In order to restore the physical integrity of ocean habitats and the abundance of marine biodiversity, it is essential to ban destructive fishing gears that scrape the seabed, such as bottom trawls and demersal seines. These techniques use nets and cables towed over the seabed, destroying marine flora and fauna over huge areas. The French fleet of bottom trawlers operating in the North-East Atlantic alone scrapes an average seabed surface estimated at 600,000 km2¹ .

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that, “globally, disturbance of previously undisturbed marine sediment carbon through trawling was estimated to release the equivalent of 15 to 20% of atmospheric CO2 absorbed annually by the ocean”² . Moreover, trawls and seines are not selective. It is estimated that trawlers are responsible for 93% of discards in European fisheries. Lastly, trawling consumes large quantities of fuel to pull the trawl along the seabed: catching one kilo of fish with a trawl requires 1 to 2 liters of diesel and emits up to 6 or 8 kg of CO2 [3] i.e. four to ten times more than fishing with nets or traps[4] .

To put an end to the destruction of the seabed and of the richness of oceanic biological assemblages, and to drastically reduce CO2 emissions, it is essential to launch an exhaustive “detrawling” plan³ for European fisheries by 2030, reducing trawling by 30% by 2025, before phasing it out by 2030.

OUR DEMANDS

• Launch a plan to detrawl the European fishing fleet, with the aim of decommissioning, converting or retiring the entire trawler fleet by 2030, while guaranteeing fishers fair and equitable financial support.
• Prohibit the construction of new trawlers, with or without public aid.
• Immediately ban the use of destructive fishing gear that comes into contact with the seabed, such as demersal seines.

1. BLOOM (2024) Changer de cap. Pour une transition ociale-écologique des pêches ↩

2. IPBES, GIEC (2021) : IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change ↩

3. Gascuel (2019) : Pour une révolution dans la mer. De la surpêche à la résilience ↩

Both the IPCC and the IPBES agree on the urgent need to develop Marine Protected Areas as a response to climate change and the collapse of biodiversity. In its latest report, the IPCC stresses that the second most effective lever for mitigating global warming is the protection of natural ecosystems¹.

At COP 15, the international community pledged to protect 30% of our land and water. However, today in Europe, so-called “protected” marine areas are subject to the passage of daunting industrial fishing gear that scrapes the seabed and destroys ecosystems. In Europe, 86% of supposedly “protected” areas are intensively exploited using destructive fishing methods², and in more than two-thirds of the Marine Protected Areas in northern Europe, trawling is 1.4 times more intense than in adjacent areas³. It is therefore urgent to create a coherent and effective network of Marine Protected Areas in Europe to stabilize the climate and ensure the conservation of European biodiversity and ecosystems.

OUR DEMANDS

• Protect 30% of European waters, with one-third under “strict protection” by 2030.
• Protect 50% of European waters, with half of them under “strict protection” by 2050.
• Compel Member States to align themselves with the European definition of “strict protection”, i.e. “fully and legally protected areas designated to conserve and/or restore the integrity of biodiversity-rich natural areas with their underlying ecological structure and supporting natural environmental processes. Natural processes are therefore left essentially undisturbed from human pressures and threats to the area’s overall ecological structure and functioning, independently of whether those pressures and threats are located inside or outside the strictly protected area”⁴.
• Prohibit industrial infrastructure and activities in Marine Protected Areas, including industrial fishing as defined by the IUCN, i.e. fishing by motorized vessels over 12 meters long, as well as “fishing using trawling gears that are dragged or towed across the seafloor or through the water column, and fishing using purse seines and large longlines”⁵.
• Place fish spawning and nursery areas under strict protection, in line with the recommendations of the European Union Action Plan⁶.
• Protect seabirds by placing waters near islands with seabird colonies under “strict protection” by 2027 at the latest, and by limiting the reduction in forage fish biomass to 60% of pre-fishing levels by 2030.

