Introduction
Current policy allows commercial fishing fleets to operate in most of our seas by default, even using highly destructive methods like bottom trawling, with minimal site-specific oversight. In contrast, land-based developers face rigorous environmental checks before breaking ground, even a small building extension can trigger costly surveys for protected species such as bats or newts. This paper argues for reversing that imbalance. Fisheries, especially those employing destructive gear like bottom trawls, should have to justify their activities and obtain explicit approval for specific areas, rather than enjoying automatic access everywhere unless an area is specifically closed. Such a shift would better protect marine ecosystems and align ocean management with the precautionary standards we apply on land, and the precautionary principle that appears in the Fisheries Act that so far appears completely toothless in application.
Policy makers in government and the public alike should consider the inequity and ecological risk inherent in the status quo. If a homeowner must jump through hoops to avoid harming a handful of bats when renovating an attic, why can an industrial fishing vessel drag weighted nets across miles of seabed, destroying habitats and killing untold wildlife, without equivalent scrutiny or accountability? The following sections compare terrestrial planning regimes with marine fisheries management, review the impacts of bottom trawling, and highlight a case study of regulatory double standards, to make the case that commercial fishing should become a permitted activity subject to area-specific environmental approval rather than an activity only restricted in exceptional cases. We need to level the playing field between land and sea, bringing destructive fishing under proper environmental management and public oversight.
The Unchecked Impact of Bottom Trawling
Bottom trawling involves towing large, weighted nets across the ocean floor to scoop up fish and other marine life. This method is notorious for its destructive impact on marine ecosystems. Scientific assessments have identified bottom trawling as “the most widespread source of anthropogenic disturbance to the seabed”, causing extensive physical damage to seafloor habitats. As the net and trawl doors grind over the seabed, they crush and uproot fragile organisms (like corals, sponges, and shellfish beds), re-suspend sediments, and leave behind flattened, furrowed ground. The result is a drastic reduction in the biomass, diversity, and complexity of benthic life in trawled areas. Studies show some seafloor communities never fully recover or take many years to rebound after repeated trawling disturbance. Frequent trawling shifts ecosystems toward fast-growing, opportunistic species instead of the slow-growing “engineer” species (reef-builders, bioturbators, etc.) that formerly provided rich habitat structure. In short, bottom trawling is akin to clear-cutting a forest, but underwater, it literally razes the living seafloor.
Beyond habitat destruction, bottom trawling also depletes marine wildlife through indiscriminate catch and high collateral kill. It is an inherently non-selective fishing method: the nets sweep up everything in their path, far beyond the target species, with only limited progression made towards offering escape mechanisms for certain fish. According to analyses in Europe, bottom-trawl fisheries account for an estimated 92% of all fisheries discards (unwanted bycatch thrown overboard) in EU waters. This means the vast majority of wasted fish deaths in European fisheries result from trawling activity. The bycatch from trawling includes myriad non-target fish and invertebrates, often juvenile individuals, as well as sensitive and protected species. Trawling in various regions has been documented to ensnare endangered sharks and rays, sea turtles, marine mammals like dolphins, and seabirds diving for fish. Many of these animals are killed or injured in the nets. By removing keystone species and top predators along with everything else, bottom trawling weakens entire food webs and undermines the integrity of marine ecosystems.
The harm does not end with biodiversity. Modern research highlights that bottom trawling also has significant climate and geochemical implications. The seabed holds vast stores of “blue carbon”, carbon locked in sediments and seabed habitats. When trawlers churn up the bottom, they release carbon that had been long buried, contributing to CO₂ emissions and reducing the ocean’s capacity to buffer climate change. Trawl disturbance can also release pollution (like heavy metals or organic toxins) trapped in sediments, reintroducing these “forever chemicals” into the water column. Additionally, because towing heavy gear requires powerful engines, bottom trawl fisheries burn large amounts of fuel, studies estimate their carbon footprint (per ton of catch) to be nearly three times higher than that of fisheries using passive gear. In summary, bottom trawling inflicts multi-faceted damage: it decimates seabed habitats, generates massive unwanted kill of marine life, and even exacerbates climate and pollution problems. These impacts have led scientists and conservationists to conclude that bottom trawling is fundamentally incompatible with effective marine protection and sustainable use.
