 30, 2022

Underwater noise – an issue that is more dangerous for marine animals that we might think

30 June 2022 - At the United Nations Ocean Conference 2022, Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), altogether with Ocean Care and BUND – Friends of the Earth Germany organized the side event “Reduce Ocean Noise & Save Our Ocean”, which was the only event focused on such topic and brought a hall full of listeners. The event started by listening the recordings of the harbor porpoise sounds and the noise of only one bigger ship passing by – the audience could evaluate how loud it sounds and how it spreads under the water.

Marine animals “cannot shut the window”

The Representative from the German Environmental Agency and Former Chair of HELCOM, Lilian Busse, made the opening speech drawing the attention to the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), which has more than 200 actions set to achieve a ‘good environmental status’ in the Baltic Sea and 9 of them are meant to minimize the issue of underwater noise.


“This is the easy problem, because when you end noise pollution – it stops immediately. As you know, it is not the same with hazardous substances or plastic pollution”- stressed Lilian Busse.

Bettina Taylor, from the organization BUND - Friends of the Earth Germany, explained why we need to reduce underwater noise.


“We know very well, how noise affects us. We cannot concentrate or sleep when there is noise. Underwater noise comes either from shipping, or from big underwater explosions, seismic surveys that are made to explore ocean floor in the search of oil and gas - then it’s called impulsive noise. In the 1990s, a researcher did an experiment by putting a loud acoustic device in the Southern Indian Ocean: the sound spread around the world to the East coasts of South and North America so as to the coasts of Australia,” – said Bettina Taylor.


She noted that marine animals cannot shut the window when it is noisy – they simply cannot escape that. The noise can disturb an animal – but it also poses a risk of dying if or, for example, an animal is so stressed out that it stops hunting. Moreover, noise underwater accumulates, different sounds strengthens the effect of one another.


Bettina Taylor urged to act to reduce underwater noise, as there is already enough scientific data to prove that is a threat to marine animals. She proposed to ban seismic surveys completely because – “when we phase out coal, there is no need to explore for new deposits of gas and oil“.


150 species are affected by underwater noise

Afterwards, Sharon Livermore, Program Officer at IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) talked about how dangerous for marine animals is noise caused by shipping.


The propeller of the ship and the water movement (air bubbles) usually causes noise. In recent years, global underwater noise has risen by 20 decibels. “The noise spreads easily, especially through cold water environments and at the moment it dominates the background noise” – said S. Livermore.


This noise is stronger and dominates the sounds that marine animals receive and spread by themselves: to locate, to find a mate, to hunt, to feed their calves. That is why underwater noise poses a threat not only to individual animals, but to entire populations.


“A study showed that between 1992 and 2012 the number of ships travelling across the oceans grew by 60%” – noted S. Livermore. – If we count only the Indian Ocean, it’s a 300 % increase in ship traffic. The reason why shipping has increased in this way, it’s the growth of international trade. But we must understand that with increased shipping traffic, air pollution, water pollution and noise pollution rise altogether.”


Approximately, 150 marine species are affected by underwater noise, causing increased stress and behavioural changes. The most acoustically sensitive species are whales, dolphins and porpoises. Underwater noise can affect feeding behaviour, as well as their movements and the level of stress in these animals.


„Remember trying to have a conversation in a noisy bar. We all know how difficult it is. We have to raise our voice to be heard and we can barely hear ourselves. This is the constant life of a whale. Sound is their primary sense – if they cannot detect a mate, it has a negative impact for the population“ – noted S. Livermore.


The easiest solution – to reduce the speed of large ships

Whales have the so called ‚acoustic bubble‘ around them. It‘s the area from which they can receive their sounds or be heard themselves. Some studies in the North Atlantic Ocean have shown that the acoustic bubble of the whales had shrunk exponentially after the industrialization of the Ocean.


Another example was the researches made after the 9/11 events in the United States of America, when all the shippings near the coast of New York coast stopped after the terrorist attack for security reasons. Marine scientists used this opportunity and found out that the amount of stress related to hormones in whales decreased sharply during this period.


