Response to MMO management of fishing activity impacts in marine protected areas Consultation

Introduction

YourAnglingVoice is pleased to be presented with the opportunity to reply to the Marine Management Organisation’s consultation on the management of fishing activity impacts in marine protected areas (Stage 3).

The backdrop to this consultation is well publicised, with David Attenborough’s ‘Ocean’ bringing an issue into the public domain that those of us working daily in marine conservation have been aware of for some time.

Commitments have also been made to protecting the UK’s Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s) since the campaigning for the general election in 2024. All of this has been very tailored to general public perception of the issues, resulting in a public outcry against bottom trawling.

Despite the positive side of this collective public outcry, the downside has been to portray this as a very binary consultation, a yes vs no, a right vs wrong, an us vs them. The reality is that there are a lot more nuances to consider and dive into. Thankfully, such a consultation allows us to do just that, but we must also hope that the detailed responses get properly listened to and considered.

Within this response, we give our general view, raise a number of concerns, address the likely arguments for continuing bottom trawling and then delve into the specifics of each MPA proposed for this ban. Before all of that, we have some comments on the structure of the consultation itself and how it threatens to water down the promises made since before the last general election by this Labour government, a pattern of watering down that has already been ongoing, as we will demonstrate.

Bold Promises on Bottom Trawling Ban (Election Campaign)

In the last general election campaign, Labour made sweeping promises to protect UK waters. The party pledged to “enact a ban on bottom-trawling in UK waters” if elected. Labour’s Shadow Environment Minister at the time, Toby Perkins, emphasised that they would “stop destructive bottom trawling that is destroying our ocean ecosystem,” calling it “one of our first measures” in government. This went beyond just Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), it implied an outright ban across all UK waters. Such bold rhetoric gave environmentalists and coastal communities hope that a Labour government would take uncompromising action to end a fishing practice widely seen as highly destructive.

Labour candidates also signalled they would stand firm on protecting Britain’s fishing industry in any post-Brexit EU negotiations. For instance, Daniel Zeichner (then shadow fisheries minister) wrote that a Labour government would “back our British fishing industry” for a “fairer share of the quota in our waters”, ensuring foreign boats play by the same rules. The clear message during the campaign was that British fisheries would not be bargained away. All this set an expectation that Labour would not repeat past “sell-outs” of fishing rights and would prioritise sustainable domestic management of UK waters.

Post-Election Reality: EU Deal Extends Foreign Fishing Access

Once in power, however, Labour’s resolve was quickly tested in negotiations with the EU. In May 2025, Prime Minister Keir Starmer struck a major “reset” deal with Brussels, and as part of it, the UK granted European vessels continued access to British fishing waters for 12 more years. (Originally, EU fleets’ post-Brexit access was to be renegotiated in 2026.) Observers noted that EU negotiators initially sought a 10-year extension while the UK offered 4, and they “settled on 12” years, a significant concession.

Starmer defended the deal, insisting it was “good for fishing” and brought stability. He stressed that “none of the rights negotiated by the Conservatives had been removed”, no change in quotas or increased EU catch limits, only the timeline was extended. In a Commons debate, he argued, “There is no reduction in the British quota or increase in the EU quota; they are the same as before… We have reciprocal arrangements, which are the same as before”. In Starmer’s view, allowing longer-term access was worth it to eliminate yearly uncertainty, and he highlighted new trade perks like reduced red tape for seafood exports as a trade-off.

Nonetheless, fishing communities felt betrayed. Critics lambasted the 12-year fishing rights extension as “a stitch-up” and “a betrayal of British coastal communities”, accusing the government of surrendering leverage for minimal gain. Even some who supported sustainable fisheries worried that Labour had negotiated away a key chance to reclaim control in 2026. The contrast was stark: during the campaign Labour swore not to sell out fishermen, yet in practice they locked in the status quo until 2038. Starmer’s “stable” deal essentially delayed any opportunity to increase the UK’s share of fish or to impose new conditions on EU boats for over a decade. This set the stage for growing skepticism about the government’s commitment to bold change in marine policy.

