EU faces new legal action over bottom trawling in protected areas
EU leaders are facing a fresh legal complaint over widespread destructive fishing practices like bottom trawling in marine protected areas (MPAs).
The lawyers behind it say that continuing to permit this activity goes against the bloc's core nature laws and puts the ocean and people in grave danger.
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 complaint is being brought to the European Commission by a coalition of non-profit organisations: ClientEarth, Oceana, Seas at Risk and Danmarks Naturfredningsforening.
It points out persistent instances of unchallenged bottom trawling in three countries: Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain. The challenge claims that destructive fishing practices in MPAs in these member states flout the EU Habitats Directive and calls on EU officials to launch infringement action against the countries in question.
The Habitats Directive requires Natura 2000 MPAs - the most important network of marine protected areas in Europe - to be protected from any activity likely to significantly affect the integrity of the site.
'Legally speaking, bottom trawling in protected areas is not legal, and if policymakers don't live up to their obligations, we will bring them before court,' says Tobias Troll, marine policy director from Seas at Risk.
ClientEarth ocean lawyer John Condon adds that 'urgent action' is needed at the EU level to confirm that bottom trawling is against EU law, alongside an 'immediate response' from governments.
This legal challenge is the latest in a string of litigation across the EU over bottom trawling in MPAs. Individual national cases have so far been launched in France, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden and Germany.
In April, another group of NGOs filed a similar legal complaint with the EU, alleging breaches of the EU Habitats Directive by Italy, France and Germany.
'This complaint, and others like it, reveal a systemic problem across Europe and one that member states have failed to address for years now, contrary to their legal obligations under EU law,' explains Nicolas Fournier, campaign director for marine protection at Oceana in Europe.
The new legal challenge also comes hot off the heels of a crucial judgment from the EU's General Court in May, which confirmed that protected areas must be protected from potentially harmful practices like bottom trawling.
The Commission concluded that countries have every right under EU law to ban damaging fishing methods like this in vulnerable marine areas.
Some EU countries, like Greece and Sweden, have already announced plans for national legislation to ban bottom trawling in protected areas within their territories. The EU's 2023 Marie Action Plan calls on member states to phase out bottom trawling in all MPAs by 2030.
But recent research from NGOs Oceana, Seas At Risk and ClientEarth revealed that no EU country currently has a comprehensive plan in place to phase out destructive fishing practices in these protected areas. And a study published in March this year by Pristine Seas found that around 60 per cent of these vulnerable marine areas in the EU are currently being trawled.
With the UN set to host its Ocean Conference in Nice, France, on 9 June and the EU expected to release its strategy to promote a sustainable and competitive blue economy in the next few days, pressure is mounting for more comprehensive ocean protection.
Campaigns calling for action on destructive fishing practices in the EU have been backed by fishermen and hundreds of thousands of Europeans.
'The world is waiting for leaders at UNOC to defend the ocean, and make sure protected genuinely means protected,' adds noted MPA defender and founder of the Mediterranean Conservation Society, Zafer Kızılkaya.
'Fishers depend on it - communities depend on it - the world depends on it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Hungary's LGBTQ+ law breaches EU regulation, top court advocate says
Hungary infringed EU law by prohibiting or restricting access to LGBTI content when it adopted legislation designed to protect children and counter paedophilia, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has said in an opinion. Advocate General Ćapeta also suggested that Hungary breaches fundamental EU values, enshrined in Article 2 of the EU's Treaty. Advocates General's opinions are non-binding, though judges consider them and in most though not all cases tend to follow them. If the judges of the Court agree with the opinion of the Advocate General, they could demand that Hungary revoke or amend the law and could also fine Budapest. The case is considered a landmark for human rights suits within the European Union, and the European Parliament and 16 EU member states have joined themselves to the action, demanding that Hungary annuls the law. The law created tensions in Hungarian society The law was adopted back in 2021 by the Hungarian parliament in a push for what the government called child protection and the fight against paedophilia. But opponents and the LGBTI community saw it as a Russian style anti-LGBTI campaign that poses