Same Goal, Different Path: A Scientific Look at Ocean with David Attenborough
Max Mossler
In my early 20s, I didn’t eat seafood because I thought nothing taken from the ocean was sustainable. That belief was partially inspired by David Attenborough, who has long been a hero of mine. His documentaries influenced my academic and career path and helped shape the values I hold today, including a deep care for the ocean and its future.
His latest film, Ocean with David Attenborough, is beautifully shot—the bait ball scenes are as incredible as the bycatch images are brutal. The imagery is powerful and the film’s call to action appeals to my 20-year-old self, whose passion for ocean conservation was grounded in idealism and the allure of silver bullet solutions. That passion fueled me to graduate school at the University of Washington where my naïve idealism gave way to an appreciation for complexity, nuance, and the process of uncovering truths. It is through that (scientific) lens that I watched Ocean with David Attenborough last night.
In this post, I examine the science behind some of the messaging and claims in Ocean with David Attenborough. Though Attenborough and I share the same goal for the ocean—we want a thriving and abundant one, we disagree on the path to get there.
Are Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) the Best Way to Protect the Ocean?
In Oceans, David Attenborough calls for 30% of the world’s oceans to be designated as “no-take” marine protected areas (MPAs). He presents MPAs as a panacea, but they are just one tool in an ocean management toolbox. They work well to protect sensitive or culturally important habitat, but those areas are generally quite small—certainly not 30% of the ocean. MPAs just push fishing effort into other areas, increasing impacts elsewhere. In the film, spillover of fish from inside an MPA to outside to benefit fishing is seen as a benefit, and indeed, that has been observed on small scales, but not regionally—e.g. the California MPA network of over 100 MPAs touted in the film showed no regional increase in fish abundance.
Large MPAs are also not as effective as touted in the film. For example, in 2015, Kiribati designated the largest no-take MPA in the world: 3 million acres of ocean, nearly all of it previously used for tuna fishing. A study last year showed that it had no significant effect on tuna populations—the fish were already sustainably managed, and fishermen simply caught them elsewhere. Kiribati lost millions in tuna revenue and is now reopening the MPA to fishing.
Why did Kiribati designate the MPA in the first place knowing it received so much income from it? Like a lot of MPA designations, the reasons are often more political than scientific.
There have been some cases of fish populations outside MPAs increasing after MPAs were established, but other types of ocean and fishery management have been far more effective. Strong fishery management has been proven to consistently work to improve fish populations. Since the 1990s when fishery science first started gaining traction in governments around the world, most of the world’s managed fisheries have improved. The most recent update of the world’s largest stock assessment database showed that, on average, managed fisheries around the world are either improving or already healthy. Fewer than ever before are declining. We still have a ways to go to get all fisheries sustainable, but we are on the right path. MPAs can divert attention and funding away from the path of more effective management.
Carbon Emissions and Pollution Are the Leading Threats to Marine Ecosystems
MPAs also don’t protect the wonderous coral reefs, kelp forests, or seagrass beds shown in the film from their greatest threats. Attenborough portrays fishing as the problem, but I (and a lot of data below) see carbon emissions and terrestrial runoff as the biggest threat to life in the ocean.
Global impact assessments (like Halpern et al. 2019) consistently show that the biggest stressors on marine ecosystems are carbon-related and/or pollution-related:
This is a figure from Halpern et al. 2019. The bottom row shows different ocean ecosystems and the cumulative impact of various threats (left column) on each of them. You can see that sea surface temperature (sst) ocean acidification (oa), and sea level rise (slr) are the most impactful followed by shipping and pollution. All commercial fishing is blue across all ecosystems.
To be clear, fishing does have impacts. Fishing produces food, and all food production has impacts and tradeoffs. I started eating seafood again when I realized fishing is not just an ocean issue, but part of a global food system (and now I encourage others to eat it as well). I believe in maximizing sustainable food production from the ocean because that means there are fewer forests cleared for livestock farming, fewer dietary emissions contributing to climate change, and more people getting access to healthy, lean protein from the sea. Despite the tragic scenes portrayed in Ocean with David Attenborough, the animals harvested for seafood also probably lived much better, more natural lives than most farm animals.