„This cannot be explained by anything else: shipping causes biological response (stress hormones) in whales“ – noted S. Livermore. As underwater noise can spread long distances, an international law is needed to address this problem.


„There are immediate solutions that could be approved very quickly – such as reducing the speed of ships by 10%. If we can reduce the speed of the ships – we could reach a 40% reduction of their noise” – said S. Livermore. She added that this measure could also help to reduce ship collisions with whales and greenhouse gas emissions – so it’s three benefits for the environment from just one solution. More complex solutions can be changing the technical features and the design of the new ships to make them more silent.


First area where changes can be adopted – corridor for migration in the Mediterranean Sea

Another speaker at the event, the representative from the OceanCare organization, Carlos Bravo, talked about the area-based noise reduction measures, which were already implemented in one of the coasts in Spain, in the Medittereanean Sea.


“In recent years there were many oil and gas projects started in the Spanish Mediterranean waters. But after the opposition of the private sector, the civil society and non-governmental organizations, stressing the harm to the environment and the negative impact for climate change, the Spanish government banned the search of any new oil and gas fields” – said C. Bravo.


After this success, migration corridor, meant for penguins and other species, was created near the coast of Catalonia, called a cetacean migration corridor. The area covers 46 000 square kilometres.


Ocean Care communicates with government to limit the speed of ships in this area would no more than 10 knots. C. Bravo hopes that Italy, France, Monaco, and other countries that are situated around the corridor would also adopt this ship speed limitation. Although the threat of impulsive noise by search of oil and gas fields was removed, intense shipping continues, with 24 passenger ferries, travelling from Catalonia and Valencia to the Balearic Islands, plus a great number of cargo ships reaching big ports, such as Barcelona and Valencia.


“Shipping is an important way of transportation, but it absolutely rely on fossil fuels. The report issued by the European Maritime Safety Agency and the European Environmental Agency in September last year showed that underwater noise has doubled in the period from 2014 to 2019. It is an increasing problem. There are, of course, technical measures that can be implemented, but we are promoting the most cost-effective and immediate solution: speed reduction” – explained C. Bravo.   


What can be changed? The design of the ship, but not the propeller

The event included also a panel discussion, with  Frederik Haag, (IMO), Bev Mackenzie, (BIMCO), Mattias Rust (Swedish Ministry of Infrastructure) and Carlos Bravo (OceanCare).


Bev Mackenzie said that they try to measure the noise, because noise is a form of energy, and ships do not want to lose it. BIMCO is collaborating with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and is willing to implement the guidelines this organization will set. BIMCO is also looking forward to implement the new design of the newly built ships in order to reduce the noise they make. „But it‘s really hard to change propellers or other technical parts of the existing old ships, so I think we should search for a combination of design changes for new ships and operational measures for the old ones“ – said Bev Mackenzie.


Frederic Haag, representative of International Maritime organization (IMO), said that the measures for noise reduction are not yet implemented in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), but they could be implemented, when the stakeholders will agree and decide which of the measures would work best. „We rely on shipping to receive our medicines and goods, so we need a measure which is appropriate“ – added Frederic Haag.


Mattias Rust, from the Swedish Ministry of Infrastructure was honest: the underwater noise issue is on the agenda of HELCOM and the European Commission, but for the Ministers of EU countries it still has to reach a higher level of urgency, there is a need for more data provided, showing the severe harms for marine animals.


„Our members are willing to support such measures, applied internationally. National regulations are challenging for shipping: ships don‘t necessarily keep the same routes, don‘t always have the same crew. We unite 60% of the cargo ships, but if the rest of the ships will not follow the new rules because it’s cheaper, the problem will not be solved”, - said Bev Mackenzie from BIMCO.


Underwater noise – measures are almost ready, but we also need awareness raising

So why the measure of reduction of the speed cannot be approved immediately?


Frederic Hag explained that when they are trying to make a new rule globally, it takes longer than one could expect. But as IMO is now reviewing the guidelines for ships, it’s easy to take this “one step further”, although that it is beneficial both for environment and economically.