a threat to fundamental rights. The law prohibits the portrayal of LGBTI people or sex relationships involving underage people in education and media. For example, the law stipulated that books containing photos of same sex relationships had to be wrapped in foil in bookshops, and meant that several TV-programs with similar content were moved to overnight slots. The adoption of the law led to protests against the government, and the European Commission opened an infringement procedure against Hungary in the same year, saying the law is in breach of EU law and values. This year, Hungary issued a ban on gay pride events held in public spaces, based on the child protection law. The European Commission is currently investigating whether this legislation is in line with EU law. But Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath said at a debate at the European Parliament that the Budapest Pride poses no danger for children. The UK's secretary of state for business and trade has told Euronews he is hoping that British holidaymakers will be able to use e-gates in Europe 'as soon as possible' following the agreement struck with the EU in May. The European Union and the UK announced an agreement on 19 May to strengthen cooperation, the first such deal reached since the UK left the bloc in 2020. Jonathan Reynolds, the UK , delivers a keynote address during the Brussels Economic Security Forum on Thursday. As well as outlining new arrangements linked to travel, defence and fishing, the 'reset' focuses on farming, an industry heavily impacted by Brexit. Under the terms of the new deal, British animal and plant products are expected to face fewer checks when exported to the EU. For example, the UK could once again be allowed to export raw sausages and burgers to the EU for the first time since Brexit — thanks to the proposed SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) agreement. However, the implementation details are still pending. Under the new deal, British travellers will be able to take advantage of the faster e-gate passport checks at many EU airports, but full details have yet been released on when this will be introduced. 'We hope it is as soon as possible because part of the agreement is the Commission saying there's no legal impediment to the use of e-gates,' Reynolds told Euronews. Reynolds said that the e-gates carried 'huge efficiency advantages', adding: 'I want people who are going on their summer holiday from the UK to have the ease and use of that.' Reynolds said his focus now is on implementing the May agreement, and dismissed opposition arguments against the agreement from the UK's Conservative and Reform parties. 'I think there is a coalition [in the UK] we can build that doesn't want to look to the past,' he said, saying such a coalition recognised the relationship as valuable in terms of trade, rather than revolving around issues of EU membership and constitutional issues. 'Let's not forget on fishing, there is no less access, no diminishing of the UK position from what is already the case and actually what is already the case is better than it had been in some previous years,' Reynolds said. There will 'always be people who want to not move on. That's politics. And my political opponents in the UK have stated that', Reynolds said, but he said he was confident that such arguments would not prevail in a future election.
LeMonde
an hour ago
- LeMonde
US and Europe insist tariff negotiations are making progress
The European Commission is holding its ground, hoping that negotiations with Washington will eventually bear fruit. For now, the Commission, which is responsible for trade policy, continued to refrain from taking retaliatory measures against the United States, even though, since Wednesday, June 4, US tariffs on steel and aluminum have doubled from 25% to 50%. These new tariffs come on top of other duties imposed by Donald Trump since his return to the White House – 25% on automobiles and 10% on a wide range of products – and have further deepened the imbalance between the two sides of the Atlantic. The European Union (EU), for its part, has still not imposed any additional tariffs on imports from its main trading partner. On Wednesday, after meeting with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in Paris, European Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said he was "optimistic" about the outcome of ongoing discussions between Brussels and Washington, thereby justifying the Commission's decision to take no immediate action. The EU has stuck to this strategy for nearly two months, maintaining its course even as Trump shifts the rules. "We want to give negotiations a chance," said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on April 10. That day, under pressure from the markets, Trump announced a 90-day mini-truce in the global trade war he is waging, postponing the new tariff hikes he unveiled on April 2 to July 9. In response, the Commission suspended the implementation of the first set of countermeasures, designed to retaliate against the 25% tariffs (in place since March 12) on steel and aluminum, which the members adopted the day before.
