FAQ

No, and the figures speak for themselves. According to the FAO (SOFIA-2024), globally, 50.5% of commercial fish stocks(1) assessed in 2021 are fully exploited—which rules out any further intensification—while 37.7% are overexploited. Only 11.8% of stocks are currently considered “underexploited.”  

(1) A stock is a population of fish (or part of a population) located within a specific geographic area, with little or no interaction with neighboring stocks (P. Cury – IRD), and which can therefore be managed separately. The boundaries of a stock are defined by convention. 

Because the fishing industry has expanded without restraint, based on the belief that the sea was inexhaustible. Contrary to common usage, fishing is not a form of production. It is a “harvest” that depends on a natural resource and a specific area. It is because we have unfortunately ignored these fundamental truths that the current state of the world’s fishery resources is cause for concern. Over the past 50 years, fishing techniques have evolved considerably. Boats are more powerful, and tracking technologies are increasingly sophisticated. For a fish, it has become nearly impossible to escape modern fishing. 

When fish stocks are carefully monitored by scientists and managed sustainably, we see positive effects; this is what we are seeing with certain European stocks.  

In addition, modern issues such as pollution and greenhouse gas emissions—which are responsible for ocean acidification and global warming—are contributing to a disruption of ocean biodiversity.  

In short: fish stocks are an asset that generates returns every year. The challenge is to protect this asset and rebuild it when necessary so that we can fish sustainably, eventually harvesting only the returns.  

The complete extinction of a fish species such as cod or bluefin tuna is possible but highly unlikely. There will always be a few thousand individuals left that should be able to sustain the species. But this is purely hypothetical, because one thing is certain: even massive stocks can collapse suddenly under the relentless pressure of overfishing. This is what has happened to the so-called Mediterranean bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in recent years, and this is what happened to cod on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.  

In 1970, the cod fishery on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland yielded up to 800,000 tons of fish. For over a century, beginning with the “Newfoundlanders,” cod was the iconic species for many fishermen. Starting in the 1990s, this resource experienced an unprecedented and sudden collapse of stocks. A moratorium was implemented in 1992 to ban all fishing until the stock showed serious signs of recovery. This measure left tens of thousands of people unemployed. According to Canadian scientific assessments, even after 30 years of the moratorium, the biomass remains well below historical levels and does not allow for the stock’s normal biological functioning. Scientific research shows that the ecosystem has shifted to a new state of equilibrium, one that is less favorable to cod: 

There has been an overall shift in the food web, with an increase in invertebrates (shrimp, crabs) and a decline in key prey fish. This shift has limited the return of cod; this is a phenomenon known as ecological lock-in, which has been described in several ecosystem studies. 

Worse still, other species—of virtually no economic value—are said to have taken the place of cod in this area. Added to this were other factors hindering cod recovery, such as climate change and high natural mortality. This sadly “famous” case now serves as an example of what not to do in fisheries management, but it must be acknowledged that, despite this disastrous experience, we are not immune to the collapse of certain major stocks.  

The Mediterranean bluefin tuna has gone through a difficult period, with a decline in the population that makes up the stock in the early 2000s. This overexploited resource experienced a collapse of its stock due to overfishing. Over several years, numerous measures were implemented or strengthened—such as the establishment of a minimum catch size, a fishing season schedule, and fishing permits—to regulate both commercial and recreational fishing. For fishermen in the Mediterranean and along the Atlantic coast, this species was essential. The economy surrounding this fishery was therefore severely impacted; many fishing vessels were sold, scrapped, or converted to target other species. Since 2012, scientific data has shown a steady improvement. The latest advice from ICCAT—the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas—shows that the stock has recovered to an ecologically sustainable level thanks to appropriate management measures. Starting in the summer of 2018, Mr.Goodfish has therefore positioned itself by adding this species to its lists outside of its breeding season. 

