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

What is bottom trawling?

Bottom trawling (also called demersal trawling) is a fishing method in which vessels tow massive nets across the sea floor. As the net is dragged, it bulldozes the seabed, catching target species like flatfish, cod, or prawns, but also indiscriminately capturing many other creatures in its path. The weighted gear and chains plow through habitats, which can break corals, damage seagrass beds, and disturb sediment. This method is often compared to using a bulldozer in a forest because of the widespread seafloor destruction it can cause.

Bottom trawling is highly efficient at catching large volumes of seafood, which is why it became popular in commercial fishing. However, it is also notoriously unselective. By some estimates, over 75% of the catch from bottom trawls may be unwanted “bycatch” that gets thrown away (often dead). For example, in the North Sea about 30,000 tonnes of dab (a small flatfish) are caught and discarded each year, roughly 5 million individual fish, of which ~90% are tossed back dead. This level of waste, along with the habitat damage, makes bottom trawling a highly controversial fishing practice.

Why is bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas being banned?

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are parts of the ocean set aside to conserve wildlife or habitats, akin to national parks in the sea. Many MPAs around the UK were designated to protect sensitive seabed features, like reefs, sandbanks, or mud habitats, that are crucial for healthy marine ecosystems. Despite this, until now most MPAs have still allowed bottom trawling, meaning the supposed “protection” existed only on paper. Allowing heavy trawling gear in an MPA can obliterate the very habitats the MPA was meant to safeguard, undermining its conservation purpose.

Scientific evidence over decades has shown that bottom trawling is one of the most destructive activities for seabed ecosystems. The heavy nets and gear smash through coral gardens, sponges, and other bottom-dwelling life, reduce the complexity and biodiversity of seabed communities, and leave behind flattened, damaged habitat. This not only harms rare or vulnerable species, but also removes nursery areas and shelter that many fish need to thrive. Seabed trawling scars have been observed in trawled areas, with trenches and disturbed sediment marking where life-rich seafloor was essentially plowed up. In short, permitting bottom trawling in MPAs has been likened to “bulldozing national parks” because it allows industrial extraction in places that are supposed to be refuges for nature.

Conservation groups and scientists have long pushed for a ban on bottom-towed gear in MPAs to enable true recovery of marine life. Removing this destructive pressure is expected to help rare species and habitats bounce back, increase fish populations, and even protect the climate by preserving carbon-storing seabed sediments. The UK government’s proposal to ban bottom trawling in 41 MPAs is a response to this evidence and to growing public concern. It aims to stop “indiscriminate and potentially irreversible damage” in these vulnerable areas and ensure MPAs can serve their role in protecting marine ecosystems.

What exactly is being proposed?

In June 2025, the UK Government announced a 12-week consultation on new fisheries management measures (dubbed “Stage 3” of MPA management) to prohibit destructive fishing in offshore English MPAs. The core proposal is to ban bottom-towed fishing gear in 41 offshore MPAs (covering about 30,000 km² of English waters) that contain sensitive seabed habitats. “Bottom-towed gear” includes any fishing gear dragged along the seabed, primarily bottom trawl nets and dredges. These measures would expand the area protected from bottom trawling from ~18,000 km² currently to around 48,000 km² total, representing roughly half of England’s MPAs.

Under the plan, whole-site trawling bans will apply in the designated MPAs, meaning the entire area of each MPA would be off-limits to bottom towed fishing, not just small zones around specific features. (This “whole-site approach” follows evidence that protecting entire habitats, rather than only mapped features, yields better ecological recovery.) In 31 MPAs, all bottom-trawling and seabed dredging will be prohibited. In a few MPAs, the government proposes additional restrictions: for example, in 4 sites both bottom-towed gear and certain static gear (like pots, traps, bottom-set nets/lines) would be banned in sensitive areas. One site will see a ban on removal of spiny lobsters (crawfish) as well, to help that species recover. These nuances reflect tailored measures to protect particular features (e.g. fragile ross worm reefs or seagrass that could even be damaged by heavy traps).

Importantly, these proposed rules would be implemented via four new regional fisheries bylaws (for the North Sea, Eastern Channel, Southwest, and Irish Sea regions) covering all 41 MPAs. The byelaws will consolidate previous MPA regulations and ensure a consistent, updated approach. The consultation launched on 9 June 2025 and runs until 1 September 2025, after which the feedback will be reviewed and final measures put in place. If adopted, the ban could come into effect in 2025/2026, marking a major shift in UK marine management toward genuine protection of the seabed.