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
Digital weight loss: How online Ozempic buyers bypass prescriptions
As Germany's new Chancellor Friedrich Merz meets US President Donald Trump for the first time at the White House on Thursday, he'll be aware of how his predecessors have tackled the transatlantic relationship. The stars don't augur well, however. During his first stint in office, Trump regularly made disparaging remarks about Germany and developed a non-relationship with Chancellor Angela Merkel characterised by mutual personal dislike. Trump's erratic trade policy, which has the EU and Germany specifically in its sights, as well as Trump's retreat from traditionally solid transatlantic positions on common defence and Russia, have challenged Merz before he even moved into the Chancellery. How the mutual relationship between Merz and Trump develops in the future is likely to depend crucially on how the Chancellor completes his first visit to the Oval Office - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sends his regards! Merz's basic problem is that Trump has taken an axe to German-US relations and is not particularly interested in good terms with Berlin. This situation is a novelty for a German chancellor. Merz's predecessors since 1949 have experienced ups and downs in their relations with the respective US presidents, but the close friendship between the two countries has never been called into question. So how did they get along? Konrad Adenauer was 73 when he was elected the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949. Four years after the end of World War II, however, the country was not yet a sovereign state. Adenauer was only too aware of this. He sought a close and trusting relationship with the US and adheres very closely to instructions from Washington. In 1953, Adenauer travelled to the US for the first time - it was the first ever visit by a German head of government to Washington! His talks with US President Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61) were friendly. For Adenauer, the protection, aid and military presence of the United States were indispensable for the democratic development of Germany, as well as for peace and prosperity in Europe. Adenauer developed close personal relations with Eisenhower and especially his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, which benefitted German-US relations as a whole. In contrast, Adenauer's relationship with John F Kennedy (1961-63) was not without problems. The two are far apart in terms of both age and politics. In 1963, his last year in office, Adenauer was already 87, and Kennedy, 41 years his junior, saw him as a man of the past. Kennedy felt that the chancellor's stance on the German question was too rigid and lacked flexibility in the face of changing conditions in Europe. Conversely, Adenauer harbours mistrust of US-Soviet negotiations. He believes that a rapprochement between the two superpowers could only take place at the expense of Germany and its political goal of reunification. After the discord between Adenauer and JFK, relations between Chancellor Ludwig Erhard and Kennedy's successor Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-69) became very friendly again. German foreign policy was by now characterised by the conflict between 'Atlanticists' and 'Gaullists', with the latter wanting a close alliance with France, which Erhard rejects in favour of nuclear protection by the US. Erhard and Johnson met sympathetically from the outset and came together five times during Erhard's short time in office. The first time was just one month after Johnson's inauguration, when the Texan invited the German to his ranch in Texas, a particular honour, especially for a foreigner. Willy Brandt was the first Social Democrat to become Federal Chancellor in 1974. Brandt sees himself as a self-confident partner of the USA. However, his 'Ostpolitik', which sought an understanding with East Germany (GDR), Poland and the Soviet Union, was viewed with great suspicion in Washington. US President Richard Nixon (1969-1974) distrusted Brandt, whom he considered to be a 'German nationalist'. Brandt, on the other hand, tried to maintain a good relationship with Nixon and avoided open criticism of the war in Vietnam. Personally, the two had practically nothing to say to each other. Alluding to Brandt's illegitimate origins, Nixon occasionally calls him 'the bastard' behind closed doors. In the mid-1970s, German-US relations were better than ever before. US President Gerald Ford (1974-1977) and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt knew and appreciated each other and were close friends in their private lives. There was a great deal of agreement on key issues, as well as a trusting openness in discussing differences. However, Ford lost the 1976 election to his challenger Jimmy Carter (1977-1981). Carter was inexperienced in foreign policy and relied on a team of advisors disconnected from the think tanks of the East Coast, where Schmidt had been well-connected for decades and enjoyed a high reputation. Schmidt, who had a tendency to lecture people, saw Carter as a novice who had only a limited understanding of the world's complex problems. This does not go unnoticed by Carter - relations quickly hit rock bottom. When it came to the deployment of the neutron bomb, there were serious disagreements. Schmidt, amid great domestic political difficulties, advocated the weapons system desired by Washington. When Carter stopped its production at the last minute for domestic political reasons, Schmidt felt exposed and abandoned. Unlike Schmidt, Helmut Kohl had no personal connection to the United States and did not speak English. Nevertheless, he showed transatlantic solidarity from the outset and endeavours to establish a personal relationship with every US president he deals with. His relationship with Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) even had friendly traits that outlasted even the embarrassing Bitburg controversy. In 1985, Kohl invited Reagan to visit the Bitburg military cemetery in the Eifel region during his stay in Germany - as a sign of reconciliation between former enemies. When it was discovered that not only Wehrmacht soldiers but also members of the Waffen SS were buried at the cemetery, a storm of indignation