Instances of “overfishing” have been documented for centuries. For a long time, these remained largely confined to areas where people depended on fishing for their livelihood. With the development of fleets and preservation techniques allowing vessels to travel farther and stay at sea longer, fishing gradually expanded and then became “globalized”—a process that accelerated as demand continued to grow. Between 1950 and the 1980s, global fish production rose from 40 million tons to approximately 80 million tons. Since then, this “production” has plateaued; in 2022, total fish catches amounted to 92.3 million tons (FAO 2024). Meanwhile, from 1950 to the present, the global population has grown from 2.5 billion people to nearly 8.1 billion. Experts estimate the population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050, but nature can only provide what it produces—nothing more.  

Ichthyology is the science of fisheries; ichthyologists are the specialists in this field, and it is they who, through numerous measurements and observations, monitor the health of exploited fish populations known as “stocks.” A decrease in the average size of caught fish is an indicator of overfishing. The depletion of the resource—in other words, a decrease in the quantities caught—is another indicator of overfishing. These are indicators, not proof, and it is only on the basis of constantly updated and verified observations and measurements that one can conclude that a stock is being overexploited. These observations are made during scientific surveys on research vessels as well as on commercial fishing boats.  

Science, however, faces numerous obstacles. There is a lack of general knowledge about the marine environment and a lack of resources allocated to research teams to study this particularly challenging environment. It is always easier to assess a resource when it is possible to have a comprehensive view of the stock, much like a herd of cows in a field. Science currently does not allow for this comprehensive view of the oceans; there are still unknown areas and, therefore, data that elude us.  

Depending on the species, scientific monitoring can be more or less difficult to implement. Indeed, depending on the species’ biology, its lifestyle (benthic, pelagic, etc.), and its habitat (coastal/offshore, deep-water/surface, etc.), it becomes more difficult to obtain data on the overall status of that resource.  

The problem is that fish stocks have been overexploited for a long time, and measures are usually taken after the fact—that is, once the health of the stock has become a cause for concern.  

For certain stocks (particularly in the Northeast Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea) or certain species, a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is established. This represents the maximum amount of fish that the European Union authorizes to be caught from a given stock in a specific area. Based on this, quotas are determined; these are the quantities of fish that may be caught by country, by fishery, or by vessel, as applicable. In areas such as the Mediterranean Sea or the Black Sea, fishing is managed by limiting fishing effort on the resource.  

Other measures are in place, such as minimum catch sizes, which are typically calculated based on sexual maturity size. The underlying principle is to ensure that every fish caught has had the opportunity to reproduce at least once. Unfortunately, just as with quotas, a distinction must be made between so-called “biological” minimum sizes, which meet the criterion outlined above, and so-called “political” sizes, which take little or no account of scientific advice in order to satisfy short-term economic interests.  

Nevertheless, it should be noted that an increasing number of fishermen are imposing stricter rules on themselves—such as catching fish larger than the regulatory size limits and adhering to fishing seasons—to preserve the fishery and ensure the long-term viability of their livelihood. Proper value-added processing also enables better resource management: fishing less but fishing better. The product is better preserved on board, the quality of the fish is higher, and its selling price increases.  

The overall trend remains negative, but this masks significant regional disparities. Despite growing pressure on capture fisheries worldwide, the latest FAO report highlights that real progress has been made in certain regions, particularly in the Northeast Atlantic, where science-based management measures have reduced fishing pressure and initiated the recovery of several stocks. However, caution remains warranted, as this fragile balance is threatened by climate change and the degradation of marine ecosystems. 

Yes, undoubtedly. But the question is: which fish, in what quantities, and of what size? If we continue to overfish, individual fish will no longer have time to reproduce. This may explain the current collapse of certain stocks. But the real danger likely stems from the disruption of natural balances caused by overfishing. The disappearance of “large fish” leaves room for other species that, in turn, become predators. The former prey has become a predator of the larvae and juveniles of the species that used to eat it. The base of the population is decimated by this new predator, often much smaller in size, which sometimes has no economic value.  