From “Ban in All Waters” to Only Some MPAs

Facing criticism over the fisheries deal, Labour moved to shore up its green credentials with a long-awaited pledge on bottom trawling. Environment Secretary Steve Reed announced plans to ban bottom-trawl fishing, but notably, not in all UK waters as originally promised, only within marine protected areas. In early June 2025, Reed unveiled a proposal to prohibit bottom trawling in 41 MPAs covering 30,000 km² of England’s seas. This would amount to roughly half of England’s protected waters by area, bringing the total coverage of trawl-free zones to about 48,000 km² when adding existing bans. Reed framed it as the government taking “decisive action” to protect marine habitats: “Bottom trawling is damaging our precious marine wildlife and habitats… Without such action, our oceans would be irreversibly destroyed.”

However, this policy was already a significant dilution of Labour’s campaign pledge. Instead of banning the practice across all UK waters, the plan targeted only select conservation areas. Even within the MPA network it was incomplete, focused on certain offshore sites. The government’s own press release tellingly added that bottom trawling would be banned “where appropriate”. In other words, the ban would not automatically cover every protected area, only those deemed “vulnerable” enough. Environmental groups welcomed the step as “overdue” but also noted its limited scope. The Wildlife Trusts, for example, applauded the consultation to ban trawling in “over 40 offshore sites” and called it a great step, yet implicitly pointed out that damaging fishing had long been “allowed to continue within many of our MPAs” until now. In fact, as of early 2025, only 8% of UK waters (and a fraction of MPAs) had any trawling restrictions, so this proposal, while positive, was far from the blanket ban once promised.

“All MPAs” Shrinks to “Offshore MPAs”

Initially, there was an expectation that all Marine Protected Areas might finally be closed to trawling. Just weeks earlier, Labour MPs had been pressing the government to use the UN ocean summit to announce a “ban on all bottom trawling in marine protected areas”. But the actual announcement in June targeted only a selection of offshore MPAs under English jurisdiction. The shift in language was apparent. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC), Labour MP Toby Perkins, noted he was “delighted” the government was acting on his committee’s recommendation to ban trawling in offshore MPAs. The EAC’s report had urged a halt to seabed-damaging gear in those offshore sites, even where the MPA’s official features were not seabed-related. By embracing the committee’s advice, ministers essentially narrowed the pledge to just offshore protected areas, implicitly excluding many inshore coastal MPAs and any sites in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland’s waters not under DEFRA’s direct control.

This progression, “all UK waters” to “all MPAs” to just “offshore MPAs” and then “just 41 of them” did not go unnoticed. Conservationists cautioned that protecting only some sites would leave many sensitive habitats still exposed. Scientists pointed out that partial protections (e.g. banning trawling only on specific reef features inside an MPA) are insufficient for full ecosystem recovery. In their open letter to ministers, a group of marine scientists stressed that nothing short of banning bottom-towed gear across the entire MPA network would meet the UK’s own 30×30 ocean protection goals. By limiting action to certain MPAs, Labour opened itself to the charge that it was opting for “impressive sounding targets” over truly comprehensive protection, the very critique one NGO official levelled at past governments’ marine policy.

Consultation and Further Dilution Fears

Which brings us to where we are now, the 12-week consultation on the MPA trawling bans, inviting industry and public feedback on each of the 41 proposed sites. This in itself raises eyebrows among campaigners. The consultation structure, effectively treating each MPA individually, suggests that the final policy could be watered down even further. There is a real possibility that after “consulting,” ministers might scale back or drop restrictions in some of those 41 MPAs, especially where fishing lobby pressure is high.

Indeed, recent remarks from Fisheries Minister Daniel Zeichner hints at exactly this prospect. Speaking at the Shellfish Association of Great Britain’s annual conference, Zeichner cautioned that media coverage of the MPA ban plan had been oversimplified. He was quoted in Fishing News as saying he had “seen the headlines” and that “the reporting is not precise… why make changes in MPAs that aren’t at risk? There is a way through this.” In other words, the minister suggested that if an MPA isn’t deemed “at risk” from trawling, it might not see new restrictions after all. This signals yet another potential climb-down: even some of those 41 sites could be spared the ban if officials decide they’re low-risk or if compromises can be made. Such language “where it presents the most risk” echoes the EAC report’s careful wording and seems to prepare the ground for exemptions or a case-by-case approach rather than the blanket ban conservationists expected and the government pledged.

For campaigners, this is troubling. The consultation’s fine print and ministerial commentary are eroding the clarity of the original promise. What started as a bold pledge to ban destructive trawling everywhere in UK waters may end up as a limited set of measures in a subset of protected areas and perhaps not even all of those, once the fishing industry’s input is weighed. The pattern of retreat is undeniable. As one ocean policy expert observed, “Conservation policy is awash with shiny new announcements and impressive sounding targets whereas what is needed is actual delivery”.