Which Marine Protected Areas are affected by this ban?

All 41 MPAs under consultation are offshore sites (mostly beyond 6 or 12 nautical miles from the coast) in English waters. They span the North Sea, the Eastern and Western English Channel, the Celtic Sea, and the Irish Sea, collectively covering ~30,000 square kilometres. Each site was designated to protect important seabed habitats or species, such as sandbanks, reefs, or deep mud plains. Below is a breakdown by region (with the MPAs to be protected from bottom trawling in each):

• North Sea Region (ICES area 4b/c): Farnes East, Foreland, Fulmar, Goodwin Sands, Haisborough-Hammond-Winterton, Holderness Offshore, Kentish Knock East, Margate and Long Sands, Markham’s Triangle, North Norfolk Sandbanks & Saturn Reef, Orford Inshore, Swallow Sand. (These 12 sites will have trawl gear banned entirely; some also get trap/net bans over sensitive reef patches. This builds on existing trawl closures in nearby Dogger Bank and Inner Dowsing, Race Bank & North Ridge from earlier phases.)

• Eastern Channel (ICES area 7d): Albert Field, Bassurelle Sandbank, Beachy Head East, Inner Bank, Offshore Brighton, Offshore Overfalls, Wight-Barfleur Reef. (Bottom trawling will be prohibited in all these sites, with a minor boundary update to the existing ban at Wight-Barfleur Reef.)

• South-West & Western Channel (ICES areas 7e–7h,7j): Bristows to the Stones, Cape Bank, East of Haig Fras, East of Start Point, Greater Haig Fras, Hartland Point to Tintagel, Land’s End and Cape Bank, North East of Haig Fras, North West of Lundy, North West of Jones Bank, Skerries Bank and Surrounds, South of Celtic Deep, South of the Isles of Scilly, South West Approaches to Bristol Channel, South West Deeps (East), South West Deeps (West), Start Point to Plymouth Sound & Eddystone, Western Channel, West of Wight-Barfleur. (Trawling will be banned in all these areas; additionally, Skerries Bank will ban taking crawfish to aid recovery, and several sites have small boundary refinements to earlier protected zones at Cape Bank, East of Haig Fras, Start Point–Plymouth, etc. The existing trawl bans in Haig Fras and South Dorset MCZs are also carried into the new byelaw.)

• Irish Sea (ICES area 7a): Fylde, Shell Flat and Lune Deep, West of Copeland, West of Walney. (All four will be closed to bottom towed gear. Notably, West of Walney adjoins an inshore zone that was previously trawl-free, extending protection across the whole area.)

Each of these MPAs was selected for this stage because it has designated seabed features vulnerable to trawling, not yet adequately protected. In simpler terms, these are the sites where banning bottom gear is necessary to meet the conservation objectives of the MPA, for example, to allow reef structures to remain intact or seabed life to flourish undisturbed. By covering all remaining offshore MPAs that needed protections (beyond those covered in earlier stages), this plan aims to fill the gaps in England’s MPA network and ensure that paper parks become real protected areas. (For a full list of the 41 sites and detailed maps, click here.)

How will banning bottom trawling benefit fish stocks and anglers?

Healthier seabed habitats lead to more abundant and diverse fish, which benefits everyone from commercial fishers to recreational anglers, assuming it isn’t all eaten up in commercial quota increases. Many bottom trawling closures essentially create safe havens for fish to breed and grow, supporting the recovery of nursery grounds and spawning areas that had been degraded. Experience from existing trawl-free zones shows striking improvements in marine life: for instance, in the Lyme Bay reserve (southwest England), a bottom-tow ban resulted in a 39% increase in species diversity inside the MPA over a decade, while adjacent trawled areas saw a 5% drop in species. The overall biomass and “functional” diversity of the ecosystem also rose significantly (by ~65%) within the protected bay. Local fishermen there report seeing many more fish, e.g. black bream now breeding on recovered reefs, since trawling was stopped. This kind of resurgence is expected in the 41 MPAs once trawling ceases, given time for habitats to regenerate.