Today, more and more scientists are emphasizing the need to consider the entire food chain—and, even more so, the entire ecosystem of a species—when assessing the status of a stock.  

The nutritional value of krill is highly debatable, but that is not the heart of the matter. Exploiting krill means exploiting the foundation of a food web in the oceans, thereby endangering all marine ecosystems that depend on it—not just whales, but also small fish, which are eaten by larger fish or by birds, marine mammals, and humans, of course. Krill harvesting projects therefore pose a significant threat to the delicate balance of life in the oceans and, ultimately, to our own food supply.

For the past 60 years, global aquaculture has experienced unprecedented growth. Fish, mollusks, seaweed, and crustaceans are produced in large quantities using a wide variety of farming techniques, ranging from extensive farming without external feeding to intensive farming that includes water recycling and treatment.  

When it comes to fish farming (pisciculture), it is important to note that it is primarily carried out in freshwater (accounting for two-thirds of global fish production). Inland aquaculture systems rely primarily on the farming of omnivorous or predominantly herbivorous species such as carp, tilapia, and catfish, which contributes to improved feed and energy efficiency on a global scale. Marine
fish farming (mariculture), though more recent in its industrial development, is nevertheless experiencing sustained growth and accounts for just over one-third of global fish production (FAO 2024). This trend is particularly pronounced in certain regions of Asia and Europe, where technological investments and mastery of biological cycles have enabled the emergence of new sectors. Historically, one species, the yellowtail (particularly the Japanese yellowtail), has long dominated marine aquaculture production. However, starting in the 1970s and 1980s, major advances made it possible to control the reproduction and early stages of the life cycle of many other marine species. This led to the gradual development of farms for salmon, sea bass, sea bream, and turbot, and more recently for sturgeon and other high-value species, contributing to the diversification and expansion of global mariculture. 

Aquaculture also involves the farming or cultivation of oysters and mussels (shellfish farming). It is remarkably ingenious, as it harnesses the natural production of microscopic algae to feed and fatten shellfish.  

Raising fish such as carp using algae or other plants is also a sustainable solution, provided that environmental and sanitary conditions are properly controlled.  

Farmed marine species primarily consume other fish, and their carnivorous nature can have a negative impact on fishery resources. These species require protein in their diet, which is supplied in part by fish meal and fish oil from the fish-processing industry. Currently, depending on the species, it takes an average of between 0.5 and 4 kg of wild fish to produce 1 kg of farmed fish. Approximately 17 million tons of wild fish, mainly small pelagic species (sardines, anchovies, horse mackerel, sprats, etc.), were used worldwide to produce fish meal and oil for non-food purposes, primarily for animal feed, and first and foremost for farmed fish. This represents more than 80% of the volume of aquatic products not intended for human consumption in 2022 (FAO 2024). 

The pressure on these pelagic fish is very high, raising concerns about the sustainability of these stocks and the risk of ecosystem imbalance. This is a major problem given that the available quantities of wild fish are limited. Consequently, a smart use of animal protein resources is necessary: fish meal produced from stocks strictly managed under quotas, the use of byproducts (filleting scraps from fish intended for human consumption), and the utilization of fishing bycatch in fish feed formulations. All these animal products can be very effectively utilized by aquaculture. Furthermore, the use of plant proteins and insect proteins is a serious avenue to explore.  

According to IFREMER, marine aquaculture currently focuses mainly on species with high commercial value, and for some species, farming has already virtually replaced fishing (9 out of 10 salmon consumed and 1 out of 2 sea bass produced are farmed). 

Yes, a wild fish eats at least as much as a farmed fish—and probably even more—because it has to hunt, which means it expends energy catching its prey.  

