Consider a sector that generates 4.5 billion Euros in revenue, receives 1.3 billion Euros in state subsidies, yet incurs net costs of up to 10.8 billion Euros, driven primarily by social costs and immense carbon dioxide emissions.
Responsible economists would categorise this model as economically unviable and counsel strongly against it. Yet this is precisely what occurs, according to the first study to quantify the total economic costs of bottom trawling in European waters. Under the scientific leadership of Kat Millage, the National Geographic Pristine Seas research team analysed the available data, revealing critical insights.
To determine these figures, researchers analysed bottom trawling in European waters from 2016 to 2021, utilising datasets including those from Global Fishing Watch. Annually, bottom trawling fleets from the EU, the United Kingdom, Norway and Iceland generate 4.5 billion Euros in revenue, supported by state subsidies of 1.3 billion Euros per annum — equivalent to nearly one-third of the revenue. This state funding almost matches the economic value of the employment the sector generates. In one of his final official acts in January 2025, the German Federal Minister for Food and Agriculture Cem Özdemir authorised 20 million Euros in subsidies for German bottom trawling for the year 2025. Distributed among approximately 180 German bottom trawling fishers, this equates to roughly 111,000 Euros per fisher (exceeding 9,000 Euros per month).
At the same time, European bottom trawling yields a negligible share of just 2% of the animal protein consumed in Europe. The ecological cost, in addition to all other impacts, includes a bycatch rate of between 70% and 90%, which is discarded at sea dead or dying.
The broader environmental damage is likewise extensive; vessels continue to fish within Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The study demonstrates that 60% of all European MPAs are subjected to bottom trawling, which causes long-term disruption to the benthic substrate wherever the heavy gear is dragged. European taxpayers are effectively financing the degradation of their own protected marine zones. Furthermore, carbon stored in the seafloor is released on a massive scale, with 50% of the disturbed carbon entering the atmosphere within nine years. Globally, the carbon emissions from this fishery are equivalent to those generated by international aviation.
This highlights once again the conflict between short-term commercial returns and climate change mitigation. Subsidised, short-term profit models systematically generate far higher long-term costs through environmental degradation and its subsequent impacts. Over a long-term projection, nature conservation consistently represents the most cost-effective strategy.
These findings reinforce the scientific argument for a comprehensive ban on bottom trawling. A fishery that is economically non-viable without substantial state subsidies, and which degrades marine ecosystems whilst accelerating climate change, is unsustainable. Phasing out subsidies would represent a viable primary step if targeted taxation on unsustainable seafood or a complete ban on the method cannot be implemented.
Sources:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1125137;
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03371-z;
https://news.nationalgeographic.org/study-bottom.../;