For anglers, the ban should mean better recreational fishing opportunities in the long run if commercial quota management is adequately controlled. Coastal and sport fish like bass, bream, tope, ray and pollack depend on healthy seabed ecosystems at some stage of their life. Protecting reef and bank habitats from trawling allows prey species (like sandeels, worms, crustaceans) to rebound, creating richer feeding grounds that attract larger fish. As one Lyme Bay fisherman put it, “If the food’s there, then the fish will be there”, and not just for trawlers to catch, but for anglers to enjoy. Many MPAs encompass reefs and sandbanks that historically were prime grounds for recreational sea angling until they became depleted. The ban can help restore those hot spots. Angling groups have strongly supported the measure, calling it a “vital step toward thriving sea angling for future generations”. In the long term, a recovered fish population inside MPAs can “spill over” to surrounding areas, potentially boosting catches for both recreational and commercial fishermen nearby.

It’s worth noting that bottom trawling often targets a few high-volume species but at the cost of overall fishery productivity. By contrast, intact ecosystems can support higher sustainable yields of mixed species. One analysis estimated that the proposed MPA trawl bans, by enhancing fish stocks and ecosystem services, could deliver about £3.1 billion in net benefits over 20 years, far outweighing the short-term losses to the fishing industry. These benefits come from improved fish recruitment, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and coastal protection. Thus, even though some fisheries may see lower catches immediately inside these MPAs, the broader “stock rebuilding” effect can make UK fisheries more resilient and productive in the near future. For anglers specifically, more fish and bigger fish mean better catches and a healthier marine experience, aligning recreational fishing interests with conservation.

How will it help the wider marine environment and the climate?

Stopping bottom trawling in these MPAs will allow damaged seabed habitats to recover, which brings multiple ecological and climate benefits. Right now, bottom trawling is considered the single biggest human disturbance to seabed habitats worldwide. In trawled areas, studies have found reductions in seafloor biomass, complexity, and function, essentially a depauperate seabed. When trawling is removed, we often see a comeback of habitat-forming species (like sea fans, kelp, oyster reefs, corals), which in turn support a broader web of life. Benthic invertebrates (worms, shellfish, urchins, etc.) can recolonize the sediment, and biogenic structures (like reef outcrops or tube worm mounds) regenerate, creating shelter and food for fish and other animals. Over time, a trawl-ban site shifts from a barren, raked seabed to a rich carpet of marine life. This boosts biodiversity, including potentially the return of rare or endangered species that had been driven out. For example, in Lyme Bay’s trawl-free MPA, fragile ross corals and sponges rebounded, and species like pink sea fans, lobsters, and scallops increased in number and size once the habitat was no longer scraped clean.

Importantly, intact seabed habitats also store and sequester carbon, helping fight climate change. Soft sediments act as a huge carbon sink, an estimated 244 million tonnes of organic carbon are stored in the top 10 cm of UK seabed and coastal habitats. When trawlers plow through, they re-suspend carbon-rich sediment and break down carbon-storing organisms, releasing CO₂ back into the water and atmosphere. One global study likened annual trawling-induced carbon release to the emissions of the aviation industry. By banning trawling in 30,000 km² of seabed, the UK will prevent significant carbon disturbance in those areas, allowing sediments to stabilise and continue accumulating carbon. In addition, undisturbed seabeds (especially muds and salt marsh or seagrass fringe areas) can pull CO₂ from the water as they accumulate organic matter, a natural climate solution known as “blue carbon.” The Wildlife Trusts note that over 98% of the carbon in UK waters is stored in seabed sediments like mud and sand, underlining why reducing trawling pressure is crucial for climate mitigation. Environmentally, this policy is seen as a “win-win for nature and the climate”.

Another benefit is greater resilience to environmental stresses. A diverse, untrawled seabed is better able to withstand and recover from events like storms, heatwaves, or pollution incidents. For instance, research showed that after severe storms in 2013–2014, biodiversity in the protected (non-trawled) Lyme Bay MPA recovered quickly, whereas in comparable trawled areas it did not. The richer the ecosystem, the more buffering capacity it has. Thus, banning bottom trawling in MPAs should improve overall ecosystem stability and resilience in those regions, helping marine life adapt to the changing climate (warming seas, ocean acidification, etc.).