1. IPCC (2023) AR6 Synthesis Report. Summary for policymakers. Figure SPM.7 ↩

2. Perry et al. (2022) : Extensive Use of Habitat-Damaging Fishing Gears Inside Habitat-Protecting Marine Protected Areas ↩

3. Dureuil et al. (2018) : Elevated trawling inside protected areas undermines conservation outcomes in a global fishing hot spot ↩

4. Commission européenne (2022) : Commission Staff Working Document. Criteria and guidance for protected areas designations ↩

5. UICN (2020) : Orientations pour identifier la pêche industrielle incompatible avec les aires protégées ↩

6. European Commission (2023) : EU Action Plan: Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries. ↩

Since the 1990s, the harmful role of certain subsidies in overcapacity and overfishing has been clearly established. Industrial fishing fleets, which are the most destructive, are particularly dependent on these subsidies. In June 2022, after twenty years of negotiation, WTO Member States reached an agreement to eliminate harmful subsidies to the fishing industry. Providing 18% of global subsidies allocated to the fisheries sector, the European Union is the second largest political entity funding the fisheries sector after China¹ . Yet, contrary to its international commitments and stated desire to eliminate harmful fishing subsidies, the European Union continues to support a destructive model and maintains the status quo.

This is an alarming situation, despite the fact that these public subsidies play a key role in the sector and could promote a genuine social and ecological transition. In France alone, in 2021, these European and national public subsidies amounted to 327 million euros, or almost 30% of the French fishing industry’s sales² .

A detailed analysis of the beneficiaries of these subsidies shows that industrial fishing and destructive fishing methods are favored: in France, in 2021, 63% of this public funding went to fuel tax exemptions, with a package of 206 million euros that mainly benefits industrial fishing, which consumes more fuel, is less respectful of the environment, and provides fewer jobs. Conversely, only 11% of these subsidies in 2021 are identified as expenditure in favor of sustainable transition³. The situation concerning the French fleet represents a cross-section of the overall European situation.

OUR DEMANDS

• Immediately prohibit subsidies to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to vessels that have committed fraud, poaching, or any other violation of the law.
• Prohibit the granting of new subsidies or any other financial support likely to encourage overcapacity and overfishing, or the renewal or increase in capacity of vessels longer than 12 meters and/or using towed gear.
• Ensure that vessels using destructive fishing gear receive decarbonization subsidies on the condition that they convert to low-impact methods.
• Prohibit private investment in projects that would normally be ineligible for EU funding, in particular projects to build new vessels or modernize the industrial fishing fleet.
• Support the implementation of the WTO agreement on fisheries subsidies and encourage the continuation of negotiations towards a comprehensive agreement.
• Prohibit tax exemptions on fuel and set up a plan to support the sector in its transition to a model that respects the climate and biodiversity.
• Target public spending on converting the fishing industry towards a better ecological and social performance, as well as to low-carbon methods that respect marine habitats and the ocean’s biological diversity.

1. Sumaila et al*.* (2019) : Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies ↩

2. BLOOM (2024) Against the current. How public action in France misses the challenges of transition: a summary of public subsidies allocated to the French fishing sector between 2020 and 2022. ↩

3. Ibid ↩

Artisanal fishing is facing a severe crisis due to dwindling resources in coastal waters and unfair competition from industrial vessels and mega-trawlers that can reach over 140 meters in length and catch up to 400 tons of fish a day. There is therefore an urgent need to grant priority access and fishing rights to small-scale fishers, who account for the majority of jobs in this sector and use the most sustainable and selective fishing techniques (passive gears).

This measure is in line with the objectives of Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which requires States to integrate environmental and social criteria into quota allocation. However, since the last reform of the CFP, only a few states have actually introduced these criteria, with most still relying on historical catch records and vessel size to distribute quotas¹ .

OUR DEMANDS

• Give priority to artisanal fishing using passive gear by obliging Member States to give priority to artisanal fishing using passive gear when granting fishing licenses and quotas, in accordance with Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy.
• Support the development of local, short supply chains and high value-added value chains for low-impact artisanal fishing products.
• Reserve the coastal strip (12 nautical miles) primarily for vessels of less than 12 meters in length using passive gears.