„Shipping industry is a commercial activity. And in my last meetings I‘ve learned that even when they want to adopt various green initiatives and they offer them for their clients, clients do not buy it. That‘s why I think we must invest more in awareness raising“ – added M. Rust.


***

Article written by Inga Labutytė-Atkočaitienė, Lithuanian Fund for Nature and CCB Communication Group Coordinator

Tampering with EU Fisheries Policy would ‘open Pandora’s Box’, NGOs warn

By CCB • March 30, 2026
Brussels, 30 March 2026 - Today, Fisheries Ministers from EU Member States meet with the European Commission for the AGRIFISH Council. On this occasion, Oceana, BLOOM, ClientEarth, Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), Seas At Risk and WWF EU, handed a symbolic ''Pandora’s Box'' to the EU Commissioner Costas Kadis, sending a clear message as the European Commission prepares its 2026 evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The box represents the risks of revising EU’s main fishery policy framework: once opened, competing demands from Member States, industry, small-scale fishers, and coastal communities could quickly spiral into division, regulatory delays and uncertainties. This would put at risk the hard-won progress made in restoring Europe’s fish populations and improving the profitability of the fishing sector. NGOs urge decision makers to build on the progress made to date and to prioritise the full and timely implementation of the existing rules. Reopening the CFP and its related provisions would undermine ocean health and the long-term future of Europe’s fishing communities. '' Europe's fisheries policy is facing a credibility test. The law is already there. The tools to rebuild our seas already exist. What's missing is the political will to deliver. Overfishing should have ended by 2020 at the latest. Reopening the CFP would signal that missed deadlines carry no consequences, erode trust, revert the progress made, and put the future of our fisheries and coastal communities at stake ’’, said the NGO coalition. *** Oceana: Vera Coelho, Executive Director and Vice President in Europe BLOOM: Claire Nouvian, Founder and General Director ClientEarth: John Condon, Lead of Marine Ecosystems Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB): Ida Carlén, Co-Chair Environmental Justice Foundation: Steve Trent, CEO/Founder Seas At Risk: Dr Monica Verbeek, Executive Director WWF EU: Ester Asin, Director

CCB´s submission to the EU Call for Evidence on the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