Despite these well-documented harms, bottom trawling continues across vast areas of the ocean, including areas that are nominally protected. Weak regulations allow trawlers to operate in most marine protected areas (MPAs) unless specific prohibitions are in place. As a result, destructive bottom-towed gear is used in the majority of the UK’s MPAs today, over 70% of UK offshore MPAs still permit bottom trawling and dredging, essentially making many of these protected areas “paper parks” with little real protection. This situation persists largely because the burden is on conservation authorities to prove an area should be closed to fishing, rather than on fishermen to prove their methods are benign. Even the latest consultation proposing to close an additional 41 MPAs to bottom trawling doesn’t go anywhere near far enough and will only increase pressure on those that remain. It is a status quo that tolerates in the ocean what we would never tolerate on land, as the next sections explore.
On Land: Stringent Environmental Safeguards for Development
Human activities on land are subject to extensive planning and environmental regulations, especially when they might affect sensitive wildlife or habitats. Anyone proposing a development, from a new housing estate to a small home extension, must typically conduct ecological surveys and impact assessments (at their own expense) before receiving permission to proceed. Planning authorities are legally required to consider protected species and habitats in their decisions, and developers must demonstrate how they will avoid or mitigate harm to the environment.
For example, UK law strictly protects species like bats and great crested newts. Bats often roost in buildings, and great crested newts breed in ponds, if a proposed project could disturb these protected animals, the developer is obligated to survey the site for their presence and design mitigation measures. Government guidance under the National Planning Policy Framework lays out a “mitigation hierarchy”: developers must first seek to avoid significant harm to protected species entirely; if not possible, they must mitigate (reduce) the harm; only if avoidance and mitigation are impossible should compensation (such as creating alternative habitat) be considered. Planning authorities usually will not grant permission until they have all the necessary ecological information and are satisfied that wildlife impacts will be acceptably managed. As the guidance to local authorities makes clear, a developer should provide detailed information with their application on how their proposal “avoids or mitigates harm” to any protected species on site. Failure to do so can lead to refusal of planning permission or significant delays while additional surveys are conducted.
Crucially, the onus is on the proposer of the activity to prove it won’t irreparably harm the environment. Even relatively minor projects can be halted or heavily conditioned due to ecological concerns. A homeowner wanting to convert a loft may need to hire a licensed ecologist to check for bat roosts and perhaps schedule works outside of nesting season. A farmer draining a pond must consider if newts are present. A developer clearing scrub must avoid disturbing nesting birds. These requirements reflect strong legal frameworks (e.g. the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Habitats Regulations) and planning policies that give weight to conserving biodiversity. They ensure that environmental protection is not an afterthought but a prerequisite to development consent.
In short, on land there is a clear expectation: if you wish to undertake an activity that could be ecologically damaging, you must first gather evidence and obtain permission, with appropriate safeguards attached. Society has decided that the benefits of development must be balanced against the cost to nature, and that some areas or species are off-limits to harm. As we will see, this stands in stark contrast to how we manage activities at sea.
At Sea: Open Access and a Lack of Oversight
Marine environments, unfortunately, have not been afforded the same level of precautionary protection as terrestrial ones. Traditionally, the oceans have been treated as open-access commons for fishing, with regulation focused on quotas and gear specifications rather than spatial or environmental permitting. Commercial fisheries, especially in developed countries like the UK, have operated for centuries and pre-date modern environmental laws and impact assessment practices. Tellingly, most industrial fishing methods were well-established before any form of environmental impact assessment existed, a process that is now standard for almost all other marine industries. As a result, fishing has long enjoyed a special exception from scrutiny. The lack of close environmental oversight on practices like trawling and dredging is simply indefensible in today’s era of environmental awareness.
Unlike on land, where one needs planning permission, at sea a licensed fishing vessel can usually roam freely across grounds that are not explicitly closed to their method of fishing. The burden has been on regulators or conservationists to justify restricting fishing in particular areas (for instance by creating a Marine Protected Area or seasonal closure), otherwise, the default is that fishing is allowed. This is the inverse of how we handle potentially harmful activities on land. Imagine if any company could bulldoze a forest or plow up a wildflower meadow unless authorities had proactively designated that plot as off-limits, that is essentially how fishing in the ocean works today.