Each successive announcement by the government has shrunk in ambition, from all waters, to all MPAs, to offshore MPAs, to just 41 offshore MPAs and now possibly to only a portion of those sites after “further study.”

The trajectory of this policy raises the question: by the time the consultation concludes and the government actually implements these measures, what will remain of the original vision? Will we see a genuinely transformative ban on industrial fishing gear in a broad swath of UK waters or just a handful of token sites with little active fishing to begin with? Critics fear the latter. The phrase “paper parks” has often been used to describe MPAs that exist only on maps. If the current proposals are whittled down further, there is a real risk the government’s much-touted trawling bans could become paper parks 2.0, conservation measures largely on paper, with minimal real-world impact.

This is a pivotal moment. The Labour government won a mandate on promises of environmental leadership and not “negotiating away” Britain’s natural assets. Now is the time for action, not optics. Instead of incremental, negotiated rollbacks to appease every stakeholder, ministers must remember the spirit of what was promised to voters and demanded by science. Bottom trawling has been likened to “bulldozing the seabed”, its impacts are indiscriminate and severe. If we truly want to protect and restore our marine ecosystems, half-measures won’t cut it. As Steve Reed rightly said, “without urgent action, our oceans will be irreversibly destroyed”.

Urgent action means seeing the commitment through in full. It means enacting bans that might be unpopular with some fishing interests in the short term but are necessary for the long-term health of our seas. The watering-down of MPA protections must stop. Otherwise, by the end of this process we may be left with only a symbolic gesture, politically convenient but ecologically insignificant. The oceans do not need more political compromises; they need genuine protection. The question remains whether the government will deliver substance over spin. Will Labour’s legacy be a turning point for marine conservation, or yet another missed opportunity dressed up in green PR? The coming months will provide the answer, and ocean advocates will be watching closely.

Why not permissions to fish areas, rather than bans?

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. We argue that there is a strong case 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 this 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 before reverting to an improved plan for acoustic deterrents.

Now contrast this with the fishing industry. Commercial fishing in the same region (the Bristol Channel/Severn Estuary and its approaches, the 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 industrial 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.

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, or prevent the recovery of that which was once there but has long since been lost because of these destructive practices. 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.

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.

This consultation can play the first step in this process. It seeks comments on every single MPA individually but makes no statement on where the burden of that evidence lies. We ask that the burden be put firmly upon the commercial fishing industries themselves to prove, beyond all doubt, that their activities have not and will not cause any immediate or long term harm to the areas they intend to fish. Do not place the burden on others to prove otherwise, to do so is completely at odds with wider environmental policy.

Wouldn’t such substantive change be damning to the fishing industry?

It didn’t take long at all for the commercial fishing sector to argue just this, on the proposal of a watered down ban on bottom trawling. The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation (CFPO), in particular, were back doing what they do best: deploying slick communications to present Cornish fishers as perennial victims, while portraying every attempt to improve fisheries management as an existential threat to their way of life. It’s a tactic that has long won them sympathy from MPs, but it’s wearing thin under scrutiny.

Let’s be clear from the outset: It’s been a long time since commercial fisheries have meaningfully supported local communities, Cornish or otherwise. Yes, some small-scale operators continue to make a living from the sea, but the broader industry relies heavily on importing labour and exporting the product. If export demand shrinks and imported labour reduces, maybe then the U10 and non-sector fleets that genuinely support local livelihoods would see better returns and better prices?

Taking a closer look at the CFPO’s outburst. Does it hold water?

“Three weeks ago, the UK Government sold out Cornish fishing”

On this point, we can largely agree. The CFPO were right to call for a 12-mile exclusive zone for UK vessels, something sea angling groups were also prepared to support. But this would have been better pursued through joint advocacy. Unfortunately, the CFPO’s historic refusal to recognise or work with the recreational angling sector on shared interests weakened the case from the outset. And now, having failed to defend that cause, they pivot to what they call a “hammer blow”:

“A proposed blanket ban on fishing in certain areas, all concentrated around Cornwall’s coast”

This is where their argument collapses. The government’s proposal targets bottom trawling and certain other gears in just over 40 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This is not a “blanket ban on fishing” by any definition, it’s a targeted restriction on specific, high-impact gear types. Other forms of fishing, including line, pot, and dive fisheries, will still be allowed in most cases.