By CCB • March 10, 2026
Uppsala, March 2026 - CCB has closely worked with the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) ever since its adoption and welcomed the opportunity to give feedback to this crucial directive for marine biodiversity and ocean health through the EU Call of Evidence . Evaluations conducted by the EU Commission previously found many positive effects for EU marine waters stemming from the directive, but also that the directive has some shortcomings. CCB however, maintains that the largest obstacle to fully implementing the directive and achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) is the lack of political will among Member States to do so. This forthcoming revision must therefore result in a framework directive that is more easily enforceable, measurable and implementable, accompanied by sufficient funding to carry out the measures. Furthermore, in order to achieve GES as fast as possible other key pieces of EU legislation must also support reaching it and focus on achieving the goals of the MSFD in their objectives. Seeing that European seas generally are in poor condition and under mounting pressure from human activities and that in the Baltic Sea the situation is especially dire there is an urgent need for truly ecosystem-based management of our seas and for reaching GES. The revised MSFD can help us achieve this, but only if it includes the points outlined below and the directive is fully and swiftly implemented: *** [Short version]*** Operationalise the overarching GES goal: EU sea areas were supposed to reach GES already in 2020, but due to low political ambition, sadly did not do so. Member States should therefore strive to reach GES as fast as possible now. Setting a new overall deadline for when to reach GES is not the answer on how to achieve this goal most efficiently, instead tools that address pressures and measure progress and ensure actual, timely implementation of ambitious measures must be included in the revised directive in order to operationalise achieving the overall GES goal. CCB therefore recommends making the existing and forthcoming threshold values for the descriptors and their criteria legally binding and part of the main directive. Improving regional coordination and implementation: To improve the coherence, coordination and effectiveness of MSFD implementation, assessment of GES, monitoring and the national PoMs the role of the Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs) must be clarified. CCB would welcome collating all the national PoMs into one regional PoM for the Baltic Sea, which should be aligned with, in addition to reaching the goals of the MSFD, with achieving the goals of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). Land-sea interface: For the Baltic Sea to achieve GES it is key that land-based pressures, primarily nutrient runoff from agriculture causing severe eutrophication, is also addressed and that implementation of the MSFD goes hand in hand with the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The goals of the MSFD and achieving GES should also be included when implementing and shaping the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), as well as any synergies with implementing the EU Zero Pollution Action Plan which are also important to identify and utilise. The Baltic Sea also has a too high prevalence and level of other pollutants and hazardous substances affecting marine life. Fisheries and aquaculture: As one of the main pressure factors on the marine environment in general, as well as in the Baltic Sea, fisheries and aquaculture and the effects they have on the marine ecosystem and its biodiversity must be addressed in order to achieve GES. This is especially crucial when considering the MSFD descriptor for Biodiversity (D1), Fish and Shellfish (D3), Food webs (D4) and the one for Seabed integrity (D6). Climate change: Climate change is also affecting the Baltic Sea faster than other marine regions and must be factored in when managing the sea area and its resources to ensure EBM and the full implementation of the MSFD and achieving GES. The effects of the climate crisis should be accounted for when setting pressure reduction targets and threshold values for the descriptors and their criteria, in a way that when an effect cannot be measured nor predicted the precautionary principle must be used. Revising Art. 14 of the MSFD: Article 14 in the MSFD outlines the acceptable exceptions when reaching GES is not possible. The article needs to be revised in the forthcoming revision, since it contains too many and too broad in scope possibilities for exemptions (e.g. in Art. 14(4)), which jeopardise the implementation and fulfilment of the directive as a whole. A possible way of modifying it would be to introduce an obligation for Member States to demonstrate that they have taken all measures within their control nationally and that they have tried to address the problem and advance solving it on a regional level through cooperating with other Member States, before they can apply for a possible exemption. Make the Programme of Measures contain ambitious & concrete measures: One of the cornerstones of the MSFD is the national PoMs that are published every six years and are precluded by an assessment of GES in national waters and a monitoring programme. Unfortunately, the current approach to PoMs where Member States freely can choose measures has led to an overall too low level of ambition in the PoMs, and to large differences within regions and between neighboring countries in terms of which measures are included. In order to fully implement the directive and to achieve GES it is of paramount importance that the national PoMs have a high level of ambition and contain concrete, implementable measures and that there is regional coordination. Easing the reporting burden: One of the results from the evaluation of the MSFD was that the current reporting burden is considered to be too high and a possible way to address this is to align the reporting obligations of the MSFD to more reassemble those of the WFD, that has a more simplified 6-year cycle compared to the MSFD. The implementation cycle however should not be revised or at least not in a way that delays reaching GES. Improve coherence with other legislation: To ensure that the revised MSFD is fully implemented it is essential that coherence with other relevant legislation is improved. The MSPD (foundation for the forthcoming Ocean Act) is also currently being revised and to reach the goals for both the directives achieving GES needs to be a cornerstone of the Ocean Act. This is the only way to deliver truly ecosystem-based management of our seas, and the revision of both directives should therefore be coordinated and focused on achieving GES. CCB looks forward to continuing to provide input to the revision process of the MSFD as well as working with the implementation of the MSFD, especially in the Baltic Sea. CCB expects that the revision will result in a more enforceable directive that leads to the fast implementation of ambitious measures to improve the state of the Baltic and European Sea areas and to the achievement of GES. The full text of the submission is available here . *** Links to supplemental documents supporting our positions: CCB’s submission to the Call for Evidence for the Ocean Act Guiding Recommendations for Source-to-Sea Restoration in Riverine, Coastal, and Marine Ecosystems (Coalition Clean Baltic, 2025) Position Paper on Marine Protected Areas (Coalition Clean Baltic 2024) Don’t sink the Common Fisheries Policy – fulfil its potential (joint NGO Briefing 2025) Blue Manifesto (joint NGO paper)