Bottom trawling in European waters costs society up to €11bn a year, new study finds
ADVERTISEMENT
Bottom trawling in European waters costs society up to €10.8 billion each year, according to a first-of-its-kind study released today.
It found that this cost is largely due to carbon dioxide emissions from disturbed sediments on the seafloor.
'We discovered recently that bottom trawling, by churning up the sediments on the seafloor, releases
CO2 on the scale of global aviation
and that half of those underwater emissions will end up in the atmosphere,' explains Enric Sala, National Geographic Explorer in Residence and one of the authors of this report.
Bottom trawling is a destructive fishing practice which involves dragging a net - some so large it could fit a Boeing 747 plane - across the seafloor to catch fish. It disturbs sediment, destroys marine habitats and far more than just the target species gets caught in these nets.
'The fishing lobby argues for the benefits that bottom trawling provides for society, jobs, economic revenue and food,' Sala adds, 'but they never mention the costs.'
Related
NGOs and fishermen call for urgent action to end bottom trawling in marine protected areas
Ocean dumping or climate solution? Inside the race to lock away planet-warming carbon in our seas
So, he says, for the first time they decided to calculate the costs and benefits of this fishing practice to both the industry and society at large. The result? The costs of bottom trawling far exceed the benefits.
What is the cost of bottom trawling in Europe's waters?
The study is the first to measure the full economic cost of bottom trawling in European waters - including the EU, UK, Norway and Iceland.
It shows that this damaging fishing practice imposes somewhere between €330 million and €10.8 billion in annual costs to society.
The range of estimates in the study is so large because there is no globally agreed value on the cost of a tonne of carbon. But even at the lower end of the estimate, Sala says 'society still loses'.
While bottom trawling does support jobs across the continent, bringing in both a source of food and revenue, the study's authors say climate costs, environmental impacts and issues for small-scale fishermen outweigh these benefits.
Forbidding this fishing practice in marine protected areas (MPAs), they add, would benefit marine life, the climate and even the fishing industry. Many fishermen are already
on board with the fight for tougher restrictions
.
Small-scale, sustainable fishers are seeing their livelihoods ripped away along with the reefs and seagrass meadows that are bulldozed by the weighted nets.
Hugo Tagholm
Executive director of Oceana UK
'Small-scale, sustainable fishers are seeing their livelihoods ripped away along with the reefs and seagrass meadows that are bulldozed by the weighted nets,' says Hugo Tagholm, executive director of Oceana UK.
'And all this to line the pockets of a few. The truth is that thriving marine wildlife supports flourishing coastal communities.'
Bally Philp is the national coordinator for the Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation which represents small-scale, inshore fishing vessels, line fishing vessels and hand-diving vessels.
'These are some of the most low-impact and highly selective fishing methods,' he explains. 'They actually already employ the majority of fishermen.'
ADVERTISEMENT
Philp says that types of gear are often mutually exclusive. Allowing bottom trawling in areas means other forms of fishing, like hand diving for scallops or putting pots on the seabed, can't take place.
If you were to restrict trawling in the area three miles from the Scottish coast alone, he adds, the country could double its number of fishermen and the amount of revenue generated by fisheries.
'We could do it without catching an extra fish.'
'Citizens pay the cost of government subsidies'
The study's authors also point out that European taxpayers are funding the destruction of their own oceans.
ADVERTISEMENT
European governments spend an estimated €1.3 billion on subsidies for bottom trawling every year, they say, a figure that is nearly equivalent to the value of the jobs the industry creates. Italy, Norway, Denmark, Great Britain and Sweden offer the highest amounts.
In some countries, researchers even found that bottom trawling wouldn't be profitable for the companies doing it without these
subsidies
.
'Our analysis found that society always loses to industry when it comes to bottom trawling. Industry makes a profit only because it externalises its cost,' Sala says.
Citizens pay the cost of government subsidies which come from taxpayers' hard-earned money.
Enric Sala
National Geographic Explorer in Residence and one of the authors of this report
'Citizens pay the cost of government subsidies which come from taxpayers' hard-earned money.'
ADVERTISEMENT
In France, says director of NGO BLOOM Claire Nouvian, the government has been subsidising trawling for decades.
Related
Why is France protesting a UK ban on bottom trawling in protected areas?