But the key difference that aquaculture makes is that it allows billions of fish to live when they would never have survived in the wild. This means there are billions of additional mouths to feed—an excess, so to speak, beyond what nature can provide. We must not forget that fish lay tens of thousands, often hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of eggs per reproductive cycle. Most of these eggs will never even be fertilized, and of those that are, only a few—4, 5, 6, or 10—will reach adulthood. Research now allows nearly 100% of eggs to be fertilized and a very high percentage of young fry to reach adult size. All these fish—which would not have survived in the wild—must then be fed, and that is where the problem arises.  

Wild fish, which serve as feed for fish farms (also known as forage fish), form the foundation of the ocean food chain. These include anchovies, sardines, and capelin, which feed larger fish (such as mackerel), which in turn are eaten by tuna, as well as by birds, sea lions, seals, sharks, whales, and humans. Given the importance of these species in the food chain, the professionals who harvest them must commit to properly managing the relevant stocks, or risk seeing them collapse—and their livelihoods along with them. By managing forage fish stocks sustainably, the long-term viability of the resource is ensured for the entire food pyramid.  

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) highlights the ethical issue raised by the use of forage fish for aquaculture purposes. Indeed, these fish could be consumed directly by populations that lack both the necessary animal protein resources and the means to purchase farmed carnivorous fish.  

This is already the case in all carnivorous animal farms, where the diet (provided in pellet form) consists of at least 50% plant-based ingredients (soybean meal and other plant proteins, wheat gluten, protein peas, corn gluten, etc.). Current research is even pushing this percentage up to 80% or even 85% in some cases. It is a choice. Do we accept that species that are exclusively carnivorous in the wild become partially or entirely vegetarian? It is partly up to the legislature to answer this. Nevertheless, it remains essential to ensure that farmed fish retain, even partially, the nutritional qualities of wild fish. It is therefore imperative to provide them with “polyunsaturated” fatty acids known as “Omega-3,” which are found primarily… in wild fish. Omega-3s are also present in algae, making them a promising ingredient for the development of alternative fish meals. Numerous trials are currently underway.  

In order to provide carnivorous fish with the protein necessary for their development, researchers are exploring a new type of feed: insect meal. Insects are part of the natural diet of carnivorous fish; depending on the species, they offer different nutritional properties, and they are quick and easy to breed, making them an ideal substitute. In any case, it is important to keep in mind that, at one point or another, we will always be limited by the quantity that nature can provide.  

Yes, and that is why the argument that “if fish stocks collapse, we can always turn to aquaculture” is not only false but, more importantly, dangerous. And even if these stocks were to remain at their current levels, the problem would still not be solved. Each year, global capture fisheries supply approximately 92 million tons of fish and aquatic animals. Discards at sea are currently estimated at around 9 million tons per year, while just over 83 million tons are landed. Of these landed volumes, nearly 90% are intended for human consumption, amounting to approximately 75 to 77 million tons directly from capture fisheries. Non-food uses account for about 11%, or nearly 20 million tons, of which approximately 17 million tons are processed into fishmeal and fish oil, used primarily to feed farmed fish, as well as poultry and pigs. 
These figures reflect a long-term upward trend in the share destined for human consumption, and a stabilization, or even a relative decline, in volumes directed toward industrial processing, according to the FAO. 

Since 2019, the “zero discards” target for commercial fishing, established by the European Commission, has required fishermen to land certain fish that were previously discarded at sea (either because they were undersized and thus not in compliance with regulations, because they lacked economic value, or because quotas had already been reached, etc.). The aim of this regulation is to encourage commercial fishermen to improve the selectivity of their fishing gear. Since these fish are not authorized by regulation for direct human consumption, they will be used in the cosmetics industry, in research, and above all to produce fishmeal, which is used as feed for farmed fish.  

Other solutions are being considered to limit the impact of aquaculture on ecosystems and increase farming productivity: for example, integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, a farming method in which “the waste from one species serves as food for another ” (Richard, 2009). Given current technical ratios, these figures suggest a potential global production of between 10 and 20 million metric tons of carnivorous fish per year in aquaculture. However, this will require enhanced global governance and a greater sense of responsibility on the part of governments and industry professionals, for their own economic survival. The three pillars of sustainability—environment, economy, and society—are, in this scenario, more relevant than ever.  