Regardless of whether you believe animals should be food at all, humans are going to eat animals for at least another century until lab-grown protein can scale, mimic the real thing, and be economical—if it ever even happens at all. It is in everyone’s best interest, meat-eater or not, to use the ocean for food.
The ocean is generally a much better place to get food than land. When a forest is cleared for farming, nearly all of the native biota is destroyed, and it takes centuries to return that land to its natural state. The ocean is different: aside from rare deep-sea coral and sponge beds, nearly every ecosystem in the ocean regenerates in months or years. Attenborough does a brilliant job demonstrating this point. The messaging in the film on the ocean’s resilience and capability for abundance is strong and encouraging.
Well-managed bottom trawling is sustainable
In Ocean, Attenborough acknowledges the importance of seafood for feeding billions, but casts bottom trawling, responsible for about 26% of wild-caught seafood, as the main villain in the film. The footage focuses on scallop dredging and bycatch-heavy hauls, highlighting the most dramatic and destructive examples of the gear type. It’s a powerful narrative device, but not an accurate representation of bottom trawling globally.
When poorly managed or deployed over sensitive habitats like deep-sea coral or sponge beds, bottom trawling can be destructive. But most bottom trawling occurs on sand, mud, and gravel which are relatively resilient. Benthic communities in these areas recover quickly, especially when trawling is well-managed.
That’s the key: sustainability is a function of management, not gear type. Well-managed bottom trawl fisheries use tools like seasonal closures, gear modifications, habitat protections, and monitoring systems to minimize impacts. Poorly managed fisheries, like the ones depicted in Oceans, with high bycatch and discards, are not representative of bottom trawling as a whole.
Certifying and rating bodies reflect this nuance. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has certified over 80 bottom trawl fisheries worldwide. Seafood Watch, the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s influential sustainability rating system, lists several bottom trawl fisheries as “Best Choice” and even “Super Green”—its top designation for environmental and nutritional performance.
For a deeper dive, see a post I wrote last year: Bottom Trawling Sustainability 101. Seafish, a UK government-supported seafood authority, also published a technical response to Ocean with David Attenborough on bottom trawling.
A science-based lens
David Attenborough still inspires me, and his legacy has contributed to incredible progress in sustainable ocean management. I admire his commitment to abundance so that sustainable fisheries can continue to supply protein to a growing population, and so that beautiful marine ecosystems can continue to thrive. I hope that the call to action that this documentary inspires can take on a scientific lens that pushes us towards science-based solutions that value sustainable food production in harmony with healthy ecosystems.
If we care about the ocean and its biggest threats, we must care about how to feed the world. To me, and many others, feeding the world with the ocean’s abundance is one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce carbon emissions and protect biodiversity.
Canada reopened the Northern cod fishery and doubled the quota. Learn what the data, scientists, and ecosystem indicators say about this controversial decision.
Canada reopened the Northern cod fishery and doubled the quota. Learn what the data, scientists, and ecosystem indicators say about this controversial decision.
Same Goal, Different Path: A Scientific Look at Ocean with David Attenborough
In my early 20s, I didn’t eat seafood because I thought nothing taken from the ocean was sustainable. That belief was partially inspired by David Attenborough, who has long been a hero of mine. His documentaries influenced my academic and career path and helped shape the values I hold today, including a deep care for the ocean and its future.
His latest film, Ocean with David Attenborough, is beautifully shot—the bait ball scenes are as incredible as the bycatch images are brutal. The imagery is powerful and the film’s call to action appeals to my 20-year-old self, whose passion for ocean conservation was grounded in idealism and the allure of silver bullet solutions. That passion fueled me to graduate school at the University of Washington where my naïve idealism gave way to an appreciation for complexity, nuance, and the process of uncovering truths. It is through that (scientific) lens that I watched Ocean with David Attenborough last night.