'The transition away from trawling could have happened and should have happened,' she argues, 'and it would have cost nothing because we could have organised it, but we didn't.'
Research from BLOOM and French researchers from L'Institut Agro and the French Natural History Museum has found that around 800 French bottom trawling vessels destroy roughly 670,000 square kilometres of seabed each year - an area bigger than France itself.
Despite what Nouvian calls the country's 'love affair' with this destructive fishing practice, President Emmanuel Macron is convening the SOS Ocean summit at the end of March in Paris. It will together global thought leaders, policymakers, scientists, and ocean advocates to create a roadmap to the UN Oceans conference being held in Nice in June this year.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ahead of these events, Macron announced €700 million for the fishing industry to modernise its fleets, strengthen food sovereignty and more.
'The trawling lobby was blasting with joy, they were so happy,' Nouvian claims. 'They were jumping around because they could not believe that money was coming from the offshore wind tax going straight into their pockets.'
Redirecting subsidies away from trawling could provide a pathway for financing a fair transition for the fishing industry, according to the report.
A fifth of EU bottom trawling happens in marine protected areas
The study comes as a coalition of civil society organisations calls for governments in Europe to ban bottom trawling in MPAs.
ADVERTISEMENT
These areas are meant to be safe havens for marine life but around 13 per cent of Europe's bottom trawling happens within their borders - a figure that rises to 20 per cent in the EU.
'The solution is obvious. Let's start by eliminating bottom trawling in marine protected areas and not relocating that effort elsewhere,' Sala says.
'That will work for marine life, the climate and society at large. It would also allow marine protected areas to fulfil their goal to protect marine life, and eventually help replenish nearby fishing grounds.'
EU member states are already supposed to be working to phase out bottom trawling in MPAs by 2030. So far,
Greece
and Sweden are the only countries to have announced bans or strong restrictions.
ADVERTISEMENT
Related
Greece becomes the first country in Europe to ban bottom trawling in marine protected areas
The bloc's nature laws and international biodiversity commitments bind member states to rigorously protect these supposed safe havens for marine life. They were also given a deadline last year for submitting roadmaps to outline how they plan to phase out destructive fishing in these areas.
'A proper interpretation of the Habitats Directive would mean that bottom trawling should already not be tolerated in EU Marine Protected Areas,' says John Condon, wildlife lawyer at ClientEarth.
'We heard from Commissioner Kadis (Costas Kadis, European Commissioner for Fisheries and Oceans) this month that he is committed to the full enforcement of our nature laws - which we hope means we can expect bottom trawling to be conclusively phased out of EU MPAs designed to protect seabed ecosystems.'
But a recent analysis from marine NGOs Oceana, Seas At Risk and ClientEarth found that no EU country has comprehensive plans to phase out destructive fishing practices in MPAs by the end of the decade.
ADVERTISEMENT
More than half failed to submit a roadmap. Of those that did, Estonia refused to disclose what was in this roadmap and none had comprehensive plans to phase out destructive fishing practices.
As a result, the coalition of marine NGOs is
taking governments to court in France
, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden for infringing EU nature laws by failing to protect their MPAs against the impacts of bottom trawling.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
9 hours ago
- Euronews
'Day of the Jackal' author Frederick Forsyth dies at 86
Frederick Forsyth, the author of "The Day of the Jackal" and other bestselling thrillers, has died after a brief illness, his literary agent said on Monday. Jonathan Lloyd, his agent, said Forsyth died at home early on Monday at the age of 86 surrounded by his family. "We mourn the passing of one of the world's greatest thriller writers," Lloyd said. Forsyth served as a Royal Air Force pilot before becoming a foreign correspondent and a novelist. "The Day of the Jackal," published in 1971, propelled him to global fame. The political thriller about a professional assassin was made into a film in 1973 and more recently a television series starring Eddie Redmayne and Lashana Lynch. He wrote more than 25 books including "The Afghan," "The Kill List," and "The Fist of God" that have sold over 75 million copies, Lloyd said. The disparity of sperm donor laws in Europe has been called into question after a Danish sperm donor with an inherited cancer mutation is said to have helped conceive at least 67 children across Europe, mostly in Belgium. The European Sperm Bank (ESB) allegedly used gametes from a Danish donor who unknowingly carried a rare variation of the TP53 gene that increases the risk of early cancer. Out of the 67 children he helped to conceive, 23 of them are carriers of the variant, 10 of whom have developed cancer. The case was revealed at the end of May by Dr. Edwige Kasper, a biologist at Rouen University Hospital, at a meeting of the European Society of Human Genetics in Milan. "It's a syndrome