Lastly, eliminating bottom trawling will reduce bycatch of non-target wildlife. Trawl nets famously catch not only fish but also endangered species like skates and rays, dolphins, seabirds (in some areas), and deep-sea sharks. While UK offshore MPAs might not have many turtles or marine mammals caught in trawls, they do host vulnerable fish such as porbeagle sharks or undulate rays. A ban means these creatures won’t be incidentally swept up in those zones. Overall, the proposed measures are expected to enhance marine biodiversity, improve ecosystem functions (like nutrient cycling), and contribute to climate goals by safeguarding blue carbon stores.

Isn’t bottom trawling sometimes called “sustainable”? How is this different?

The term “sustainable” in fishing usually refers to not overfishing the target species, i.e. catching fish at a rate the population can replace. It does not automatically mean the fishing method is benign to the environment. A bottom trawl fishery might have its target stock (say, North Sea plaice or Atlantic cod) managed at sustainable yield levels, but still be devastating critical habitats and non-target species each time it operates. In other words, sustainability in fisheries science often centres on fish population dynamics (commercial stock health), rather than ecosystem health.

Recent industry-backed studies (e.g. by the University of Washington and fishing proponents) have argued that well-managed bottom trawling can produce food with a lower carbon footprint than terrestrial farming and can be done in a way that leaves most seabed life intact. They point out that some trawled areas are resilient (like sandy bottoms that recover faster) and that if quotas are set right, trawling doesn’t collapse the target fish stocks. However, conservationists counter that this “sustainability” is often achieved by trading away biodiversity and age-old marine habitats. A fishery can be certified sustainable even if it operates in only 30% of historic biomass and significantly alters community composition, as long as it maintains that 30% without further decline. From an ecological perspective, that means the ecosystem is kept in a depleted but stable state, rather than restored to its fuller abundance or complexity.

For example, a trawl fishery might maintain a breeding population of its target fish, yet it might prevent slow-growing corals or sponges from ever re-establishing. Key differences are in the baseline and the stakeholders: “sustaining yield” often prioritises continuous commercial catch, whereas true environmental sustainability would require sustaining the entire web of life and natural processes, which benefits a wider array of stakeholders (recreational users, coastal communities, climate regulation, etc.). Many marine scientists therefore argue we must go beyond MSY (Maximum Sustainable Yield) thinking and aim for restorative practices, letting habitats recover and fish stocks increase to a higher level, not just avoiding collapse.

To put it plainly: sustainable trawling isn’t the same as environmentally friendly trawling. A “sustainable” bottom trawl fishery might still cause substantial collateral damage (bycatch, seafloor disturbance), it’s just doing so at a rate the industry deems acceptable for continued harvest. The ban in MPAs shifts the focus to ecosystem sustainability: ensuring conservation features reach a favourable condition. The UK government’s assessments concluded that only by removing bottom-towed gear, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, can the conservation objectives of those MPAs be met. In essence, even if trawling in these areas could be managed at low levels, that risk of habitat degradation is too high to meet the legal goals of protecting and restoring the MPA features. The consultation acknowledges this by seeking to “enable recovery of these sites, a win-win for both nature and the climate” rather than simply limit trawling intensity.

So, while proponents of the fishing industry might cite studies that some trawl fisheries are well-managed or that not all trawling grounds are biologically sensitive, the counterpoint is that the specific areas under this ban are sensitive and need full protection. Plus, society’s perception of “sustainable use” is evolving – there’s broad public support (around 75% of Britons in a recent poll) for outright banning bottom trawling in MPAs after seeing the impact via Attenborough’s documentary. The move to ban trawling here reflects a shift from just sustaining current yields to actively restoring marine ecosystems for future generations.

Will any other types of fishing be restricted in these MPAs? What about recreational angling?

The primary focus of the proposal is to ban bottom towed gear (anything dragged on the seabed). This covers bottom trawls of all kinds (e.g. beam trawls, otter trawls, demersal seines) and also mechanical dredges used for scallops or oysters. In several MPAs, certain static gears will also be restricted: for instance, potting (traps) and bottom-set gillnets or longlines will be prohibited in four sites that have especially fragile reef features or where entanglement could harm recovery. One site (Skerries Bank & Surrounds) also proposes banning the removal of spiny lobsters (crawfish), since that species is an important part of the reef community there and was historically overfished. These additional measures are relatively limited in scope, they apply only where even static gear might damage a protected feature (like static nets over a reef, or pots on delicate seabed).