The consequence of this permissive regime is that damaging activities occur out of sight and out of mind. Bottom trawling and scallop dredging, for example, routinely take place on seabeds that belong to the public trust (within a nation’s waters) without any public notification or site-specific approval. The public would likely find this “unreasonable if they took place on land in full view”, as one report notes. Indeed, it would be unthinkable to allow a company to drag heavy machinery through a protected forest or fragile peat bog without an environmental study, yet the seafloor’s rich ecosystems have been afforded far less consideration simply because the damage is underwater and invisible to most people.
Marine spatial planning and licensing systems do exist (for example, the UK’s Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 requires a marine licence for activities like offshore construction, dredge spoil disposal, or seabed mining), but commercial fishing has largely been carved out of these frameworks. The Marine Management Organisation might require an environmental assessment for building a wind farm or a tidal energy turbine at sea, but not for a trawler repeatedly ploughing the seabed in the same area. Their recently launched consultation on amendments to the marine license process does nothing to correct this position. Only recently have authorities begun to integrate fisheries into marine protected area management, and even then progress is slow. In the UK, as of 2025, over 70% of domestic MPAs are still open to bottom trawling, despite legal obligations under conservation law to protect designated features. In essence, while other marine industries now face checks similar to land-based developers (for instance, an offshore wind farm must produce environmental statements predicting impacts on marine mammals, birds, benthic habitats, etc.), the fishing industry by and large still operates under antiquated assumptions of inexhaustible resources and negligible impact.
The reality, however, is that fisheries can and do cause extensive environmental damage, as detailed in the prior section, and yet they have not been systematically required to prove they won’t harm marine ecosystems before commencing or expanding operations. This disparity represents a regulatory blind spot. The ocean’s wildlife, from reef-building corals to slow-breeding skate species, do not benefit from the same proactive protection as their land counterparts. Instead, fisheries management has historically focused on maximising yield and avoiding stock collapse, often at the expense of broader ecosystem health. Bycatch of threatened species, for instance, is often addressed only after populations have severely declined, and even then through reactive measures (e.g. gear technology fixes, quotas or partial closures) rather than an up-front requirement to avoid such bycatch from the start.
In summary, the sea has been an exception to the rule that impactful activities require prior approval and environmental safeguards. As one conservation foundation observed, “industrial fishing began long before EIA [Environmental Impact Assessment] and has enjoyed a lack of scrutiny until recently”, a latitude that is no longer justifiable. The seabed and its life are a public resource, owned by the nation, so it is entirely reasonable to ask whether a given method of fishing is in the public interest. Yet today that question is rarely asked before the damage is done. The next section illustrates this double standard by comparing how a major infrastructure project at sea was handled versus how routine fishing impacts are handled.
Double Standards in Practice: Hinkley Point C vs. Fishing Discards
To concretely see the discrepancy in environmental accountability, consider the case of Hinkley Point C (HPC), a new nuclear power station being built on the Severn Estuary in southwest England. As part of its operation, Hinkley C will use cooling water from the estuary, which has the side effect of sucking in and killing some fish and other aquatic organisms. Because the Severn Estuary is an ecologically important area (with protected species like shad and lamprey), the project’s environmental impacts came under intense scrutiny. Regulators required detailed modelling of how many fish Hinkley’s cooling system would kill each year, and mandated mitigation measures to reduce those losses. Initially, the plant was required to install an “acoustic fish deterrent”, an array of 300 underwater loudspeakers meant to scare fish away from the intake pipes. When that plan proved unworkable (due to diver safety and efficacy concerns), Hinkley’s developer (EDF Energy) had to come up with an alternative to satisfy environmental regulators. The company even proposed creating a new salt marsh spanning 340 hectares (840 acres) along the estuary as a compensatory habitat to offset the estimated fish mortality of around 18–46 tonnes of fish per year sucked into the cooling water system. This extraordinary measure, essentially converting farmland to wild marsh, was deemed necessary to uphold the ecological integrity of the area, and its consideration has contributed to project delays and significant additional costs.