called Li-Fraumeni syndrome, which will give rise to multiple cancers with a very broad spectrum, so children who are carriers of this variant need to be monitored very closely," the specialist in hereditary predispositions to cancer told Euronews. Of the 10 children who have developed a form of cancer, the doctor counts four haemopathies, four brain tumours and two types of sarcoma that affect the muscles. The case has highlighted the shortcomings of sperm donation policies across Europe. While most European countries limit the number of children fathered by a single donor, or the number of families that can be helped by a single donor, there is no limit at international or European level. The conditions around anonymity also vary from country to country. "We will end up with an abnormal spread of a genetic pathology, because the sperm bank involved in this case has set a limit of 75 families from the donor. Other sperm banks have not set a limit," explained Kasper. Although donors are subject to medical examinations and genetic tests, "there is no perfect pre-selection," explained Ayo Wahlberg, researcher and a member of the Danish Council on Ethics. "Technology is developing so fast. Genetic testing technologies and their costs are falling so fast that, if we compare 10 or 15 years ago and today in terms of recruitment and the types of genetic tests that can be carried out as part of the screening process, a lot has changed," the professor explained. The rules governing sperm donation vary from one European country to another. The maximum number of children from a single donor varies from 15 in Germany to one in Cyprus. Other countries prefer to limit the number of families that can use the same donor to give them the opportunity to have brothers and sisters. For example, the same donor can help 12 families in Denmark and six families in Sweden or Belgium. In addition, donations are kept anonymous in countries such as France and Greece. In other member states such as Austria, the person born of a gamete donation may have access to the identity of his or her parent. In Germany and Bulgaria, donations may or may not be anonymous, depending on the circumstances. In the Netherlands, the process is not anonymous. Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian National Medical Ethics Councils raised concerns over a lack of regulation at an international and European level, claiming it increases the risk of the spread of genetic diseases and consanguinity. "The risk that a genetic disease will unknowingly spread much more widely (with a large number of offspring) than if the number (of offspring) had been smaller," Wahlberg said. "The first step is therefore to establish or introduce a limit of families per donor. The second step is to create a national register. And the third step is of course to have a European register based on the national registers," Sven-Erik Söder, President of the Swedish National Council on Medical Ethics, told Euronews. In the age of social media and thorough DNA testing, donor anonymity can no longer be 100% guaranteed, which some have argued could put off people from donating. When asked if the introduction of regulations could lead to a shortage of sperm donations, Söder said the solution is not the absence of restrictions, but instead encourage people to donate.
Euronews
10 hours ago
- Euronews
Sperm donation policies in Europe questioned after cancer scare
The disparity of sperm donor laws in Europe has been called into question after a Danish sperm donor with an inherited cancer mutation is said to have helped conceive at least 67 children across Europe, mostly in Belgium. The European Sperm Bank (ESB) allegedly used gametes from a Danish donor who unknowingly carried a rare variation of the TP53 gene that increases the risk of early cancer. Out of the 67 children he helped to conceive, 23 of them are carriers of the variant, 10 of whom have developed cancer. The case was revealed at the end of May by Dr. Edwige Kasper, a biologist at Rouen University Hospital, at a meeting of the European Society of Human Genetics in Milan. "It's a syndrome called Li-Fraumeni syndrome, which will give rise to multiple cancers with a very broad spectrum, so children who are carriers of this variant need to be monitored very closely," the specialist in hereditary predispositions to cancer told Euronews. Of the 10 children who have developed a form of cancer, the doctor counts four haemopathies, four brain tumours and two types of sarcoma that affect the muscles. The case has highlighted the shortcomings of sperm donation policies across Europe. While most European countries limit the number of children fathered by a single donor, or the number of families that can be helped by a single donor, there is no limit at international or European level. The conditions around anonymity also vary from country to country. "We will end up with an abnormal spread of a genetic pathology, because the sperm bank involved in this case has set a limit of 75 families from the donor. Other sperm banks have not set a limit," explained Kasper. Although donors are subject to medical examinations and genetic tests, "there is no perfect pre-selection," explained Ayo Wahlberg, researcher and a member of the Danish Council on Ethics. "Technology is developing so fast. Genetic testing technologies and their costs are falling so fast that, if we compare 10 or 15 years ago and today in terms of recruitment and the types