Recreational rod-and-line angling is not included in these proposed bans. Angling has a minimal physical impact on the seabed compared to towed gear, and it doesn’t fall under “bottom-towed or static fishing gear” definitions used by the MMO. The consultation documents and byelaws make no mention of restricting hook-and-line fishing in the offshore MPAs. In fact, one of the motivations is to improve marine life for public enjoyment, which includes diving, wildlife watching, and yes, sea angling. So, shore anglers, charter boat anglers, and other recreational fishers will still be able to fish in these MPAs using rods/lines (or even things like spearfishing or hand collection where appropriate). The difference post-ban would likely be better quality fishing as ecosystems recover, rather than any new limits on angling. Anglers are encouraged to practice catch-and-release or sustainable harvest of course, but the legal ban in question does not target them.

Similarly, other benign activities in MPAs (like wildlife tourism, diving, sailing) are unaffected or might even benefit from the ban through healthier marine scenery. Midwater trawling (pelagic trawling that doesn’t touch the seabed) is outside the scope of these regulations since it doesn’t impact the seabed features, however, it’s worth noting none of the 41 MPAs were designated for pelagic species, so pelagic fishing might continue provided it truly doesn’t contact the bottom. The key aim is to eliminate direct, physical seabed disturbance from fishing gear in these protected zones. The Wildlife Trusts and other groups have called for eventually excluding all destructive industrial fishing (like large midwater trawlers and purse seiners) from MPAs as well, but the current step is focused on bottom-contact gear as the most immediately damaging practice.

To summarise: commercial bottom trawling and dredging will be banned in the 41 MPAs; in a few sites, static gear like pots or bottom nets will also be banned (due to site-specific sensitivities); recreational angling and low-impact fishing methods can continue. This approach targets the gears with disproportionate environmental harm, while minimising impact on low-impact fishers and coastal users.

How will this ban affect commercial fishing communities?

In the short term, some commercial fishing operations will need to adjust where and how they fish, but the overall economic impact is projected to be relatively small, and far outweighed by long-term gains. The government’s impact assessment estimates an annual cost of ~£530,000 to UK fishing businesses from closing these areas to bottom tows. This is the lost revenue or extra steaming time incurred by trawlers that have to avoid the MPAs. Over a 20-year period, the total cost to industry and management is about £7.8 million, whereas the environmental and fish stock benefits are valued around £3.1 billion (a benefit-to-cost ratio that strongly justifies the policy). In practical terms, some of these 41 MPAs were not the most heavily fished grounds anyway, they were designated in part because of their ecological value, and some larger fishing operators have already adjusted to initial protections (like small no-trawl zones around certain reef features). Now those partial closures will expand to full-site closures.

For large offshore trawling companies and fleets, this ban will close certain areas, but alternatives exist. The 30,000 km² sounds huge, but it’s spread out in pockets around English waters. Many of the MPAs are far offshore (like South West Deeps, or Dogger Bank which is already closed), vessels can often fish just outside the MPA boundaries or in other open parts of the North Sea, Channel, etc. The UK’s total EEZ is about 725,000 km², so plenty of space remains where trawling is still allowed, albeit topographical and other logistical challenges prevent trawling in some areas, coupled with excluded areas for wind farms. Additionally, the UK is mooted to move towards more selective, high-value fisheries and away from indiscriminate bulk fishing. Some vessels might target different species or switch to midwater trawling where viable. The government has also announced a £360 million Fishing and Coastal Communities Fund to help modernise the fleet and support adjustments in the industry.

Small-scale fishermen (the inshore fleet, under-10m boats) generally do not do bottom trawling in offshore waters, they tend to use static gear like pots or nets, or smaller trawls, closer to shore. In fact, many small-scale fishers support the ban because it levels the playing field: large trawlers (including foreign-flagged ones) won’t be degrading shared fish stocks and habitat in these areas. For example, in Lyme Bay when trawling stopped, local potters and netters benefitted from more lobsters and scallops, without the fear of a big dredger coming through and undoing the gains. There can be transitional pain for any trawl fishermen who have to stop fishing these MPAs, some may need to target different grounds or species. The case of Lyme Bay saw a trawler fisherman lose his usual grounds and have to switch to crabbing, which was difficult at first and came with no compensation. Learning from that, NGOs like Blue Marine Foundation helped establish forums and community groups to support fishers through the change (providing infrastructure like storage facilities, marketing help, etc.). We might expect similar support or at least engagement in these 41 MPAs, given the consultation approach.