That’s true, but in the case of bluefin tuna, the consequences of this type of farming are at least as problematic as those caused by other carnivorous species. The tuna is raised in cages to produce a “hyper-fatty” fish highly prized by Japanese consumers. To fatten it up, it is fed massive amounts: up to 15 kg of wild fish to make a caged tuna gain just 1 kg! This poses numerous problems, but the main one is that species such as horse mackerel, sardines, anchovies, and mackerel—consumed primarily by countries with very low purchasing power—have seen their prices skyrocket. By fattening bluefin tuna for a luxury market, many populations are deprived of an essential, even vital, source of protein for their diet. In a world that will be home to more than 9 billion people by 2050, is this still acceptable? Is this compatible with the United Nations’ concept of responsible fishing?  

Certain types of fish farms release large amounts of organic matter into the marine environment. The more the fish consume, the more they release. This is a significant problem, particularly for tuna farms, some of which have never gotten off the ground due to excessive marine pollution.  

As for the first question, several attempts—each more promising than the last—have been made. It is impossible to measure the results, as the young larvae or fry released into the wild suffer the same fate as those born naturally: in 99% of cases, they are eaten or die of natural causes. One of the most promising solutions is “sea ranching,” which involves releasing young salmon into the sea; after a long journey across the open ocean, they return to their river of origin. However, the young salmon in question are no longer truly fry but rather young fish (smolts), which are very expensive in terms of protein at this stage. The return rate is clearly insufficient to guarantee the profitability (or competitiveness) of this type of farming compared to other, more intensive and better-controlled methods throughout the entire cycle.  

Other initiatives are being implemented, such as bivalve seeding, a technique used to boost natural stocks of juveniles. The spat are hatched and raised in a hatchery before being released and stocked in the sea. Two examples: one in Saint-Brieuc Bay with scallops, the other in the Thau Basin with clams, both initiated by local professional fishermen. 

It is important to consider certain criteria in order to make an informed choice that does not harm natural resources or the environment. Mr.Goodfish is here to help you with that. Here are the selection criteria used by Mr.Goodfish for farmed fish:  

Feeding Aquaculture Species   

The animals must be fed:  

• made with ingredients derived from wild-caught fish and optimized for the development of each species.  

• using sustainable ingredients: the ingredients used must come from a sustainable source, meaning they must be made from wild-caught species subject to quotas or certified as sustainable (in an increasing proportion as practices improve). Other sources of ingredients, such as byproducts, seaweed, insects, and flax, are encouraged.  

Livestock farming practices  

The selected species must be raised under optimal conditions for animal welfare and public health:  

• Antibiotics should only be used with a veterinarian’s prescription and in compliance with European regulations.  

• Mr. Goodfish has also set a maximum number of treatments per year and strict conditions for use. 

• Animals must be raised in a manner consistent with their natural behaviors, with stocking densities appropriate for each species.  

Environmental impact  

The selected species must be raised under optimal, environmentally friendly conditions. The dynamic balance between the production area and its environment must be maintained:  

• The dynamic balance between the production area and its environment must be maintained.  

• The species produced must occur naturally in the environment when production takes place in an open environment.  

• Fish must be fed a quantity of fish meal that complies with a yield threshold established and optimized for each species, thereby preventing the release of organic matter into the environment. 

• The concentration of fine particles in the feed must be less than 1%. The quality of the environment must not be affected by the presence of an aquaculture farm.  

• Chemicals should only be used under a veterinarian’s prescription and in compliance with European regulations. Mr. Goodfish has also set a maximum number of treatments per year.  

• When it comes to cleaning facilities, Mr. Goodfish prefers to use mechanical or biological treatments.  

