
Consultation to consider extending ban on destructive bottom trawling fishing
Marine and fisheries stakeholders are being asked to take part in a consultation on the prohibition of destructive bottom-towed fishing gear that could affect approximately 30,000 km2 across 41 marine protected areas (MPAs).
Environment Secretary Steve Reed says 'urgent action' is needed to protect seabeds and nature before irreversible damage is caused.
Bottom trawling uses nets that can be as large as a football field and weigh several tonnes (Alamy/PA)
The UK is under pressure to step up marine protections as the third UN Ocean Conference begins in France on Monday.
Governments, business leaders, scientists and campaigners are gathering for the environmental summit in Nice where the spotlight will be on the commitments individual governments make to reduce the impact on their territorial waters, such as banning the damaging fishing practice of bottom trawling in MPAs.
The consultation, led by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and Defra, runs for 12 weeks from Monday to September 1.
The proposed measures would add to the approximately 18,000 km2 of English seabed already protected from bottom-towed fishing gear.
MPAs are areas of the ocean established to protect habitats and species essential for healthy marine ecosystems, allowing vulnerable, rare and important marine life to recover from damaging human activities.
Bottom trawling and other forms of destructive fishing are permitted in UK waters but conservationists have long been campaigning for a full ban across all marine protected areas.
There are 181 MPAs, including three highly protected marine areas (HPMAs), covering 93,000km² or 40% of English waters.
The measures aim to protect marine habitats ranging from subtidal sandbanks to gravels to muds, and support important marine species such as lobster, clams, soft corals and langoustines.
A ban on bottom trawling in these areas could help conserve valuable and rare marine life, and allow seabeds to recover from damage caused by destructive fishing practices.
It could lead to healthier marine ecosystems across English waters, support greater biodiversity and help preserve vulnerable underwater life.
New management measures for fishing in 42 MPAs in English waters – a ban on bottom-towed fishing in 41, and the prohibition of fishing using traps in a specified area – are among the proposals.
Mr Reed said: 'Bottom trawling is damaging our precious marine wildlife and habitats.
'Without urgent action, our oceans will be irreversibly destroyed – depriving us, and generations to come, of the sea life on which we all enjoy.
'The Government is taking decisive action to ban destructive bottom trawling where appropriate.'
Ariana Densham, head of oceans at Greenpeace UK, said the consultation is 'ultimately a long-overdue completion of a process started by the previous government' and added that bottom-trawling in the protected sea areas is 'like bulldozing national parks'.
She said: 'The Government should now strengthen the ban to cover all parts of our marine protected areas, and other types of destructive industrial fishing like supertrawlers and fly-shooters.
'Only this will ensure our marine ecosystems are protected in reality – not only on paper.
'The goal to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030 is global, and while the UK must do its part at home it also has a critical role to play in protecting the high seas far from our shores.'
Tom Brook, ocean conservation specialist at WWF, said 'done right, these protections can be a win for people, nature and the climate' and 'this is exactly the kind of leadership we need if the UK is to deliver on its promise to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030'.
Joan Edwards, The Wildlife Trusts policy and public affairs director, hoped the consultation would see the measures introduced 'rapidly to enable recovery of these sites, a win-win for both nature and the climate.'
Oceana UK executive director Hugo Tagholm described the proposals as 'a golden opportunity to safeguard these vital marine sanctuaries from the most damaging fishing practices.'
He added: 'If these whole-site bans are fully implemented, this could provide an invaluable and urgently needed lifeline for England's seas, which are so crucial for wildlife and climate resilience.'
The consultation comes after Ocean With David Attenborough, released in cinemas to mark the renowned naturalist and TV presenter's 99th birthday last month, showed new footage of a bottom trawling net blasting through silt on the seafloor and scooping up species indiscriminately.
Bottom trawling is the act of dragging heavy nets across the seabed (Alamy/PA)
The world will also be watching at the summit in Nice to see which countries ratify the UN High Seas Treaty – a pact to establish protected areas across international waters.
The ocean treaty, which was agreed by 193 countries two years ago, will not come into force until ratification by 60 countries but just over half of that number have done so.
The UK Government is among those that have been criticised by environmentalists for not yet ratifying the treaty or at the very least announcing a timetable to introduce the legislation required.
Asked last week whether there has been any progress, nature minister Mary Creagh told the PA news agency: 'We need a legislative slot in Parliament's timetable.
'Any international treaty has to be done by the Foreign Office. We have had discussions with Foreign Office ministers.