It’s also notable that some MPAs are in places like the Irish Sea (Fylde, West of Walney) where the local community has been pushing for protection (e.g. to stop damage to nursery areas for bass and flatfish). Local economies can benefit from conservation via improved recreation (diving, angling tourism) and branding of sustainably caught seafood. In time, previously over-exploited species could rebound enough to allow carefully managed fishing just outside the MPAs, effectively increasing overall catch potential. The government has portrayed the policy as not only environmental but as securing the future of sustainable fisheries and coastal communities. By protecting nursery/spawning habitats, the ban should help ensure fishermen can catch more fish in adjacent areas in the future, a point often emphasised by proponents: healthy oceans equal sustainable fisheries.

Of course, not everyone in the fishing industry is cheering. There have been concerns from some fishers and MPs about displacement of effort and potential loss of jobs in port towns reliant on trawling. An MP from a coastal constituency might worry that if you remove trawling from an MPA near them, the local fleet could struggle. However, the number of vessels impacted is limited, and many of the big offshore trawlers are nomadic or foreign-owned. The UK government will likely monitor fishing effort shifts and might need to introduce measures to avoid simply concentrating trawling right outside MPAs (“edge effects”). Enforcement will be key too, ensuring trawlers do comply with the new no-take zones via vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and patrols.

In summary, while a few in the commercial sector may feel a pinch and voice opposition, the broader outlook is that the ban is a long overdue course-correction. As one industry publication noted, the UK has hundreds of MPAs on paper but only a handful (3 HPMAs and a few others) fully protected, this move finally delivers real action, which was recommended by parliamentary committees and promised in government pledges. Over time, fishing communities are expected to see the wisdom of protecting breeding areas. In Lyme Bay, initial anger from trawler-men gave way, years later, to acceptance and even leadership in conservation by local fishers (forming a Community Interest Company to work with regulators). With open communication and support, the transition in these 41 MPAs can similarly become a point of pride: local seas recovering, fishers working in harmony with conservation, and a sustainable legacy for the next generation.

Who supports this ban?

The proposal to ban bottom trawling in MPAs has garnered broad support from environmentalists, scientists, and the public, and even some policymakers, across the spectrum, agree on the need to protect marine habitats. Notably, Sir David Attenborough’s recent documentary “Ocean” has been a major influence. Attenborough highlighted the “unspeakably awful” damage of deep trawling and stated that if the same destruction happened on land, people would be up in arms. His film brought vivid imagery of a trawl net razing the seafloor into public view, and shortly after release, a poll found 75% of Britons support banning bottom trawling in MPAs. Attenborough himself and Prince William publicly called for urgent measures to protect the ocean, lending high-profile voices to this cause.

Major NGOs and marine conservation groups have welcomed the plan enthusiastically. The Wildlife Trusts, Blue Marine Foundation, Greenpeace, WWF, Oceana, Marine Conservation Society – virtually all have issued statements calling the consultation “long overdue” and urging it to be implemented swiftly. For example, Joan Edwards of the Wildlife Trusts said removing bottom trawling pressure is “a great step forward towards protecting not only the wildlife and fish stocks… but also the carbon stored in seabed muds”. Oceana’s Hugo Tagholm called the proposals “a golden opportunity” to save vital marine sanctuaries and a lifeline for England’s seas. Angling groups like the Angling Trust also strongly back the ban, they see it as securing healthier fish populations and have campaigned for such measures for years. In their words, MPAs were “just lines on a map” without management, and now it’s a “huge moment” for sea anglers who value vibrant marine life.

It’s worth noting that political support has materialised, too. The Environment Secretary who announced the consultation (Steve Reed) emphasised that without action “our oceans will be irreversibly destroyed” and framed this as the UK’s commitment to global 30×30 ocean protection goals. The move was announced to coincide with the UN Ocean Conference in Nice, signalling to the international community that the UK is taking marine protection seriously. Cross-party environmental audit committees have previously recommended banning trawling in MPAs, so there is parliamentary impetus as well. Even some fishing industry voices (particularly those representing low-impact fishers) support closing areas to destructive gear to promote sustainability.