• The various indicators and thresholds are available by species on the website www.mrgoodfish.com  

There are many labels on the market today designed to guide consumers toward sustainably farmed products. To make the selection criteria for these various labels accessible to the general public, the Mr.Goodfish program has chosen to draw on these different labels: Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), GlobalG.A.P., the European organic label, the Label Rouge, Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP), the “Aquaculture de nos régions” quality charter…   

There are several “eco-labels”:  

– MSC: Marine Stewardship Council,  

– The French Sustainable Fishing Ecolabel  

– Friend of the Sea  

– Artysanal…  

Only some of them comply with the responsible fishing guidelines established by the FAO. In the absence of other recommendations, these eco-labels are an effective way to make the right choice. 

A trawl is a large, funnel-shaped net towed behind one or two vessels, depending on the fishery. It is characterized by a mesh size that gradually decreases from the entrance of the codend to the end of the bag, known as the “trawl tail.”  The horizontal opening is maintained by two diverging panels that open due to the boat’s speed and water pressure.  

Depending on the target species, fishermen use different trawl rigs:  

• The purpose of bottom trawling is to catch species that live on or near the seabed, such as whiting, cod, monkfish, cuttlefish, and Norway lobster… 

• Pelagic trawling targets species living in the water column—between the surface and the bottom—such as anchovies, mackerel, sardines, and herring… 

• The beam trawl is used primarily for flatfish species such as sole and flounder…  

These various types of trawls make it possible to catch a wide variety of marketable species found throughout the water column, from the bottom to the surface.  

For several years now, significant efforts have been made to reduce the environmental impact of these vessels by improving fishing techniques and regulating fishing effort. As a result, fishermen are subject to regulatory restrictions on fishing areas and seasons, vessel power, and mesh size.  

Numerous studies have been conducted to improve the selectivity of trawl nets (mesh size, selective grids, etc.), which has significantly increased the release of organisms not targeted by fishermen (certain species and/or sizes). This is the case, for example, in the French Norway lobster fishery in the Bay of Biscay.  

In bottom trawling, fishing techniques and gear design have evolved to minimize the impact on the seafloor as much as possible: rubber washers at the entrance that roll along the seafloor, changes in the shape of the panels…  

Special case of deep-sea trawling:  

Since the 2000s, various organizations have launched a lobbying campaign against deep-sea trawling. In 2016, this campaign led to the European Union banning fishing at depths greater than 800 meters in European waters. In areas designated as “vulnerable marine environments,” the depth is limited to 400 meters. For all these areas, fishermen must justify their operations between 2009 and 2011.  

Until now, this technique had been used at depths of up to 1,000 meters or more. At these depths, ecosystems are very different; they are dominated by species with slow life cycles and late sexual maturity, such as the emperor fish, for example. Species living in deep waters are very difficult to study, and there is little or no precise scientific monitoring. These characteristics, along with the destruction of deep-sea corals caused by fishing gear, have been key arguments for adapting European regulations. The destruction observed in the past, particularly at the start of deep-sea fishing, has now been reduced through the establishment of closed areas and a significant reduction in international fishing effort. The decrease in areas affected by fishing has helped limit the spatial footprint of deep-sea trawling. Furthermore, the allocated quotas are easily met in regularly fished areas.  

This situation restricts trawl fishing to sedimentary areas that are less sensitive to such impacts.  

Mr. Goodfish includes so-called deep-sea fish, such as blue ling, in his recommendations. Several factors have led to this position. The deep-sea species that appear on the recommendation lists are subject to rigorous scientific monitoring; current data show that their population dynamics are stable, and they are harvested at their maximum sustainable yield. The management plan established for these species allows us to harvest what nature provides without harming the resource—it’s the perfect balance! Another reason why Mr.Goodfish recommends some of these deep-sea species is that the substrates in the recommended areas are sandy-muddy and contain no coral.  