of genetic tests that can be carried out as part of the screening process, a lot has changed," the professor explained. The rules governing sperm donation vary from one European country to another. The maximum number of children from a single donor varies from 15 in Germany to one in Cyprus. Other countries prefer to limit the number of families that can use the same donor to give them the opportunity to have brothers and sisters. For example, the same donor can help 12 families in Denmark and six families in Sweden or Belgium. In addition, donations are kept anonymous in countries such as France and Greece. In other member states such as Austria, the person born of a gamete donation may have access to the identity of his or her parent. In Germany and Bulgaria, donations may or may not be anonymous, depending on the circumstances. In the Netherlands, the process is not anonymous. Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian National Medical Ethics Councils raised concerns over a lack of regulation at an international and European level, claiming it increases the risk of the spread of genetic diseases and consanguinity. "The risk that a genetic disease will unknowingly spread much more widely (with a large number of offspring) than if the number (of offspring) had been smaller," Wahlberg said. "The first step is therefore to establish or introduce a limit of families per donor. The second step is to create a national register. And the third step is of course to have a European register based on the national registers," Sven-Erik Söder, President of the Swedish National Council on Medical Ethics, told Euronews. In the age of social media and thorough DNA testing, donor anonymity can no longer be 100% guaranteed, which some have argued could put off people from donating. When asked if the introduction of regulations could lead to a shortage of sperm donations, Söder said the solution is not the absence of restrictions, but instead encourage people to donate. A referendum in Italy on citizenship requirements and job protection is likely to have failed, as turnout was far below the required threshold, polling agency YouTrend said on Monday. Turnout needed to be at least 50% plus one vote to make the referendum results binding, but based on data collected from 60,000 polling stations, turnout was around 30%. The referendum, proposed by trade unions and civic organisations, addresses issues that have generated political debate in Italy in recent years, particularly labour market reform, primarily the 2016 Labour Act, as well as migrant reception and integration policies. The first four questions relate to labour issues and concern the increasing protection of workers, small enterprises and their obligations towards employees, short-term contracts, and the responsibility of clients towards subcontracting parties and employees' safety. The fifth question concerns the period of time necessary for non-EU nationals residing in the country to be eligible for Italian citizenship, proposing to reduce it from 10 to five years. The parties of the ruling coalition, led by Premier Giorgia Meloni's Brothers of Italy, opposed the referendum, with some politicians urging citizens not to participate in the vote. According to the advocacy group International Democracy Community, although opposition parties have supported the referendum, it is primarily a citizens' initiative and not a political matter. "The referendum questions were proposed through a bottom-up approach, and did not come from parliament," the International Democracy Community said in a statement. "Members of the Europa+ party launched the initiative on the citizenship question, whilst the Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL) has been the initiator of the Labour Act ones, with support from the Democratic Party, the Five Star Movement, and the Green and Left Alliance." According to exit data after polls closed at 3 pm, the "yes" vote for the four labour law questions stood at around 85%, while 60% of voters said yes to the citizenship question. The referendum coincided with local elections in several Italian regions and municipalities.
LeMonde
a day ago
- LeMonde
The mystery of white-nose syndrome, which is killing US bats, is beginning to unravel
One of the last mysteries of "white-nose syndrome," which has been decimating bats in the United States since the winter of 2006-2007, has been solved. A European team, whose study was published in the May 28 issue of the journal Nature, has discovered that the fungus responsible for this epidemic was a double agent from Ukraine. Let's go back to that American winter. Thousands of bats were dying during hibernation in caves in the northeastern United States. Their snouts and wings were covered with a powdery white mold. This was just the beginning of white-nose syndrome, which "caused one of the highest disease-driven death tolls documented in nonhuman mammals," explained the study. Colonies were decimated and some bat species were even threatened with extinction. The mass die-off triggered a chain reaction. A study published in Science in September found that, in response to the collapse of these insect-eating populations, farmers in affected counties used more insecticides, which in turn led to a rise in infant mortality over several years. The culprit was quickly identified: Pseudogymnoascus destructans is a fungus found in Europe and Asia. Adapted to life in darkness, it feeds on the skin of bats.