Now contrast this with the fishing industry. Commercial fishing in the same region (the Bristol Channel/Severn Estuary and its approaches – Western approaches, Celtic Sea) also kills fish, indeed, orders of magnitude more fish, through both landings and discards (fish caught and thrown back dead). Trawl fisheries in the area annually catch and discard far more than 18–46 tonnes of unwanted fish, yet there has been no equivalent requirement for those fishing vessels to mitigate their impact. In fact, an expert analysis by the government’s own fisheries scientists (Cefas) noted that the fish losses due to Hinkley Point C are negligible compared to losses from commercial fishing, even “orders of magnitude less than… unwanted fish discards” from fishing in the region. To put it plainly, commercial fishing boats throw away much more dead fish than Hinkley C would ever kill, but we oblige the power station to install expensive deterrents and create new habitat, while commercial fishing continues unimpeded.
This example highlights a striking hypocrisy. Hinkley Point C, as an energy infrastructure project, was subjected to an intense approval process under environmental laws, including a full Environmental Impact Assessment, and ongoing requirements to reduce harm to marine life. By contrast, commercial fishing, a traditional activity, operates with far less scrutiny even though its cumulative impact is far greater. The power company faced legal and public pressure to prove it could operate without long-term damage to fish populations (and was nearly taken to court over the fish deterrent issue), whereas fishing vessels have operated for decades with no obligation to prove their practices are sustainable for local ecosystems. Indeed, when Hinkley’s team put the fish mortality in context, they emphasised that fishing in the area removes a vastly larger amount of biomass and that Hinkley’s effect would not threaten any species’ viability. Yet it is only Hinkley that had to formally justify its environmental impact in order to proceed.
Another dimension of this double standard is regulatory response. If an industrial facility were found killing thousands of protected fish or seabirds as bycatch, it would likely trigger emergency reviews or technological fixes. For the fishing industry, similar levels of collateral kill have historically been accepted as normal. For example, across the EU it was estimated in the 2010s that around 1.7 million tonnes of fish were being discarded each year as unwanted catch, a wastefulness that led to public outrage and a phased introduction of a ban on discards. Even so, enforcement of that discard ban has been patchy, and in many fisheries unwanted catch continues to be thrown overboard out of sight. Bycatch of non-fish species, such as dolphins or seabirds caught in nets, is managed via some technical measures but rarely leads to closing a fishery outright. In contrast, Hinkley C’s potential to kill a relatively small number of fish (mostly small, common species) prompted requirements to physically alter the project (through deterrents or habitat compensation) or risk the project not being allowed to operate. The message from regulators is clear: if you’re a power station or a construction project, you must minimise and offset your environmental damage, but if you’re a fishing fleet, even damage on a far greater scale is tolerated under existing rules.
From a policy perspective, this inconsistency is hard to defend. It implies that who is doing the killing (and under what historic tradition) matters more than how much killing is done or how important the affected species and habitats are. It also sends the wrong signal: marine life appears to be valued less than terrestrial life, and industry sectors with long legacies are given freer rein than newer industries, even if their impacts are equivalent or worse. This case study of Hinkley vs. fishing is a vivid illustration of why we need to reform our approach. It is not a call to loosen standards for infrastructure, rather, it is a call to raise standards for fishing to the same level. Commercial fisheries should be required to account for and reduce their unintended “fish kill” and habitat destruction just as rigorously as any other activity is required to do.
Shifting the Paradigm: Treating Fishing as a Permitted Activity
To address these issues, we must move toward a system where destructive fishing practices are disallowed until approved rather than the reverse. In practical terms, this means flipping the current presumption of access. Instead of assuming fishing can occur anywhere unless explicitly forbidden, we should require that fishing (especially high-impact gear like bottom trawls and dredges) is only allowed in designated areas under specific conditions. In other words, make it a permitted activity, one that needs a permit or license for a given area, backed by an environmental assessment and justification.
Such a paradigm shift could be implemented through marine spatial planning and revised fisheries licensing. For instance, environmental groups in the UK have called for new spatial management regimes that “include a presumption against trawling and dredging” in large parts of the coastal zone. This would effectively establish default no-trawling zones, with exceptions only where evidence shows it can be done in a way that is sustainable to the full ecosystem. Already, Scotland has been considering proposals for limiting scallop dredging and trawling in inshore waters to protect nursery areas and vulnerable habitats. These are steps toward the idea of earning access rather than having it by right. A “presumption against” destructive fishing means the burden of proof lies with the fishing industry to demonstrate that using mobile bottom gear in a particular area will not compromise biodiversity, benthic habitats, or carbon stores.