As for the claim that these areas are “all concentrated around Cornwall’s coast”: it’s false. The consultation areas include 12 in the North Sea, 7 in the Eastern Channel, 3 in the Irish Sea, and 20 in the Western Channel and South West, including parts of Dorset. Fewer than half of the sites are in areas Cornish vessels fish. So is this hyperbole? Or simply fake news?

Let’s reflect also on where these bans are being proposed: Marine Protected Areas.

Many assume MPAs already offer meaningful protection, but the reality is far from it. Most are “protected” in name only, with damaging activities like bottom trawling still allowed. This consultation is a long-overdue attempt to align practice with purpose, giving marine ecosystems the sanctuary they’re supposed to have.

Healthier fish stocks benefit everyone, including commercial fishers. This isn’t an attack, it’s a long-term investment in sustainability.

“This isn’t policy. It’s annihilation.”

It is policy. It was included in Labour’s election messaging and is now being actioned. If protecting just 3.38% of UK waters from bottom trawling constitutes “annihilation,” then perhaps it’s time to ask what truly annihilated our fish stocks in the first place?

“There is no thought for displacement of the fleet.”

This is a fair point, and one we take seriously and will expand on later in our response. That’s why we have public consultations, to address unintended consequences and develop smarter solutions.

We must avoid displacing effort from robust habitats to fragile ones. We must also guard against trawl-free zones becoming static gear minefields, where over-soaking and gear congestion create new environmental problems. The consultation touches on this but must go further. If these areas are to be truly sustainable, they need gear-specific planning, not just gear bans.

“Total lack of sound science.”

The burden of proof should be with those wishing to continue high-impact activity, as we argued above. That’s also what the precautionary principle means, if it is ever to be applied. If a developer wants to build on sensitive land, they must prove no harm. Fishing should be no different. Saying “there’s no science proving this is damaging” is not a defence, t’s a call to do the science before continuing.

“Let’s remember that…gave the green light…size of Cornwall…worth of seabed…to produce electricity from”

This is a classic case of “whataboutery.” Yes, the seabed is used for multiple purposes, but that doesn’t mean all uses are equal. Energy security and climate mitigation are essential to national infrastructure. That doesn’t excuse damage, but it puts the CFPO’s outrage in perspective, especially from an industry that relies on energy-intensive processes like freezing, processing and transporting exports.

If they have serious concerns about energy infrastructure, let’s hear specific proposals. Wind? Nuclear? With its own risks to marine life? Or are they just lashing out because someone else is using “their” seabed?

“Who’s really calling the shots on this new ban on Cornish fishing?”

The public. That’s why it’s a public consultation. The CFPO’s implication that coastal waters belong solely to the commercial fleet is precisely the entitlement that has alienated them from many others who rely on, value, and care for the marine environment.

And let’s talk hypocrisy. When big players like Waterdance met directly with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last year, just before policy outcomes on pollack were announced that sidelined smaller Cornish boats, did the CFPO condemn “big business influence” then? No. They applauded it.

“Luxury fashion houses. Whiskey brands. Celebrities…”

These brands support marine conservation because it aligns with public sentiment, not because they want to undermine Cornish fishing. The idea that fashion is worse than bottom trawling for the environment is a bizarre deflection. If the CFPO’s arguments are strong, they shouldn’t need strawmen.

“They cannot stand the thought of collaboration.”

Nor, it seems, can the CFPO. Sea angling groups reached out on multiple occasions to work together on shared causes: pollack management, spatial planning, the 12-mile zone. Each time, the CFPO showed no interest in joint problem-solving. The moment recreational impacts were raised, they were happy to engage; the moment bycatch or hake fisheries were mentioned, the shutters came down.

Let’s hope this consultation marks a turning point. Let’s hope the industries vocal reaction signals a willingness to engage with all stakeholders, not just those who already agree with them.

This consultation is not about wiping out fishing. It’s about managing it better. Let’s make sure those with solutions, not just slogans, are the ones shaping the outcome, ensuring that our marine future is one that works for everyone, not just the loudest voice in the room.

Can the commercial fishing sector be trusted to self manage?