'I am confident the treaty will be ratified but it will be ratified in due course.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Wales Online
14 minutes ago
- Wales Online
GMB doctor Hilary Jones says he would help people to end their lives
GMB doctor Hilary Jones says he would help people to end their lives The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday Dr Hilary Jones attend the Good Morning Britain Health Star Awards (Image: 2017 Mike Marsland ) TV doctor Hilary Jones has described assisted dying for the terminally ill as 'kind and compassionate', adding that he would help a patient to end their life if the law was changed. The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, said medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if proposed legislation being considered at Westminster is voted down. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday, with MPs expected to consider further amendments. In its current form the Bill, which applies only to England and Wales, would mean terminally ill adults with only six months left to live could apply for assistance to end their lives, with approval needed from two doctors and the expert panel. Last month, MPs approved a change in the Bill to ensure no medics would be obliged to take part in assisted dying. Doctors already had an opt-out but the new clause extends that to anyone, including pharmacists and social care workers. Dr Jones, in an interview with the PA news agency, said medics are 'looking over their shoulders because of the legal repercussions of the law' as it stands. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Asked about the significance if the law does change, Dr Jones told PA: 'It will relieve healthcare professionals who deal with terminal illness. There are wonderful people who are caring and compassionate, who just live in fear of their actions being misinterpreted, of being accused of wrongdoing, and because of that fear, people at the end of life are often undertreated. 'People are looking over their shoulder because of the medications they're using or the doses they're using, it means that patients aren't getting the best palliative care that they could have. And I think the Bill, if it passes, will alleviate a great deal of that, and put people's minds at rest that they're not going to suffer unnecessarily at the end of life.' Article continues below Ahead of last month's Commons debate on the Bill, two royal medical colleges raised concerns over the proposed legislation. The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies', while the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the Bill. Dr Jones, who has been practising medicine for more than 45 years and spent time working on cancer wards during his career, said he has 'always supported it (assisted dying)'. He added: 'I've always felt it is the most humane, kind and compassionate thing that relatives and doctors can provide, knowing that that person's wishes are respected and known, that there is full mental capacity and that they're surrounded by love. 'And for me, it's always been very clear.' Asked if, were the law to change, he would be content to help someone who had chosen assisted dying at the end of their life, he said: 'Absolutely, if I know the patient, I know what their wishes are, I see them suffering, and there's nothing more I can do to help their suffering then, absolutely, I would hold their hand and help them achieve what they want to achieve.' Some of the Bill's opponents have urged MPs to focus on improving end-of-life care rather than legislating for assisted dying. But Dr Jones said his mother, who was a nurse and died 'suffering unnecessarily' despite the 'best possible palliative care' would be 'proud of me speaking on this subject now, in the way I am'. He told of his respect for people's 'religious beliefs, cultural beliefs and personal feelings' in being opposed to assisted dying but insisted it should be an area of choice. He said: 'The bottom line is that I think it's the patient's individual choice. I think we should respect the right of the individual to choose what they want. 'This is not a mandatory thing. This is not being imposed on anybody. And I think people should have the individual right to make a decision about how they end their life if they've got a terminal illness where there's no prospect of cure and they're suffering and they fear an undignified death.' Asked about the prospect of the Bill being voted down by MPs, Dr Jones said: 'We would be back to square one, back to the Dark Ages, in my opinion, medically, and that would be a shame. 'I don't think we would be advancing medicine if the Bill is not passed.' Our Duty Of Care, a group of healthcare professionals campaigning against a change in the law, said the question must be whether someone is making a 'true choice' if they apply for assisted dying. Article continues below Dr Gillian Wright, a spokesperson for the group, said: 'If someone has not had access to palliative care, psychological support or social care, then are they making a true choice?' 'At a time when the NHS is on its knees, when palliative are social care are struggling and our amazing hospices are having to close beds and cut services because of lack of money, as someone who has cared for people at the end of life, I would urge MPs to vote against this Bill but instead invest in excellent specialist palliative care, social care and psychological support.'


Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Millions of pensions at risk from savings raid
The pensions of nine million savers are at risk from reforms allowing companies to raid their retirement schemes, the Government's impact assessment has admitted. Proposed changes to final salary pension schemes could mean that more of them run out of money, civil servants warned, leaving them unable to fulfil their financial obligations to members. The comments were seized on by critics of the proposed change, which would allow companies that manage these so-called defined benefit pension schemes to take out 'surplus' money as profit or for reinvestment. But supporters of the move downplayed the risks, saying that pension trustees would typically be given a say on any money handed back. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, and Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, are championing the reforms, which are contained in the Pension Schemes Bill. Any money paid out as profit would be subject to tax for the Treasury as it struggles to balance the books. The impact assessment for the proposed changes, written by civil servants at Department for Work and Pensions, said: 'If schemes choose to modify their rules to enable surplus extraction, this adds an indirect cost to members in terms of the increased likelihood of members not receiving their pension benefits in full. 