1. European Parliament (2022) Report on the implementation of Article 17 of the Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy ↩

Coastal waters - the areas where artisanal fishers make their catches - are essential nurseries and habitats for the juveniles of many species. Preserving the physical and biological integrity of these areas is therefore crucial to maintaining a healthy ocean¹ . In addition, small-scale fishers have much less mobility due to the size of their vessels and equipment.

So, while large industrial vessels, designed to fish offshore, compete with small vessels in coastal waters, the latter have no opportunity to fish elsewhere and depend directly on the health of coastal ecosystems. This unfair competition seriously undermines the survival of small-scale fishing, which is highly dependent on coastal resources, and is monopolized by large industrial vessels. At present, there are no legal provisions to protect inshore fishers from vessels over 25 meters.

OUR DEMANDS

• Prohibit vessels over 25 meters to operate in the 12 nautical mile coastal band.
• Prohibit technological innovations that increase fishing pressure on ecosystems and the most destructive fishing methods, such as demersal seining (Danish, Scottish and affiliated seines), for all vessel sizes within the 12 nautical mile coastal band.

1. Cheminée et al. (2021) : All shallow coastal habitats matter as nurseries for Mediterranean juvenile fish ↩

Since the 1990s, aquaculture has been presented as an alternative to fishing for reducing marine catches worldwide. However, aquaculture is having an increasingly significant impact on the marine environment, with the industry growing by 250% over the last 25 years¹. It is a direct source of marine pollution due to the animal excrement that is discharged, as well as the antibiotics and pesticides that are used extensively in fish farms. It also indirectly impacts terrestrial and marine ecosystems through its dependence on GMO soy and industrial reduction fisheries to feed farmed fish.

Reduction fisheries, which uses small pelagic fish to produce meal and oil for fish farming and the intensive breeding of pigs, poultry and other land animals, has a major impact on marine ecosystems² : between 1950 and 2010, 27% of the world’s fish catches were reduced to fishmeal and oil, even though these fish were perfectly suitable for human consumption³. What’s more, 10% of aquaculture production itself is used to produce fishmeal or fish oil, which is used to feed other aquaculture farms⁴

OUR DEMANDS

• Prohibit all new aquaculture projects, including factory farms, along coastlines, with the exception of seaweed and shellfish (oysters, mussels, etc.) farming projects.
• Stop breeding species that no longer exist in their natural state, carnivorous species and invasive and proliferating species.
• Ban industrial fishing and the use of animal meal from this practice to feed aquaculture species.
• Ban the use of plant meal from GM crops, including soy.
• Combat the illegal use of inputs banned by the European Union.
• Promote public education projects to reduce animal protein consumption.

1. FAO (2022) : The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Towards a blue transformation ↩

2. BLOOM (2017) : From jam to pigs. Behind the scenes of aquaculture. ↩

3. Cashion et al. (2017) : Most fish destined for fishmeal production are food-grade fish ↩

4. Ibid. ↩

Around 20% of catches by EU fishing fleets are made outside EU waters, partly under “sustainable fisheries partnership agreements” with non-EU countries¹. These fishing agreements, implemented in most cases with countries on the African continent, increase fishing pressure on species of crucial importance to the food and economic security of local populations.

In West Africa and the western Indian Ocean, these international fishing agreements contribute to the overfishing of pelagic fish and tuna, sometimes using destructive fishing techniques such as tuna fishing on FADs (fish aggregating devices). FADs, rafts that artificially aggregate tuna populations and facilitate their capture thanks to geolocation, provide such a high level of technological assistance to industrial fishers that they are now responsible for over 90% of European catches of tropical tuna².

But above all, these FADs are responsible for the death of countless sensitive and endangered marine species, such as sharks, turtles and rays, and capture many juvenile tuna: in the Indian Ocean, 97% of yellowfin tuna caught under FADs are juveniles. FADs are therefore a direct obstacle to the recovery of this overexploited population. Despite scientific warnings, the European Union earmarked €142 million in 2020 to renew these so-called “sustainable” fishing agreements³.

In addition to this destruction of ecosystems, value chains and agreements between states and foreign shipowners are highly opaque: the European fishing industry owns numerous vessels registered under foreign flags, as well as various fish processing and canning industries in Africa and South America.