Many of the arguments coming from the commercial fishing sector stem around the belief that they are best placed to understand the issues, to adapt to them and to offer up solutions. The phrase “We’ve long been aware of these issues”, said in frustration of it being raised with them as if new, is repeated in regular forums. But what does this tell us? Simply that they’ve failed to resolve the issues.

Flawed arguments are continually put across, even with the use of government funding. For instance, the CFPO continue to insist, as per a LinkedIn Post, that their FASS funded report shows that there are  “500 active commercial fishermen in the county, each one creating an additional 15 jobs across the Cornish seafood supply chain”, which is a lie.

The underlying FASS funded piece of work, Cornwall fishing’s lobbying report “Value of Seafood to Cornwall” paints a picture of a seafood sector utterly dependent on the catching fleet. It notes ~7,800 local seafood jobs (2.9% of Cornwall’s workforce vs 0.7% nationally) and claims every onshore seafood job is ultimately tied to fishing. By using the statement “For every job in the CIoS catching sector, there are 15 more jobs across Cornwall and Isles of Scilly in other seafood sub-sectors.” It infers a direct link between the catching sector and the other jobs, as if each individual catching sector job supports the rest. Their latest LinkedIn post doesn’t just aim to infer this, it outright states it. Economic data tell a different story. Nationally, and in Cornwall, most fish eaten come from abroad, and visitors, not fishermen, form the backbone of the coastal economy. Policymakers should heed the full picture: Cornwall’s seafood industry can thrive even as catches are constrained, and overfishing today threatens far greater revenues from tourism and recreation tomorrow.

Imports Dominate UK Seafood Consumption

UK Government data makes clear that the UK relies overwhelmingly on imported seafood. Since the 1980s the UK has been a net seafood importer. In 2021 the UK imported 791,000 tonnes of fish (worth £3.3 billion) but exported only 363,000 tonnes (£1.6 billion), a trade deficit of £1.7 billion. In other words, much of what Cornish shops and restaurants sell would have been sold anyway even if local fish stocks were low. Indeed, an estimated 60–80% of UK landings are sent overseas, while the five “Big Five” species (cod, haddock, salmon, tuna, prawns) that dominate UK diets are almost entirely imported.

Even industry voices concede this shift. Seafish (the UK seafood levy funded lobbying body) itself noted in 2006 that “only a relatively small proportion of the fish now consumed in the UK is caught by the UK fleet” and that “the health of the UK catching sector is no longer of such central importance to the UK seafood industry”. In practice, this means Cornish processors and fishmongers routinely rely on non-local supplies. The CFPO report itself admits that “processors, wholesalers, retail and foodservice outlets handle local seafood and also import prepared seafood from the rest of the UK and from overseas”. In short, the Cornish seafood value chain is globally connected, it will simply draw more on imports if local catches fall.

Cornwall’s Economy: Tourism vs. Catching

In Cornwall, tourism and hospitality dwarf the fishing sector in scale. The CFPO report’s own numbers show the entire Cornwall & IoS seafood industry (catching, processing and supply chain) contributes about £174 million GVA in total (≈1.5% of local GVA). By contrast, Cornwall’s visitor economy is worth ~£2 billion annually (about 15% of the regional economy). In jobs terms, Cornwall’s food-tourism sector employs roughly 35,700 people, nearly five times the ~7,800 seafood jobs noted by CFPO. These figures underscore that Cornwall’s prosperity depends far more on attracting tourists (many of whom eat seafood) than on the volume of fish landed.

Cornish restaurants, cafés and hotels will continue serving seafood, and employing people, even if more of that fish comes from Scotland, Norway or fish farms. The CFPO report concedes that processors handle imported species when “not available in quantity in CIoS”. In practice, this means local seafood outlets already substitute imported cod, prawns, tuna, etc., to meet demand. The catching fleet’s identity and tradition aside, Cornwall’s onshore jobs and businesses don’t vanish if Cornish boats dock, they simply source fish elsewhere. Put bluntly, a Cornish fish and chip shop will keep selling cod regardless of whether it was caught in Cornwall or imported, supporting staff and the local supply chain either way.

The Rise of Recreational & Nature-based Income

Crucially, Cornwall’s coastal economy stands to gain far more from recreational fishing and wildlife tourism than from pushing for bigger catches. Recreational sea angling alone is a multi‐billion-pound UK sector. The Angling Trust reports that UK sea anglers spend roughly £1.5 billion per year, directly supporting about 15,000 jobs (in tackle shops, guides, charter boats, etc.) and injecting up to £847 million into local coastal businesses (hotels, restaurants, B&Bs). A healthy fish stock multiplies this effect: charter-boat customers buy bait, fuel, lodging and meals. By contrast, fishermen’s direct first-sale income (only ~£44 m in Cornwall last year) is tiny next to the tourist spend.