Based on the same principle as bottom trawls, the dredge is a “basket/rake”-type fishing gear towed by a boat. Consisting of a rigid frame covered with metal or netting, it is primarily used for shellfish. At the entrance, on the lower part, there are metal blades or teeth that scrape the top layers of the seabed. The purpose of the dredge is to harvest shellfish buried in the sand or mud, such as: cockles, scallops, clams…  

This gear is considered selective. This is because the metal mesh or net openings are sized to allow small fish to escape. Just like trawl fishing, this fleet is subject to fishing effort regulations. For example, scallop dredging in the English Channel is limited in terms of the number of authorized vessels, the fishing area, and the number of days.  

The main drawback of dredging is its impact on the seabed and marine habitats. Studies on this equipment focus primarily on technical methods to minimize pressure on the seabed. 

The basic principle of these vessels is to first encircle a school of fish with a net, then pull the two sides of the net toward the vessel (purse seine) while simultaneously closing the bottom of the net (sliding purse seine—Bolinche or Lamparo). They are used to catch pelagic species such as tuna, sardines, and anchovies.  

The selectivity of gillnets and purse seines is based on the gregarious behavior of fish of similar size. Using sonar, fishermen target schools of a specific species and size, which results in few small fish being caught. Since the live fish are brought quickly on board the vessel, this type of fishery produces very high-quality products.  

This fishing method sometimes results in the bycatch of small cetaceans. As techniques evolve, these bycatch animals are increasingly being released quickly and thus remain alive. 

In recent years, an increasing number of French vessels in the English Channel and the North Sea have been adapting to use this technique. A combination of bottom trawling and purse seining, it involves a funnel-shaped net attached to two long cables that are used to herd the fish. It is used to catch bottom-dwelling species, just like bottom trawling. Its main advantage is the ability to catch higher-quality fish while saving energy. Indeed, the seine is hauled in either with the boat at a standstill using winches (Danish seine) or at a reduced speed compared to conventional trawlers (Scottish seine).

In 2013, the European Commission authorized member states to equip 5% of their beam trawl fleets with electrodes (Article 31a of Regulation (EC) No. 850/98). The idea is to run a current through the beam to send electrical pulses into the sediment. These pulses then act as bait to attract fish before stunning them. The first licenses were initially issued on an experimental basis to gather data on the impact of this technique (selectivity, catch, etc.). Over the years, the number of vessels using electric trawling has continued to rise thanks to the granting of exemptions. In 2018, Mr.Goodfish took a stand by asking Members of the European Parliament to vote for a total ban on this fishing technique. Further scientific studies on the impact of these trawls on the seabed as well as on the species targeted and non-targeted by this practice are necessary. The goal is to act in the interest of maintaining the balance of ecosystems. Today, this technique, which had been used primarily by professional fishermen in the Netherlands in the North Sea, is banned. 

The nets consist of one or more rectangular panels stretched vertically in the water column. Whether fixed or drifting, gillnets (1) or trammel nets (2) act as a barrier that traps fish as they pass through. Fixed nets are anchored using floats at the top and weights at the bottom.  

(1) Gillnets consist of one or more rectangular panels of netting, set vertically in the water. Floats are attached to the upper part and weights to the lower part, which keeps the nets vertical. (www.ifremer.fr) These nets can be anchored to the bottom or, conversely, suspended from the surface in open water. In the latter case, they are drift nets. Drift gillnets have been banned in the European Union since 2002.  

(2) The trammel net consists of three layers of netting: two outer layers (aumées) with large mesh, and an inner layer (flue) with small mesh that is set with a lot of slack. Fish or crustaceans become entangled in the inner panel with small mesh after passing through one of the two outer panels. (www.ifremer.fr)  

The mesh size is regulated, allowing the largest fish to be caught while letting the smaller ones escape.  

The selectivity of nets depends both on the behavior of the target species and on the fishermen’s knowledge of the environment. A net set properly, in the right place, at the right time can be highly selective. Conversely, a net can prove to be a useless trap that harms the ecosystem if used improperly, catching crustaceans, fish, turtles, or cetaceans alike.  