Last but not least, as these companies are designed to ensure the flow of cheap seafood products to the European market, they have little or no positive impact on local economies, often benefiting from tax advantages when they are set up.

OUR DEMANDS

• Immediately ban the use of FADs (fish aggregating devices) for all vessels in the European fishing fleet, including those operating under agreements between the EU and non-EU countries, and represent this position at an international level.
• Reform international fisheries agreements so that the costs associated with access to the fishery resources of the partner country’s exclusive economic zone are fully borne by the European shipowners benefiting from the agreement.
• Ensure better protection for unsubsidized local fishing communities from unfair competition from large, heavily subsidized foreign fisheries.
• Ensure that EU fisheries agreements with non-EU countries are based on recent (less than 10 years old) assessments of target stocks.
• Guarantee the cessation of fishing activities carried out by fleets under European capital that target overexploited stocks in non-EU waters.
• Support at international level the obligation of transparency and public accessibility of private fishing agreements, i.e. agreements concluded between a state and a shipowner from a non-EU country. These agreements, which are commonplace even in the EU, remain totally opaque to this day.
• Set up a publicly accessible register of fishing vessels and processing industries registered and located abroad, where European companies are the beneficial owners.

1. Parlement européen : Fiches thématiques sur l‘Union Européenne - Les relations internationales en matière de pêche ↩

2. BLOOM (2023) La grande distribution et le MSC alliés dans la destruction de l’océan ↩

3. Ibid. ↩

Fishing industry lobbies have acquired a disproportionate influence over public decision-making and political representation in the sector. This situation is detrimental to small-scale fishers, whose interests are neither represented nor defended. However, it also poses a problem when these interest groups intervene at the highest decision-making level, including by integrating official European Union delegations¹.

OUR DEMANDS

• Guarantee small-scale fishing fair representation proportional to its social importance in European and national bodies, in particular within professional and producer organizations, which are the privileged interlocutors of the Member States and the European institutions.
• Prohibit and penalize the recruitment of staff and/or civil servants who have worked, over the past five years, for structures engaged in lobbying European institutions.
• Prohibit the inclusion of industrial lobbies in official European Union delegations.
• Make all information relating to the activities of fishing industry lobbies public, including interactions with institutions and political decision-makers, the positions defended, the identity of interlocutors, the dates, duration and purpose of meetings, and subsidies or any other form of financial support granted by the European Union, as well as the exact nature of the project for which support has been granted.

1. BLOOM (2023) : THE EU Under the Rule of Tuna Lobbies ↩

The time of politics is not the same as the time of nature, and even less so that of an environment as vast, wild, and essential as the ocean. Guaranteeing the defense of the general interest therefore requires a complete overhaul of ocean governance structures on a European scale, by putting citizens back at the heart of political decision-making as a matter of priority. This is essential if we consider that the ocean and its resources are common goods. In line with this, all information relating to the oceans must be made fully public and transparent.

OUR DEMANDS

• Make all decisions concerning the future of the ocean independent of political timeframes by ensuring that the development of maritime orientation strategies is the product of consultation with citizens at European Union level, along the lines of the Citizen Convention or the Conference on the Future of Europe.
• Make all information relating to the activities of fishing industry lobbies public, including interactions with institutions and political decision-makers, the positions defended, the identity of interlocutors, the dates, duration and purpose of meetings, and subsidies or any other form of financial support granted by the European Union, as well as the exact nature of the project for which support has been granted.
• Make all ocean-related data more generally accessible and transparent via a single portal, including socio-economic data on the fishing industry, raw, non-anonymized data on beneficiaries of public subsidies, and complete, up-to-date data and documents from producer organizations on quota allocation criteria.

Five of the ten chemical substances of greatest public health concern according to the WHO are frequently present in seafood products commonly consumed throughout the European Union (mercury, arsenic, dioxins, lead and cadmium)¹. To protect public health, a European regulation sets maximum permitted levels by taking into account the actual contamination of a product².

