Trawling at the bottom of European seas comes with an annual price tag for society as high as €10.8 billion, reveals a pioneering study published today.

The study revealed that this expense primarily stems from carbon dioxide released by disrupted seabed sediments.

“We recently found out that bottom trawling disturbs the seabed sediments, causing them to release

Carbon dioxide emissions on the scale of global air travel

“And half of those underwater emissions will eventually make their way into the atmosphere,” says Enric Sala, an Explorer in Residence at National Geographic and one of the study’s contributors.

Trawling from the bottom is a harmful method of fishing where they drag a massive net—big enough to accommodate an entire Boeing 747 aircraft—along the ocean floor with the aim to catch fish. This process stirs up sediments, devastates underwater ecosystems, and often non-targeted sea creatures get entangled in these nets as well.

Sala notes, “The fishing lobby highlights the advantages of bottom trawling for societal gains, employment, economic income, and nutrition,” but he points out that they fail to address the drawbacks.”

Therefore, he explains, for the initial time, they chose to assess the expenses and advantages of this particular method of fishing from both an industrial perspective and broader societal impact. Their conclusion was that the costs associated with bottom trawling significantly outweigh the gains.

What does bottom trawling cost European seas?

This research marks the first time that the complete economic impact of bottom trawling has been assessed across European seas, encompassing areas such as the EU, UK, Norway, and Iceland.

This indicates that this harmful fishing method incurs annual societal costs ranging from €330 million to €10.8 billion.

The range of estimates in the study is so large because there is no globally agreed value on the cost of a tonne of carbon. But even at the lower end of the estimate, Sala says “society still loses”.

Although bottom trawling aids employment throughout the region, providing food and income, the study’s authors argue that the effects of climate change, ecological consequences, and challenges faced by artisanal fishers surpass these advantages.

Prohibiting this fishing technique within marine protected areas (MPAs) would be advantageous for marine life, the climate, and surprisingly, the fishing sector itself. It’s worth noting that numerous fishermen are already aware of this.

in agreement with the push for stricter regulations

.

“Small-scale, sustainable fishermen are witnessing their sources of income vanish alongside the destruction of coral reefs and seagrass beds caused by weighted nets,” states Hugo Tagholm, who leads Oceana UK as its executive director.

And all of this just to fill the wallets of a select few. The reality is that healthy ocean ecosystems support prosperous seaside towns.

Bally Philp serves as the national coordinator for the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, an organization that advocates for small-scale, inshore fishing boats, line fishing vessels, and those engaged in hand diving.

These are some of the least damaging and more exclusive fishing techniques,” he clarifies. “In fact, they currently involve most fishers.

Philip mentions that different types of equipment tend to be incompatible with each other. Permitting bottom trawling in certain zones implies that other fishing methods, such as hand-diving for scallops or placing pots on the seafloor, cannot occur simultaneously.

If fishing with trawl nets were restricted just within the three-mile zone off Scotland’s coastline, he notes, the nation could potentially double both the number of fishers employed and the income produced by the fishing industry.

We can manage this without hooking another fish.

‘ citizens bear the expense of governmental subsidies ‘

The researchers highlight that European taxpayers are essentially financing the degradation of their own seas.

It is reported that European governments allocate approximately €1.3 billion annually in subsidies for bottom trawling, which is almost equal to the monetary worth of employment generated by this sector. The countries providing the largest sums include Italy, Norway, Denmark, Great Britain, and Sweden.

In certain nations, studies have revealed that bottom trawling might not turn out to be financially viable for the businesses engaged in this practice unless they receive additional support.

subsidies

.

“Our analysis revealed that society invariably ends up bearing the brunt of the impact from bottom trawling compared to the industry. The industry’s profits are essentially maintained at the expense of shifting its costs onto society,” explains Sala.

Taxpayers bear the expense of government subsidies, which originate from their own hard-earned money.

According to Claire Nouvian, the head of NGO BLOOM, the French government has been providing subsidies for trawling activities for many years.

The shift away from trawling could have occurred and ought to have occurred,” she contends, “and it wouldn’t have cost anything as we could have structured it, but we didn’t.

A study conducted by BLOOM along with French researchers from L’Institut Agro and the French Natural History Museum reveals that approximately 800 French bottom trawling vessels damage about 670,000 square kilometers of seafloor annually—a region larger than France itself.

Regardless of what Nouvian refers to as the nation’s “obsession” with this harmful fishing method, President Emmanuel Macron plans to host the SOS Ocean summit at the end of March in Paris. The event aims to gather international thinkers, policy makers, researchers, and ocean conservationists to develop a strategy for the upcoming UN Oceans Conference scheduled for June in Nice.

Before these events, Macron declared an investment of €700 million for the fishing sector aimed at updating their fleets, enhancing food security, and supporting additional initiatives.

According to Nouvian, “The fishing industry lobbyists were ecstatic with delight; they were overjoyed.” They were jubilant and dancing about since they couldn’t fathom the idea of funds from the offshore wind energy tax being directly deposited into their coffers.

Shifting subsidies away from trawling might offer a route for funding a just transition for the fishing sector, as stated in the report.

One-fifth of EU bottom trawling occurs within marine protected areas.

The research emerges as a group of civil society organizations urges European governments to prohibit bottom trawling within marine protected areas.

These zones are intended as sanctuaries for sea creatures, yet approximately 13 percent of Europe’s bottom trawling occurs within them — a proportion that increases to 20 percent in the European Union.

“The solution is clear. We should begin by banning bottom trawling in marine protected areas instead of shifting this activity somewhere else,” states Sala.

That solution will benefit aquatic creatures, the environment, and communities as a whole. Additionally, it will enable marine conservation zones to achieve their objective of safeguarding sea life, which could ultimately aid in restocking adjacent fisheries.

The EU member countries are meant to be taking steps towards eliminating bottom trawling in marine protected areas by the year 2030. Up until now,

Greece

Sweden and only these two nations have declared prohibitions or strict limitations.

The inherent regulations of the bloc and its global commitments to biodiversity obligate member nations to strictly safeguard these designated sanctuaries for oceanic creatures. Additionally, they received a deadline from last year to present plans detailing their strategies for phasing out harmful fishing practices within these zones.

“A correct understanding of the Habitat Directive implies that bottom trawling ought not to be accepted within European Union Marine Protected Areas,” states John Conden, a wildlife lawyer from ClientEarth.

This month, we received word from Commissioner Kadis (Costas Kadis, European Commissioner for Fisheries and Oceans) that he is dedicated to fully enforcing our environmental regulations. We are hopeful this commitment indicates an end to bottom trawling within EU marine protected areas established to safeguard seabed habitats.

However, a recent assessment by marine non-governmental organizations including Oceana, Seas At Risk, and ClientEarth revealed that none of the European Union countries have complete strategies in place to eliminate harmful fishing activities within Marine Protected Areas by the end of this decade.

Over half did not manage to turn in their plan. Among those who submitted one, Estonia kept the details of their plan confidential, and all lacked thorough strategies for eliminating harmful fishing methods.

Consequently, the alliance of marine non-governmental organizations is

suing governments in France

Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden have been accused of violating EU nature regulations by not safeguarding their Marine Protected Areas from the effects of bottom trawling.