broke out in Washington. The White House wanted to cancel the visit, but Reagan remained stubborn and thus supported the German chancellor. Kohl also developed a friendly and close relationship with Reagan's successor George HW Bush (1989-93), which facilitated communication between the two governments during the collapse of the GDR and the German reunification process. In the 1990s, German-US relations were determined not least by the question of how much responsibility Germany should assume in the world. US President Bill Clinton (1993-2001), with whom Kohl had an even better relationship than with Reagan, reacted positively to the German decision to send Bundeswehr soldiers to the Balkans as part of an international peacekeeping force. In his memoirs, Clinton spoke almost affectionately and with great respect about his appreciation for Kohl. He was 'not only physically' the most impressive political leader in Europe for decades, according to Clinton. The relationship between German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and US President George W. Bush developed quite differently. The atmosphere between Bonn (later Berlin) and Washington was probably never as icy as in those years. The reason: the red-green government's no to the war in Iraq. Mistrust, personal animus, blatant dislike - the rift between the two leaders was total. This became apparent again years later, when both were no longer in office and both accused each other of lying on the occasion of the publication of Bush's memoirs in 2010. Under Chancellor Angela Merkel, German-American relations relaxed again. Unlike with Schröder, Bush got on well with Merkel and called her 'a friend'. In contrast, the chancellor's relationship with Barack Obama was slow to warm. In 2008, she refused to allow the then-presidential candidate to give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin - Obama had to make do with the Victory Column. But after Obama's election, the relationship was increasingly characterised by mutual trust. Both cultivated a sober and pragmatic political style and a liberal view of the world, which facilitated cooperation. In a way, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was lucky: US President Joe Biden was probably the last great old-school US Atlanticist. This made cooperation easier. Both liked each other, worked together in a spirit of trust and described each other as friends. In fact, Scholz consulted with Biden more frequently and more closely than with his European colleagues. When it comes to aid for Ukraine, Scholz did nothing without obtaining Biden's approval. At their last meeting, both warned against ending military support to Ukraine. This is now a matter for their successors. In a world chasing speed—fast food, fast fashion, fast tech—it's no surprise that quick slimming is the latest obsession. But the demand for rapid weight loss has opened a controversial new chapter in global health: the widespread use of prescription-only diabetes medications like Ozempic and Mounjaro for aesthetic purposes. These drugs, part of the GLP-1 class, were developed to help manage type 2 diabetes. Yet their dramatic side effect—substantial weight loss—has made them wildly popular among people with no underlying medical need. It's a trend health experts now warn could spiral into a global crisis. More than 1 billion people worldwide live with obesity, and over 830 million are managing diabetes. In Europe, over half the adult population is overweight, and 17% are clinically obese. The World Obesity Federation projects that by 2050, 60% of adults globally will fall into this category. GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Saxenda were designed to address these numbers through medical treatment. They regulate insulin levels, slow digestion and reduce appetite, helping some users shed up to 15% of their body weight. For people with obesity and related health conditions, these drugs are a breakthrough. But for others—especially the young and image-conscious—they've become a shortcut. A way to stay lean without diet or exercise. And in today's fast-paced, hyper-filtered world, many are willing to skip the medical justification entirely. Although legally restricted in most countries, Ozempic and similar drugs can often be obtained with alarming ease. A quick online search reveals dozens of websites offering 'digital consultations' where users simply fill out a questionnaire, upload an ID, and—often without ever speaking to a doctor—receive a prescription. In some countries, the process is even more relaxed. Online platforms may not require access to a user's official medical records, allowing anyone with basic Photoshop skills and a scale to potentially game the system. In others, local pharmacies bend the rules. In places like Poland, Turkey, Greece, and Kosovo, access through unofficial channels has been reported despite existing regulations. A thriving grey market fills the gaps. Private group chats on messaging apps function like digital black markets. In just minutes, users can browse listings, order, and pay for unregulated GLP-1 drugs—no questions asked, no prescription required. Users even post photos celebrating their arrivals, turning health risks into social memes. This growing off-label trend comes with serious consequences. GLP-1 medications aren't without risks—especially when misused or taken without medical supervision. Common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, loss of appetite and dehydration. More serious complications may include swelling of the pancreas, gallbladder disease which sometimes requires surgical removal, loss of muscle tissue, kidney injuries and hypoglycaemia, especially when combined with other medications. Thyroid tumours have been noted in some animal studies of the drugs. Then there's the risk of fakes. In 2023, authorities in Austria and the UK reported hospitalisations due to counterfeit Ozempic pens, some of which were found to contain insulin instead of semaglutide. The World Health Organization (WHO) has since issued a global alert over falsified versions of semaglutide found in the UK, US and Brazil. 'These counterfeits can be life-threatening,' warned WHO's Dr Yukiko Nakatani. 