For example, nets sometimes get lost and become “ghost nets.” Depending on the depth at which they were submerged, they may either become entangled in currents (at shallow depths) or continue to catch fish for several months (at great depths).  

The purpose of these techniques is to lure a fish onto a hook using live or artificial bait. There are various rigs:  

• The trolling line (towed from the end of a rod or from the stern of the boat), 

• The handline (towed by hand), 

• The longline (a line with multiple hooks that can be stationary or drifting),  

• The cane.  

Lines and rods are used to target species that live mainly in open water, such as tuna, hake, pollock, and mackerel. Longlines can be set on the bottom to catch species such as rays, conger eels, and ling, or on the surface for sea bass, tuna, and swordfish.  

The catch is generally brought on board alive, ensuring high-quality fish.  

In terms of selectivity, the use of appropriate bait and hooks makes it possible to catch the target species at the desired size. However, in certain situations, drift lines are prone to the accidental capture of other unwanted species, marine mammals, or seabirds (as in the case of Antarctic toothfish fishing, for example). Today, numerous solutions are being studied to limit these incidents: devices to scare away birds, porpoises…  

The trap or pot is designed to catch crustaceans (spider crabs, lobsters, edible crabs, etc.), mollusks such as whelks, and cephalopods (octopuses, cuttlefish). The principle is to attract the animal using bait placed inside a trap made of rigid frames covered with wire mesh or netting. The animal will enter through a “chute”-like opening that is very difficult to use to escape. The size and shape of the traps can vary greatly depending on the target species.  

The bait used varies depending on the target species. Among professional fishermen, a trap is rarely set alone; instead, they typically use several dozen traps linked together, known as a “line.”  

Set on the seabed by trap fishermen, they generally have little impact and even allow fishermen to select the most commercially valuable fish when hauling them aboard and release the others alive.  

For all passive gear, there is little or no impact on the seabed. However, the loss or abandonment of nets, lines, or traps at sea can have significant consequences for the marine environment. Indeed, this “ghost” gear will continue to catch fish and pose a threat in the medium and long term.  

Today, fishing is no longer simply about “fishing more to sell more.” Fluctuations in fish stocks and diesel prices have a significant impact on the stability of fishing businesses. Numerous crises in recent years demonstrate the importance of changing mindsets. A fishing company owner must now take into account the various aspects of sustainable development: environmental, economic, and social.  

Depending on the fishing technique used, a vessel’s energy consumption can vary significantly. The price of oil and the introduction of a “carbon” tax are key factors in a vessel’s profitability. Today, the balance between value and volume of catch, as well as the distance between the fishing grounds and the port of departure, are factors that fishing captains take directly into account before leaving the dock. To reduce dependence on oil prices, new vessels being built are exploring alternatives: diesel/electric propulsion, more fuel-efficient fishing techniques (such as Danish seines), and hull hydrodynamics…  

In economic terms, the goal today is no longer to “catch more” but to “catch better.” The quality and value of seafood products have become two essential criteria for the industry. In recent years, the selectivity of fishing gear has been a key focus of research. Various techniques are being explored: mesh sizes, escape hatches, new rigs, more advanced sonar systems… The goal is to target specific species and individual sizes more precisely. 

To ensure product quality, fishermen are increasingly being trained in preservation techniques: handling, packing, icing, and more. New vessels are designed with these steps in mind to enhance the value of seafood products. The retrieval of fish is optimized so that they can be packed as quickly as possible in a refrigerated area. The hold is maximized to best preserve the products, which, depending on the fishery, may remain on board for one to several days. Techniques are evolving: liquid ice instead of flake ice to wrap the fish, uniform cooling between 0 and 2°C… The economic goal remains the same: to be able to sell higher-quality products for a few cents more at the auction.  
On the social front, the focus is on adapting vessels to improve living conditions on board, both in the “fishing gear/sorting/hold” area and in the “berths/galley/dining room” section. Crew safety and vessel ergonomics have become two essential factors in shipbuilding.