The main opposition would come from certain commercial fishing interests, especially operators of trawlers that fish in those areas, or industry groups worried about precedent. However, it appears there is a growing recognition, even among many fishers, that MPAs need to be properly managed. A telling sign: groups of fishers, NGOs, and even retailers are increasingly discussing a “just transition” away from high-impact fishing. No one in the UK is openly defending trawling in protected areas as a good thing; rather, the debate is about how quickly and how widely to implement bans, and ensuring fishers are consulted and treated fairly. The public narrative has shifted to: bottom trawling in MPAs is incompatible with their purpose, and so the ban is common sense.

In summary, the ban is supported by: conservation organisations (for nature, climate, and future fisheries), recreational user groups (anglers, divers, wildlife enthusiasts), the general public, and international ocean advocates. With Attenborough’s endorsement and positive responses from NGOs, the government has a strong mandate. Campaigners hail it as correcting a glaring flaw in UK marine policy (90% of MPAs were “unprotected” from trawling). They do caution that it must be a whole-site ban (no loopholes allowing partial trawling) and swiftly enforced. If done right, this initiative will be celebrated as a milestone where all stakeholders, from fishermen to conservationists, ultimately gain from healthier seas.

What happens next and how can I get involved?

The policy is currently at the consultation stage (June–Sept 2025). During this 12-week period, marine and fisheries stakeholders, including anglers, commercial fishers, environmental groups, and the general public, are invited to submit their views and evidence. The consultation is being run by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) in partnership with DEFRA, and it closes on 1 September 2025. After it closes, the MMO will review responses and could adjust the proposals if needed. An Independent Scientific Advisory Panel has already reviewed the plans (their report is published on the consultation site) to ensure the measures are grounded in evidence. Provided there is broad support (and given public sentiment, support is likely strong), the government can then proceed to implement the new byelaws, possibly by the end of 2025 or early 2026 once legal processes are done.

If you want to have your say, you can respond to the consultation via the official MMO website. The consultation documents (including maps of each MPA, the draft byelaw texts, impact assessments, etc.) are available online. There is an online survey (links below) or send written comments/email to the MMO. Whether you’re an angler wanting to voice support, a concerned citizen, or a fisher with local knowledge, your input can help shape the final measures. For example, stakeholders might provide data on where certain gear is used or suggest minor boundary tweaks around harbours, etc. The Wildlife Trusts  have made it easy for members of the public to participate, they provide template emails to send to the government endorsing the ban and urging swift action. We suggest you don’t stop there, but send a consultation response, as they carry far more weight over petitions or copy and pasted letters. Engaging in the process is important to show decision-makers that there is strong backing to protect these 41 MPAs fully and quickly.

After the consultation, assuming the proposal goes ahead, the new bylaws will be made law. At that point, enforcement becomes crucial: the MMO and Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) will need to monitor compliance. Modern vessel tracking (VMS/AIS) means authorities can detect if a trawler enters a closed MPA and deploy patrols or issue fines. In fact, the MMO has interactive maps and data showing trawling effort, which revealed tens of thousands of trawling hours in MPAs in past years. Going forward, those numbers should drop to near zero.

For the public and stakeholders, there will likely be updates and opportunities to help. For instance, citizen reporting of illegal trawling (if observed), scientific monitoring programs (divers or anglers can help collect data on ecosystem recovery), and community initiatives like the Lyme Bay CIC could be expanded to other regions. This is part of a bigger movement towards “highly protected marine areas” (HPMAs) and better ocean stewardship. The UK has committed to protect 30% of its seas by 2030, and delivering effective management in all MPAs is a key step. The bottom trawling ban in these 41 sites is seen as “just the beginning” by campaigners, who aim for further protections (including possibly more sites or additional gear restrictions) in the future.

In conclusion, right now the best way to support this initiative is to participate in the consultation and spread awareness. The momentum is here: public opinion is strongly in favour, and the government has shown willingness to act. By contributing your voice, you help ensure the measures are adopted and maybe even strengthened (e.g. some are calling for extending bans to the entirety of each site with no exceptions). With collective effort, we can turn these “marine protected areas” into truly protected, thriving undersea environments. That means more fish, healthier oceans, and benefits shared by all, from anglers and coastal communities to future generations who will inherit a richer marine heritage.