A surge of public pressure is challenging the EU’s credibility on ocean protection: over 250,000 citizens and a broad coalition now demand a full ban on bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas, urging Commissioner Costas Kadis to act decisively in the upcoming Ocean Act. As Member States move ahead and public support soars, companies tied to industrial fishing and seafood supply chains must pay close attention.
Why now in EU
Recent developments underscore why this issue demands immediate attention. Scientific research and public opinion are increasingly aligned: bottom trawling is fundamentally incompatible with effective marine protection, as reflected in the Ocean Pact consultation’s clear citizen support for a ban. The open letter sent to Commissioner Costas Kadis highlights the urgent need for decisive action to safeguard marine ecosystems. Maintaining a case-by-case approach could result in prolonged inaction and heavy administrative burdens, which would delay conservation outcomes and undermine the EU’s commitments.
Member-state precedents
Sweden and Greece have already implemented bans on bottom trawling within their MPAs, while Denmark has expanded restrictions to cover 19% of its territorial waters—demonstrating a significant shift in regional policy. These national actions increase pressure for EU-wide consistency, as fragmented rules risk regulatory gaps and encourage operators to seek the least restrictive jurisdictions. Such precedents reinforce the argument for an EU-wide standard in the Ocean Act, which would support uniform compliance and coordinated monitoring across Member States.
Market implications
A binding trawling ban would simplify the regulatory landscape, reduce administrative burdens, and create a level playing field for operators working across borders. It is viewed as necessary to help replenish fish stocks through spill-over effects, thereby improving long-term stock health and supporting stable catches for the fishing sector. Companies subject to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) may also need to update disclosures and risk management frameworks to account for new marine impacts, biodiversity dependencies, and evolving supply chain risks.
Who should act now
Industrial fishing companies operating bottom trawlers in or near MPAs, gear manufacturers producing bottom-contact equipment, and ports in regions dependent on trawl landings should closely monitor these developments. Seafood retailers, brands, and foodservice buyers sourcing trawl-caught products will need to prepare for specification changes, enhanced traceability, and potential supplier transitions. The call to end bottom trawling in MPAs is particularly relevant to all these actors, who must be proactive in responding to regulatory and market shifts.
Opportunities and risks
Opportunities exist for small-scale fishers, who make up 76% of the EU fleet, to benefit from reduced competition and the positive spill-over from healthier ecosystems. Coastal communities could also gain from biodiversity recovery and increased climate resilience. However, risks remain for trawl-dependent fleets, which may face asset retirement, retooling costs, contract renegotiations, and changes to traditional fishing routes. Companies can mitigate these risks by accelerating gear transitions, diversifying sourcing away from MPAs, and engaging in co-management to align with the anticipated Ocean Act requirements.
Political and environmental trends
Allowing bottom trawling in MPAs undermines the EU’s environmental leadership and increases the political cost of inaction, especially as citizen engagement intensifies. Relying on non-binding commitments such as the Ocean Pact exposes credibility gaps between stated ambitions and actual environmental outcomes. A binding ban would reinforce the EU’s alignment with the European Green Deal, supporting biodiversity and resilient food systems, and strengthening the case for immediate, decisive action.
Conclusion
As momentum builds and legal clarity sharpens, a binding ban on bottom trawling in MPAs stands out as the most credible route to uphold EU environmental law and scientific consensus. Companies should act now—mapping exposure, planning gear or sourcing shifts, and updating CSRD disclosures to avoid disruption. A uniform ban promises streamlined regulation and long-term sustainability benefits for fisheries and markets alike.
EU legal context
The open letter contends that granting permissions for bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) on a case-by-case basis risks breaching the EU’s precautionary principle and the Habitats Directive. Both frameworks require a robust prior assessment and proactive protection for Natura 2000 sites, making discretionary trawling permissions hard to justify under existing law. Critics argue that the Commission’s preference for individualized site management is not only legally questionable but also inconsistent with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’s objective of achieving Good Environmental Status in EU seas. Embedding an explicit, binding ban on trawling within the Ocean Act would align EU practice with its own environmental legislation and streamline enforcement across all Member States.