'We urge people to stop using suspicious products and report them immediately.' Despite growing awareness, enforcement lags behind. Messaging platforms where these drug sales take place continue to operate with minimal oversight. Closed groups named after "fitness" or "health" are often digital storefronts for illicit sales. Algorithms don't differentiate between helpful tips and harmful products—until someone gets hurt. This loophole highlights a growing regulatory blind spot. Health authorities may police pharmacies and clinics, but the world's most popular communication platforms remain largely unregulated terrain when it comes to drug trafficking. A European Commission spokesperson noted that under the EU's Digital Services Act online platforms have an obligation to protect consumers. The act requires users to be able to quickly report illegal content and products, obliges platforms to remove illicit goods and online marketplaces have to trace their traders. "The DSA obliges platforms to address risks of illegal content and goods being disseminated on their sites," and the Commission is monitoring compliance and won't hesitate to open further proceedings, according to the spokesperson. The rise of weight-loss drugs has ushered in a new dilemma for both medicine and society. These are powerful tools with potential to transform lives—but only when used safely, and for the right reasons. As regulators struggle to keep up with demand, tech companies and messaging platforms must also step up. Health isn't just a personal issue—it's a systemic one. And without stronger protections in place, the rush for fast fixes could leave a trail of long-term damage. US President Donald Trump said that his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin told him "very strongly" in a phone call on Wednesday that he will respond to Ukraine's weekend drone attack on Russian airfields. "We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. "It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace." The call reportedly lasted for an hour and 15 minutes and was Trump's first known contact with Putin since 19 May. In a briefing with government ministers earlier on Wednesday, Putin made no mention of Ukraine's audacious operation deep inside Russia on Sunday, instead referring only to an operation carried out by Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) on Tuesday which saw the Kerch Bridge damaged. The bridge is a key piece of Russian infrastructure illegally built by Moscow after its unilateral annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula in 2014. Putin referred to that attack as "certainly a terrorist act." However, Ukraine's SBU said the first explosion was timed to take place just before 5am when there were no civilians on or near the bridge. The Russian leader also questioned the value of faltering peace talks with Ukraine, accusing Kyiv of not being interested in peace. "What is there to talk about? How can we negotiate with those who rely on terror?" he said. The second round of face-to-face talks between Ukraine and Russia took place in Istanbul on Monday, with no major breakthrough made towards a lasting ceasefire. The two sides however agreed to another prisoner of war exchange, with Ukraine's Defence Minister Rustem Umerov saying seriously ill and young soldiers would be swapped. During the talks in Istanbul, Ukraine also gave Moscow officials a list of hundreds of Ukrainian children forcefully deported by Russia. "We are talking about hundreds of children whom Russia has illegally deported, forcibly transferred or is holding in the temporarily occupied territories. We are waiting for a response. The ball is in Russia's court," the head of Ukraine's presidential office Andriy Yermak said on Telegram. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said it took Kyiv "one year, six months, and nine days from the start of planning to effective execution" of the operation. Kyiv managed to smuggle FPV drones deep inside Russia and hide them inside trucks in mobile log cabins. The cabins' roofs were then opened remotely and the drones proceeded to launch their attack on Russian military bombers. Social media footage widely shared by Russian media appears to show the drones rising from inside containers, while the panels lie discarded on the road. On Wednesday, Zelenskyy said Kyiv would not have launched its drone strike on Russian strategic bombers if Moscow had accepted Kyiv's calls for a ceasefire. Zelenskyy said Ukraine has repeatedly urged Russia to accept the US-backed 30-day ceasefire proposal, which could be the first step to putting an end to Russia's all-out war against Ukraine. However during the second round of talks on Monday, Moscow rejected the proposal once again. "If there had been a ceasefire, would the operation have taken place? No," Zelenskyy explained, adding that roughly half of the planes will be impossible to repair, while others will require significant time to be put back into service. On Wednesday, Ukraine's security service (SBU) released new drone footage of Operation "Spiderweb," showing how exactly Kyiv struck 41 Russian heavy military bombers on Sunday. The footage shows Ukraine's first-person-view drones striking four Russian airfields: Dyagilevo in the Riazan region, Ivanovo in the Ivanovo region, Belaya air base in the Irkutsk region, located in south-eastern Siberia over 4,000km east of the frontline, and Olenya air base in Russia's Murmansk region, some 2,000km away from Ukraine's border. Kyiv said these were the airfields where Russian strategic aviation "had been based". The damaged aircraft include A-50, Tu-95, Tu-22, Tu-160, as well as An-12 and Il-78. Moscow uses these heavy bombers for daily attacks on Ukrainian cities. The SBU also revealed that it used a modern UAV control technology during this operation. It combined autonomous artificial intelligence algorithms and manual operator interventions. Ukraine's security service says some of the UAVs lost signal and would switch to an artificial intelligence-assisted mission following a pre-planned route. The warhead then automatically detonated as it approached and made contact with a specific target. Earlier, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that 117 drones had been used in Operation Spiderweb, each with its own pilot. The General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces confirmed on Tuesday that Russia lost 41 military aircraft.