Drawing on the terrestrial analogy, this is akin to requiring a developer to apply for planning permission, complete with an ecological impact study, to “develop” a fishery in a given location. Just as a developer might be told to choose a less sensitive site or adopt a less damaging design, a fishing operation might be constrained to certain zones or required to use lower-impact methods as conditions of its permit. For example, if a seabed area contains fragile reef habitat or is a spawning ground for depleted fish stocks, regulators could deny trawling access to that area (just as they would deny a building permit in a Site of Special Scientific Interest on land). Conversely, if a fishing company wants to open a new trawl fishery, they would need to conduct surveys of the seabed and species in the area, propose measures to avoid significant harm (such as modifying gear, limiting effort, or seasonal closures), and then receive a time-limited permit subject to monitoring.
This approach finds support in the broader policy trend toward ecosystem-based fisheries management. The question posed by the Blue Marine Foundation encapsulates the ethos: “Should we not… seek to ensure that the activities that take place in the ocean are those which have the least environmental impact? Should we not seek to maximise the public benefit of these public resources? How do bottom-towed fishing gears square with those desirable outcomes?”. If we commit to managing the ocean for public benefit, it stands to reason that more destructive and less selective methods should be heavily restricted or phased out in favour of lower-impact fishing. A permitting regime would accelerate this transition by not granting open access to destructive gear. Fishermen could still fish, but the where, when, and how would be planned in a way that guards the environment, very much like how industries on land operate under permitting constraints.
There are several benefits to making fishing a specifically permitted activity. First, it would incentivise innovation and adoption of sustainable fishing methods. If bottom trawling is hard to get approved due to its impacts, fishermen might shift to alternatives (like traps, hook and line, or more selective gears) that are more likely to be permitted. This aligns with a “just transition” for fishing communities, gradually moving toward methods that can coexist with healthy ecosystems. Second, it would greatly enhance data collection and accountability. Requiring permits in specific areas means authorities (and scientists) know who is fishing where and can monitor environmental indicators, adjusting permits as needed. It essentially integrates fisheries into marine spatial planning, ending the silo where fisheries were managed separately. Third, it would help achieve conservation targets such as the international goal to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030. Currently, even reaching 30% MPAs on paper doesn’t guarantee protection if fishing continues inside them. Under a permit regime, fully protecting 30% of the seas (no industrial extractive use) and carefully managing the rest becomes more feasible, you simply don’t issue fishing permits for 30% no-take areas, and you condition the permits elsewhere.
Critics might argue that this is bureaucratic or economically burdensome. But recall that land developers large and small face these hurdles every day as a cost of doing business in a regulated society. Fishing, which exploits public resources and has environmental externalities, should be no different. Government can streamline the process by providing clear guidelines on where certain fishing methods are likely permissible and where they are not (much as local plans guide developers on where building is allowed). Also, remote sensing and vessel monitoring systems today make it easier than ever to enforce spatial regulations at sea, we can track if a trawler enters an off-limits zone and take action.
Notably, some aspects of this approach are already emerging. After Brexit, the UK’s Fisheries Act 2020 introduced sustainability objectives and gives administrations powers to change access. Agencies could use these powers to require impact assessments for certain high-impact fishing activities. Additionally, under existing EU law (which the UK followed when an EU member), any plan or project (including some fishery measures) likely to affect protected habitats had to undergo an “appropriate assessment”. This legal hook has been used to start regulating bottom trawling in European marine Natura 2000 sites. For example, the European Commission’s recent Action Plan proposes phasing out bottom trawling in all MPAs by 2030, acknowledging that you cannot call something “protected” if trawling continues inside. The strong pushback from the fishing lobby against even this timid measure shows how entrenched the presumption of fishing rights is. Changing the system to one of earned privileges will undoubtedly face resistance, but the ecological and ethical rationale is compelling.
Ultimately, making commercial fishing a permitted (rather than presumptive) activity would align marine governance with modern environmental values. It treats the ocean as finite and fragile, not an inexhaustible frontier. It also introduces fairness: other industries must account for their pollution and habitat damage, fisheries should as well. The public would gain confidence that their ocean is being managed for long-term health, not short-term extraction. And fishers, in turn, would gain a more sustainable resource base and greater social license, as destructive practices are curbed and responsible ones encouraged.