However, whilst the mercury limit per kilogram of fresh fish is set at 0.5mg/kg, an exception is made for the most contaminated fish, in this case predatory fish such as tuna or swordfish. For these species, the maximum authorized limit is doubled to 1 milligram of mercury per kilogram. There is no health reason for this exception. The responsibility for ensuring that products placed on the market comply with the standards lies with the operators in the food sector, but there are no strict requirements in terms of analytical controls for these same players. As a result, products exceeding the maximum permitted levels of toxic substances are common on the European market³.

NOS DEMANDES

• Abolish the exceptions that exist in the maximum authorized levels for the most contaminated species and ensure the most protective thresholds.
• Reinforce the sanitary control requirements for seafood operators in the food sector.
• Warn citizens of the risks of exposure to toxic substances and require EU Member States to draw up national prevention plans for products whose levels regularly exceed the maximum permitted levels, such as mercury in tuna or swordfish.

1. OMS (2020) : 10 chemicals of public health concern ↩

2. European Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 ↩

3. Mercury alerts reported to RASFF in 2023-2024 ↩

In 2021, the International Energy Agency published its “Net Zero by 2050” roadmap to determine a carbon trajectory that would limit global warming to 1.5°C, concluding that “other than fields already approved for development, no new oil and gas fields are necessary”¹ . But despite these international recommendations and the scientific consensus of the IPCC, European companies are far from cutting their ties with the fossil fuel industry.

At present, oil consumption is not falling fast enough: even if Member States achieve their targets, oil demand will only have fallen by 16% by 2030² and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be largely insufficient³. At the same time, European banks continue to support fossil fuel expansion, and have provided over $1,300 billion to fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement, and $30 billion to the top 100 fossil fuel developers in 2022 alone⁴ .

\

OUR DEMANDS

• Prohibit companies established on European soil from participating in any way, directly or indirectly, in the development of fossil fuel projects approved after 2021, both within the European Union and elsewhere.
• Ban all forms of public funding for fossil fuel projects and for companies involved in the development of new fossil fuel projects, both within the European Union and elsewhere.
• Prohibit the European financial sector from providing services to fossil fuel companies that do not renounce the development of new fossil fuel exploration and exploitation projects.
• Support the adoption of an international treaty on the non-proliferation of fossil fuels and promote European legislation in this area.
• Complement European greenhouse gas emission reduction targets with quantified obligations to reduce fossil fuel consumption and production.

1. International Energy Agency (2021) : Net zero by 2050 - A Roadmap for the global energy sector ↩

2. Transport & Environment (2023) : New oil map: EU replaces Russian oil barrel for barrel as continent fails to cut demand ↩

3. European Commission : Progress made in cutting emissions figure 1 ↩

4. Reclaim Finance (2023) : Les banques européennes parmi les principaux moteurs de l’expansion fossile ↩

In March 2023, the European Union set itself the target of increasing the share of renewable energies to 42.5% by 2030 , which calls for a considerable increase in installed wind power capacity. Indeed, while the European Union currently has just over 204 GW of installed wind power capacity, it is aiming for over 500 GW by 2030¹.

While the deployment of offshore wind power seems necessary to achieve these climate and energy objectives, it must not be at the expense of protecting ocean ecosystems. Indeed, in its March 2023 report, the IPCC stressed that the second most effective lever for mitigating global warming lies in “the conservation of natural ecosystems, carbon sequestration and ecosystem restoration”² . This underscores the vital importance of maintaining the link between the development of renewable energies and the protection of ecosystems as part of an energy transition policy aimed at efficiency, conservation and decarbonization.

OUR DEMANDS

• Prohibit all current and future marine renewable energy projects, including offshore wind farms, in Marine Protected Areas.
• Define bidding zones far enough from the coast to avoid destroying vulnerable coastal ecosystems and preserve the artisanal fishing industry.
• Ensure that offshore wind projects are subject to a systematic search for an alternative siting area when prior impact studies highlight the existence of risks for protected habitats and species
• Put social, environmental and ecological criteria back into the competitive bidding process.
• Modify the allocation of the wind energy tax so that it funds ocean protection, the transition of the fishing sector, scientific research for the marine environment, energy transition and efficiency, and sea rescue operations

1. European Commission (2023, in french) : La Commission définit des mesures immédiates pour soutenir l’industrie éolienne européenne ↩

2. IPCC (2023) AR6 Synthesis report. Climate change 2023. Summary for policymaker. Figure 7. ↩

The ocean is suffocating under a tide of plastic: the amount of plastic waste dispersed in its waters today is estimated at nearly 200 million tons. Between 9 and 23 million tons are added every year, and this figure could rise to 53 million tons a year by 2040 if strong measures are not taken to counter this phenomenon¹.