'A scheme surplus can act as a financial cushion for members, to absorb unexpected costs or investment losses for the scheme. Without this cushion, the scheme may be more likely to struggle to meet its obligations to members, especially in times of financial stress or economic shocks.' Defined benefit pension schemes guarantee members a set portion of their final or career average salary after retirement. They are funded by money paid in while members are working. Schemes are in surplus if they are judged to have more money than they need to meet all promised payments to members. Lower interest rates after the financial crisis plunged many schemes into deficit by wrecking their expected investment returns, forcing the companies that sponsor them to make up the gap by pumping in billions of pounds extra. Now interest rates have risen again, schemes have mostly returned to surplus – and companies are seeking to extract some money that they say funds no longer need. The Bill creates new rules allowing employers to remove this cash. But critics are concerned about the risks if another economic crisis sends rates plunging again. This possibility was acknowledged in the 400-page impact assessment, although it added: 'Overall, it is assumed this increased likelihood of members not receiving their benefits in full to be very low given the important role trustees will play in overseeing any decision. The Pension Security Alliance (PSA), which includes Silver Voices, the independent senior citizens group, and John Ralfe, a pensions consultant, raised concerns about the assessment. The PSA said: 'The Government's own analysis proves that the Government's plans pose a risk to the retirement incomes of millions of members of defined benefit pension schemes. It's shocking to learn that civil servants have told ministers that if these plans go ahead, some pension schemes could struggle to meet their obligations to pay pensions. 'Pension scheme members have worked to earn their pensions and the money in pension schemes is there to provide them with a secure income in retirement. This official assessment, prepared by independent civil servants, shows that the Government's plans put those retirement incomes at risk. 'Pension schemes are not a piggy-bank that politicians can dip into or a cash-cow for employers. Pension schemes exist to benefit members and this is official confirmation that the Government's plans could actually harm members. That can't be right.' Among critics of the change are figures in the pensions insurance industry, which buys defined benefit pension schemes. The proposals do have supporters, including Steve Webb, a partner at pension consultant LCP who was pensions minister in the coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. Mr Webb said: 'The funding of company pension schemes has been transformed in recent years. The majority of schemes now have surplus funds which can be used in a responsible way to benefit scheme members, through improved benefits, as well as the companies who have paid so much in for so long. 'The plans have plenty of safeguards, including the judgment of trustees who will be seeking to ensure that using surplus funds does not undermine the security of member benefits. This is a positive initiative which should be supported.'


New Statesman
36 minutes ago
- New Statesman
What Rachel Reeves can learn from Donald Trump
Photo byNext week, Rachel Reeves will publish the Government's Spending Review, outlining the financial settlement for the coming three years. As she makes her final decisions (they always go to the wire) she might consider lessons from an unlikely source: the US President. In recent months, Donald Trump has taken to trashing areas of deep US strength that were taken for granted so completely that they were invisible to most. Trump has done Reeves a favour, by paving paradise and putting up a parking lot. His actions are a reminder of the importance of investing in the unseen infrastructures that enable prosperity. The British Academy has just published a series of papers exploring what might pull the UK out of its long period of low productivity. The UK has powerful legal, financial, cultural and scientific institutions, but we're not good at organising the economy around our greatest strengths. We have a large population of skilled workers, for example, but they are unevenly spread and mismatched across regions. We do not make the most of our institutional, human and physical capital. Reeves has an opportunity to invest in these strengths and to make the UK more prosperous over the long term. In the US, the government is currently experimenting with the opposite approach. Trump has taken an axe to America's historic strength in research by attacking universities including Harvard, and cutting or freezing research funding. R&D is one of the drivers of long-term prosperity, and the US will be poorer as a result in the medium term. By many measures the UK already punches above its weight when it comes to R&D, particularly in universities. Reeves needs to continue investing in this long-term source of growth, and also find a model for the universities where much of this research is conducted to be financially stable. The Government has recently focused on heavy investment in advanced or 'frontier' technology but a significant share of innovation in the UK's services-dominated economy is not especially high-tech. We innovate well through the humanities, social sciences and the arts, in processes and services, as well as we do in cutting-edge technology. Trump has also reminded us of the dangers of unpredictability. A country whose word cannot be relied upon will suffer economically – even if it is currently the dominant power. The UK faces rather different challenges to the US on the global stage, in that we are not large enough to act unilaterally or bilaterally, nor are we still a member of a major economic bloc. But our deep roots in multilateralism mean we have an opportunity to become the world's most dependable broker. We have an historic role in shaping the major international organisations and we have substantial knowledge of global institutions and international legal norms and practices. In turbulent times this institutional infrastructure is something in which we should invest, with a strategic narrative that the UK economy remains open to the world. Our relatively stable political landscape, strong institutions and low levels of corruption are not just part of the furniture – they are a source of comparative advantage in an increasingly turbulent world. The openness of our economy is an opportunity to attract and develop human capital. We have a valuable infrastructure of knowledge and finance that is well equipped to support and commercialise innovation. The UK government has struggled in its first year to find a positive narrative, to move beyond dealing with a difficult economic inheritance. The public knows we have an economy that has suffered long-term stagnation and that we face mounting geopolitical uncertainty. The Spending Review should be couched in a narrative of investing in the UK's comparative strengths and its deep assets, in the infrastructure that is needed to help secure longer-term growth and resilience. If she can do this, the Chancellor might be even able to say that despite the tight economic circumstances, it is the Biggest, the Best, and the most Beautiful spending review ever. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Rachel Reeves should fear the bond market vigilantes] Related