Marine wildlife tourism is another growing source of income. Whale and dolphin watching in Cornwall attracts thousands of visitors (for example, the popular “Sea Safaris” out of Padstow) who pay for boat trips and patronise local services. Like angling, these activities pay the bills only if fish stocks and ecosystems are robust. Indeed, wildlife organisations note whales “are worth considerably more alive than dead,” since their presence generates longer-term tourism revenue. Encouraging catch recovery (through MPA bottom trawling closures) would directly benefit these sectors. In short, valuing fish more in the water than on the deck would unlock far more jobs and spending for Cornish communities.

Policy Implications: Diversify, Don’t Double-Down on Catching

Policymakers should treat Cornwall’s marine economy holistically. The CFPO report’s message, “if you don’t have fishing, you don’t have communities”, rings hollow next to the broader data. In reality, Cornwall’s communities and economy rely on a mix of imports, processing, aquaculture and tourism as much as on local catch. For example, Cornwall’s mussel farms, oyster fisheries and even emerging seaweed aquaculture add jobs without pressuring wild stocks. Likewise, value-added processing (smoked fish, ready-meals) can use imported or farmed fish while still employing Cornish workers.

Rather than propping up the catching fleet, the government should invest in marine resources as public goods. Measures that rebuild fish populations, such as well-enforced quotas, no-take zones and bycatch reduction, will boost recreational angling and eco-tourism, directly benefiting Cornwall’s economy. Schemes that diversify seafood supply (e.g. developing domestic aquaculture or supporting port infrastructure for imports) will also fortify jobs. In essence, Cornwall’s seafood industry can continue to thrive without expanding local catch, and indeed thrives more when stocks are plentiful, which the bottom trawling bans will achieve.

The CFPO report provides important local data but its implied prescription (more catch = more prosperity) is misleading. A thriving Cornwall needs healthy seas and diverse marine activities. By focusing on sustainability and the larger tourism/leisure economy (which, as Seafish noted, now eclipse the catching sector’s role), policymakers can secure long-term jobs and income for Cornwall, far beyond what chasing extra landings would ever yield.

So it is as simple as just enforcing these proposed bans?

The proposed ban on industrial bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is long overdue. It’s a step most marine users: anglers, conservationists, and even some commercial operators, have called for. But while this may feel like a straightforward win for our seas, there are real risks that come with it if we don’t think ahead. To be clear, the bans must proceed, but due diligence must also be done to ensure the following unintended consequences do not cause even greater problems.

Displacement has consequences. And unless those consequences are addressed in the legislation from day one, we could be solving one problem only to create others.

Static Gear Creep: When the Void Fills

When bottom trawling is banned from an area, it doesn’t just go away, it goes somewhere else. And in many cases, the vacuum left behind isn’t filled with peace and marine recovery, it’s filled with static gear. That means more gillnets and pots packed into the same space. Some of the MPAs also have fixed gear restrictions imposed but it doesn’t go far enough. We call on policy-makers to ensure that there is no excessive backfilling of these MPAs with static gear that threatens damage in different ways, specifically a greater risk to non-target species including bass, cetaceans, and seabirds

We’ve seen this backfill happen before. In areas where trawlers were pushed out, static effort surged, sometimes causing more localised damage than the trawls ever did. When static effort isn’t capped or spatially managed, MPAs risk becoming dumping grounds for static gear.

Inshore Pressure: The Squeeze Is Coming

If offshore MPAs are made trawl-free, as they should be, many vessels, especially smaller ones, will shift their focus inshore. This raises a major concern: Will the inshore zones become even more intensely fished, just as they were starting to show signs of life?

Inshore waters, already crowded and ecologically sensitive, are vital nursery grounds. They’re also where recreational anglers operate, where tourists flock, and where biodiversity thrives closest to our communities. If legislation fails to set clear limits, buffers, and gear constraints, we risk pushing marine pressure onto our most accessible and most valuable zones.

Do We Need Dedicated Trawl Zones?