Conclusion
It is time to end the antiquated double standard that grants the fishing industry carte blanche to exploit marine life in ways that would never be allowed on land. We have seen that bottom trawling and similar practices can be devastating to ocean ecosystems, yet they remain largely unchecked, proceeding wherever not explicitly banned. Meanwhile, everyday citizens and businesses on land must navigate a maze of environmental rules to ensure their activities do not harm protected species or habitats, an inconvenience to some, but a norm we accept for the greater good of conservation. This imbalance is not only unjust; it is untenable as we strive to protect biodiversity and combat climate change in all realms.
The case for change rests on both principle and pragmatism. In principle, the ocean should not be a sacrifice zone where rules don’t apply. Marine wildlife is as worthy of protection as terrestrial wildlife. The public owns the sea’s resources and has a right to demand they be managed sustainably and equitably. If anything, our ethical duty to steward the oceans should be stronger, given our lesser understanding of marine ecosystems and the difficulty of restoring them once degraded. Pragmatically, continuing the status quo, where we react belatedly to collapsing fish stocks or damaged seabeds, undermines the future of fisheries themselves. A system that requires upfront permission and justification for fishing in sensitive areas would prevent harm before it happens, rather than after the fact when recovery is hard or impossible.
We would not allow a mining company to strip-mine a national park on land simply because no one had explicitly forbidden mining there. We should likewise stop allowing seabed strip-mining by trawling unless a clear, science-based case can be made that it will not irreversibly damage marine life. It is a shift from an automatic right to a conditional privilege, a shift already prevalent in other sectors and long overdue for fisheries. The technology, legal tools, and management experience to make this change are largely in hand; what remains is the political will to overcome inertia and industry opposition.
In conclusion, requiring fisheries (especially those using destructive gear) to justify their activities and seek area-specific approval is a logical next step in ocean policy. It would harmonise marine governance with land-based environmental protection, reduce the hypocrisy of our current system, and better serve both the marine environment and the public interest. We have regulated ourselves on land to live within ecological limits; now we must do the same at sea. The question, “Why do I need a permit to harm a few newts, but anyone can wreck the seabed at will?” should have a simple answer in the future: “They can’t, not without permission, and not without proving it’s responsible.”
By flipping the presumption, we can ensure that only fishing practices that meet high sustainability standards occur in our waters. This change would help restore ocean ecosystems, safeguard threatened species, and secure the long-term viability of fisheries. It is a policy evolution whose time has come, to let our oceans thrive, we must require those who profit from them to first do no harm, and to prove as much before a net is ever cast.
Sources:
- Blue Marine Foundation (2023), Position on trawling and dredging (calling lack of fishing impact assessment indefensible and noting 72% of MPAs still allow trawling)bluemarinefoundation.combluemarinefoundation.com.
- BirdLife International (2023), Bottom trawling impacts in MPAs (summarising scientific findings on biodiversity loss, habitat damage, and bycatch; noting bottom trawling is the largest source of seabed disturbance and accounts for ~92% of EU fisheries discards)birdlife.orgbirdlife.org.
- Hinkley Point C Environmental Assessment (Cefas, 2021), Predicted fish losses from power plant vs. fishing (concluding Hinkley’s fish mortality would be “orders of magnitude less” than that from commercial fishing and discards in the area)llyw.cymru.
- The Guardian (Jan 2025), Hinkley Point C fish protection row (reporting that without acoustic deterrents, Hinkley C could kill ~18–46 tonnes of fish a year and detailing mitigation proposals like salt marsh creation)theguardian.com.
- UK Government Planning Guidance, Protected species and planning (explaining the legal duty for developers to avoid or mitigate harm to species like bats, and requiring environmental information with applications)gov.ukgov.uk.
- Marine Conservation Society / Wildlife Trusts, Advocacy for sustainable fisheries (urging new policies including a presumption against trawling in inshore waters to protect habitats and climate)mcsuk.org.
- Blue Marine Foundation (2023), Public resource argument (noting the seabed and its life belong to the public and questioning if destructive fishing is in the public interest; urging regulation of fishing like other polluting industries)bluemarinefoundation.combluemarinefoundation.com.
- House of Lords EU Committee (2019), Fisheries discards evidence (estimating 1.7 million tonnes of fish discarded annually in the EU pre-ban, highlighting the scale of waste in commercial fishing)theguardian.com.
