Scraping the Seafloor: Why Bottom Trawling Must End in the UK 

When Sir David Attenborough’s documentary Ocean aired in May 2025, it exposed millions of viewers to the brutal realities of industrial fishing practices. Among the most shocking scenes was the depiction of bottom trawling, an industrial method in which vast, weighted nets are dragged across the seabed, destroying everything in their path. Attenborough compared this process to “bulldozing a rainforest,” a comparison that resonated deeply with the public and policymakers alike (The Guardian, 2025a). While the UK government has since proposed partial restrictions, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a stronger stance. This article contends that the United Kingdom must implement a full ban on bottom trawling to protect marine ecosystems, mitigate climate impacts, and restore public trust in ocean conservation. 

Despite widespread condemnation, many fishing companies persist in using bottom trawling because it is perceived as economically efficient and capable of producing high yields. The technique allows vessels to harvest large quantities of demersal species such as cod, haddock and flatfish in a single tow, drastically reducing labour costs compared to traditional line or pot fishing (Only One, 2024). Industrial operators defend this approach for its large-scale profitability, but this efficiency is deceptive. The true environmental and social costs including habitat destruction, biodiversity loss and carbon release are externalized to the public rather than absorbed by the industry itself. 

Furthermore, data from the European Union indicate that up to 92% of all fishing discards originate from bottom trawling operations (For the Ocean, 2024). This connection between short-term profit and large-scale ecological damage underscores the unsustainability of the method. Moreover, the method’s heavy energy demands make it one of the most carbon-intensive forms of fishing, with a carbon footprint approximately 2.8 times higher than non-trawl methods (Only One, 2024). Companies often favour trawling because fuel subsidies and weak enforcement of marine protections reduce financial risk, allowing industrial fleets to operate with limited accountability (Sentient Media, 2024).

The environmental effects of bottom trawling are profound and long-lasting. Trawling gear destroys habitats such as seagrass meadows, sponge beds, and cold-water coral reefs, ecosystems that serve as nurseries for countless marine species (Oceana, 2024). Recovery from such damage can take decades or may never occur at all (Marine Conservation Society, 2024). Studies have also revealed that the physical act of trawling releases vast quantities of stored carbon from marine sediments, effectively turning the ocean floor from a carbon sink into a carbon source. Global estimates suggest that bottom trawling emits approximately 370 million metric tons of CO₂ annually, comparable to emissions from the entire aviation sector (Sentient Media, 2024). 

Yet, the United Kingdom’s current regulatory approach remains insufficient to address these impacts. Although 377 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) exist, around 90% still permit bottom trawling, allowing thousands of hours of trawling each year within so-called protected zones (SeafoodSource, 2025). This inconsistency undermines national conservation goals and contradicts international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD Secretariat, 2024). Evidence from Lyme Bay in Dorset, where bottom trawling was banned in 2008, demonstrates the tangible benefits of protection: species abundance increased by 370% and biodiversity by 430% within a decade (SeafoodSource, 2025). Local fishers also reported higher catches of non-trawled species, showing that ecosystem recovery can directly benefit sustainable fisheries. 

The fishing industry frequently argues (National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, 2025) that banning bottom trawling would devastate coastal economies. However, this position ignores the long-term economic and ecological benefits of marine restoration. A 2025 UK government assessment estimated that banning trawling in half of English MPAs would produce £3.1 billion in environmental benefits including enhanced carbon sequestration, improved biodiversity and increased tourism revenue while costing the fishing industry only £7.8 million in lost revenue (The Guardian, 2025b). Broader analyses suggest that a nationwide ban could generate a net economic gain of £3.5 billion over two decades through tourism, carbon sequestration and sustainable fisheries recovery (SeafoodSource, 2025).

The continued defence of bottom trawling is economically and ecologically untenable. Short term profits for industrial fleets come at the expense of biodiversity, long-term fisheries stability and the wellbeing of coastal communities that depend on healthy seas for employment and tourism. The broadcast of Ocean ignited widespread public anger and renewed political scrutiny.  

Viewers expressed shock at witnessing trawlers razing the seabed imagery described by National Geographic (2025) as “heart-wrenching” and visible from space due to the scale of sediment plumes created by the trawling process. Social media amplified this outrage, with calls for immediate bans trending across multiple platforms (BBC News, 2025). 

Polling data reflect this shift in public opinion: a 2025 Eurobarometer survey found that 73% of Europeans support banning bottom trawling in MPAs (Euronews, 2025). Environmental organizations such as Oceana and the Wildlife Trusts have since mobilized hundreds of thousands of citizens to sign petitions urging a nationwide ban. In response, the UK government announced in June 2025 a proposal to extend trawling bans to 41 additional English MPAs, covering 48,000 km² (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [DEFRA], 2025). However, critics (Greenpeace UK, 2025) argue this measure remains insufficient, leaving vast areas of seabed still vulnerable to degradation, particularly in Scottish and offshore waters where enforcement remains weak. 

Attenborough’s willingness to adopt an explicitly political stance in Ocean also marked a turning point. As noted by the Financial Times (2025), the documentary “abandons neutrality in favour of moral urgency,” signalling a new era of advocacy in environmental broadcasting. The subsequent wave of public pressure has made bottom trawling a symbol of broader environmental neglect, a visible reminder that even “protected” waters often remain unprotected in practice. 

Bottom trawling epitomizes the collision between industrial efficiency and ecological collapse. It is a method that prioritizes short-term gain over long-term sustainability, leaving in its wake a devastated seabed and destabilized marine ecosystems. The United Kingdom’s partial restrictions represent progress but fail to meet the scale of the crisis. The data are unambiguous:  bottom trawling is destructive, carbon-intensive, and economically short-sighted. Public opinion has shifted decisively toward protection, inspired in part by Attenborough’s powerful call to action. 

To safeguard the nation’s marine heritage and fulfil climate and biodiversity goals, the UK must enact a comprehensive ban on bottom trawling across all waters. The ocean can recover but only if we give it the chance.