Washed up on beaches and coral reefs, floating on the surface, sinking to the seabed or degraded into microplastics, this waste poses a threat to the health of the ocean and its inhabitants. The origins of plastic waste discharged into the ocean are diverse, but the fishing industry plays an important role: 10% of this debris is thought to come from lost or abandoned fishing gear². In addition to the lethal nature of such gear and “ghost nets” on marine animals, this debris is also found in the form of microplastics, contributing to the pollution of ecosystems.

OUR DEMANDS

• Launch an ambitious European plan to minimize the creation of plastic waste, promoting the marketing of reusable and repairable products, taking into account their entire life cycle.
• Extend the sales ban to all disposable plastic products, which currently applies only to certain products such as straws and disposable cutlery.
• Set up a system to identify and monitor fishing gear in order to prevent and detect pollution, abandonment, loss and discharge at sea.
• Support the adoption of an ambitious international treaty to combat plastic pollution, particularly that caused by “ghost fishing gear”.

1. UN environment program : From pollution to solution,. A global assessment of marine litter and plastic pollution ↩

2. Gilman (2015) : Status of international monitoring and management of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear and ghost fishing ↩

Deep-sea mining knowingly endangers precious, fragile and little-known ecosystems, which would be hard-pressed to recover their original biodiversity and health once disturbed. It poses a serious threat to the climate by releasing stored carbon from marine sediments, while contravening international obligations to protect the marine environment¹.

Seabed mining is aimed at extracting cobalt, nickel, manganese and other minerals used to manufacture electronic devices. The main justification is based on the need to move the vehicle fleet towards electric motorization, which now requires large quantities of these materials for the production of batteries. However, new-generation batteries, which do not use these metals, are taking up an ever-increasing share of the market, making deep-sea mining economically and technologically redundant².

OUR DEMANDS

• Ban extractive activities on the seabed in European Union waters.
• Support the adoption of an international moratorium on seabed mining within the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
• Prohibit all public and private funding for deep-sea mining projects, ensuring that financial players established on European soil do not participate in the financing of any project or company involved in deep-sea mining.

1. Deep sea conservation coalition (2022) : Deep-sea mining: factsheet 2. Deep-sea mining: the science and potential impacts ↩

2. Blue Climate Initiative (2023) : Next Generation EV Batteries Eliminate the Need for Deep Sea Mining ↩

Although they are still among the least anthropized regions on the planet, the poles are a magnet for those who see them as a largely untapped source of natural resources. But above all, the poles are among the habitats most threatened by climate change¹. The polar regions are in turmoil: over the past two decades, their average warming has been more than twice that of the rest of the planet, and Antarctic waters alone have contributed around 40% of the heat accumulation in ocean masses since 1970².

These temperature rises, combined with water acidification, are upsetting the balance of ecosystems both above and below the ocean surface, also threatening the survival of native human populations and posing a wider threat to the biosphere as a whole. Melting ice and the release of immense quantities of methane trapped in warming permafrost are just some of the threats. Preserving the polar regions means protecting our future and the habitability of the entire planet³.

OURS DEMANDS

• Call for an international moratorium on all economic activities developed in the polar regions, with the sole exception of activities carried out by local communities historically settled in the region. This includes fossil fuel exploration and extraction, mining projects, shipping and tourism.
• Transform the polar regions into international nature reserves to ensure better protection.
• Guarantee support for indigenous communities historically settled in the polar regions to help them adapt to climate and environmental change, as part of a process led and defined by the communities themselves, in Europe and elsewhere.

1. IPCC (2019) : Special report on oceans and cryosphere in the context of climate change, chapter 3: Polar regions.\ ↩

2. Ibid.\ ↩

3. Ibid. ↩