It’s a controversial idea, but maybe it’s time to ask the question:

Should some offshore areas be set aside for trawlers alone, and made their responsibility to maintain? This could be coupled with measures mentioned earlier regarding areas having specific evidence of sustainable trawling as opposed to the burden falling the other way.

If a farmer depletes his soil through bad practice, it’s on him to regenerate it. The same logic could apply here by creating zones where selective trawling is specifically permitted, requires gear innovation, bycatch minimisation, and area recovery commitments, make these operators accountable for the health of their grounds.

This doesn’t mean giving industry a free pass. It means putting clear boundaries in place, so when damage occurs, there’s no one else to blame.

Conclusion

The government is right to recognise that bottom trawling is incompatible with the very idea of a protected area. A Marine Protected Area where the seabed can still be bulldozed by weighted nets is a contradiction in terms. Closing these sites to bottom trawling is therefore not a radical act, but the bare minimum required to give our seas the chance of recovery.

Yet we must be equally clear: this consultation cannot mark the end of the journey. Protecting 41 MPAs, or even the entire MPA network, from bottom trawling will not alone secure the future health of our seas. It is a vital first step, but not the last. If we declare victory here and stop, we will condemn vast swathes of inshore habitat, fish stocks, and coastal livelihoods to ongoing depletion.

Beyond Paper Parks

The government’s own trajectory, from bold promises of banning bottom trawling everywhere to proposals covering only a portion of offshore MPAs, has already raised public scepticism. The risk is that we arrive at a position where only a handful of MPAs are closed, while the majority of UK waters remain open to business-as-usual exploitation. That would leave us with “paper parks”: areas that look good on maps, but deliver little ecological benefit.

True protection requires both breadth and depth. Every Marine Protected Area should be off-limits to destructive bottom-towed gear. But equally, protection must extend beyond their borders. Fish and marine wildlife do not recognise lines on a chart; ecosystems function as connected networks, and protection in one box means little if the surrounding waters are left open to depletion.

Displacement and Inshore Pressure

A ban on trawling in offshore MPAs will inevitably displace effort. If not managed, that effort will be redirected towards the very places we can least afford to sacrifice: our inshore nursery grounds and coastal habitats. These shallow waters are already under pressure, already congested with multiple users, and already diminished from historic overfishing.

We cannot simply squeeze the same fishing pressure into smaller spaces. Doing so would undermine the ecological gains from offshore closures and accelerate the decline of inshore ecosystems. This is why quota reform must go hand-in-hand with spatial protection. Reducing overall fishing mortality, particularly for species heavily taken by trawlers, is essential if the ecological benefits of MPA closures are not to be cancelled out by displacement.

Policymakers must therefore ask hard but unavoidable questions: should total allowable catches be revised downward to reflect reduced available grounds? Do we need to cap static gear effort in inshore zones to avoid an explosion of gillnets and pots filling the void? Should we designate certain offshore zones as the only places where trawlers may continue, with clear conditions and accountability? These are not comfortable debates, but avoiding them risks creating new problems in place of the ones we are trying to solve.

A Step Toward True Sustainability

Marine management must evolve from treating the ocean as an open-access commons to recognising it as a finite, fragile public trust. The default must no longer be that destructive gear can operate everywhere except where banned; rather, the burden of proof must rest with those who wish to trawl to show that it can be done without lasting damage. Just as a developer must prove a housing project will not destroy protected species on land, so too should a trawler have to prove its activity is compatible with healthy seas.

This consultation represents a turning point. If implemented in full, it will finally begin to align the practice of MPA management with their stated purpose. But it must be accompanied by a wider rebalancing of fisheries management: reducing quotas where displacement threatens inshore habitats, investing in selective and low-impact gears, and recognising that fish are often worth more alive in the sea—supporting angling, tourism, and ecosystem services—than dead in a trawl net.

Final Word

We therefore urge ministers not to see these closures as the end of the matter, but as the foundation for a wider transformation. Protect all MPAs from bottom trawling, yes, but also confront the reality of displacement, revisit quotas, and embed the precautionary principle across the whole of our waters. Only then can the UK claim to have moved beyond symbolic gestures to meaningful action.

Healthy seas are not a luxury; they are the bedrock upon which coastal economies, food security, and climate resilience depend. This is a pivotal moment. Choose ambition, not retreat. Deliver substance, not spin. Let this be remembered not as the point at which we finally gave MPAs the protection they should always have had, but as the moment we began to restore the wider health of our seas for generations to come.