In this post, I examine the science behind some of the messaging and claims in Ocean with David Attenborough. Though Attenborough and I share the same goal for the ocean—we want a thriving and abundant one, we disagree on the path to get there.
Are Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) the Best Way to Protect the Ocean?
In Oceans, David Attenborough calls for 30% of the world’s oceans to be designated as “no-take” marine protected areas (MPAs). He presents MPAs as a panacea, but they are just one tool in an ocean management toolbox. They work well to protect sensitive or culturally important habitat, but those areas are generally quite small—certainly not 30% of the ocean. MPAs just push fishing effort into other areas, increasing impacts elsewhere. In the film, spillover of fish from inside an MPA to outside to benefit fishing is seen as a benefit, and indeed, that has been observed on small scales, but not regionally—e.g. the California MPA network of over 100 MPAs touted in the film showed no regional increase in fish abundance.
Large MPAs are also not as effective as touted in the film. For example, in 2015, Kiribati designated the largest no-take MPA in the world: 3 million acres of ocean, nearly all of it previously used for tuna fishing. A study last year showed that it had no significant effect on tuna populations—the fish were already sustainably managed, and fishermen simply caught them elsewhere. Kiribati lost millions in tuna revenue and is now reopening the MPA to fishing.
Why did Kiribati designate the MPA in the first place knowing it received so much income from it? Like a lot of MPA designations, the reasons are often more political than scientific.
There have been some cases of fish populations outside MPAs increasing after MPAs were established, but other types of ocean and fishery management have been far more effective. Strong fishery management has been proven to consistently work to improve fish populations. Since the 1990s when fishery science first started gaining traction in governments around the world, most of the world’s managed fisheries have improved. The most recent update of the world’s largest stock assessment database showed that, on average, managed fisheries around the world are either improving or already healthy. Fewer than ever before are declining. We still have a ways to go to get all fisheries sustainable, but we are on the right path. MPAs can divert attention and funding away from the path of more effective management.
Carbon Emissions and Pollution Are the Leading Threats to Marine Ecosystems
MPAs also don’t protect the wonderous coral reefs, kelp forests, or seagrass beds shown in the film from their greatest threats. Attenborough portrays fishing as the problem, but I (and a lot of data below) see carbon emissions and terrestrial runoff as the biggest threat to life in the ocean.
Global impact assessments (like Halpern et al. 2019) consistently show that the biggest stressors on marine ecosystems are carbon-related and/or pollution-related:
To be clear, fishing does have impacts. Fishing produces food, and all food production has impacts and tradeoffs. I started eating seafood again when I realized fishing is not just an ocean issue, but part of a global food system (and now I encourage others to eat it as well). I believe in maximizing sustainable food production from the ocean because that means there are fewer forests cleared for livestock farming, fewer dietary emissions contributing to climate change, and more people getting access to healthy, lean protein from the sea. Despite the tragic scenes portrayed in Ocean with David Attenborough, the animals harvested for seafood also probably lived much better, more natural lives than most farm animals.
Regardless of whether you believe animals should be food at all, humans are going to eat animals for at least another century until lab-grown protein can scale, mimic the real thing, and be economical—if it ever even happens at all. It is in everyone’s best interest, meat-eater or not, to use the ocean for food.
The ocean is generally a much better place to get food than land. When a forest is cleared for farming, nearly all of the native biota is destroyed, and it takes centuries to return that land to its natural state. The ocean is different: aside from rare deep-sea coral and sponge beds, nearly every ecosystem in the ocean regenerates in months or years. Attenborough does a brilliant job demonstrating this point. The messaging in the film on the ocean’s resilience and capability for abundance is strong and encouraging.
Well-managed bottom trawling is sustainable
In Ocean, Attenborough acknowledges the importance of seafood for feeding billions, but casts bottom trawling, responsible for about 26% of wild-caught seafood, as the main villain in the film. The footage focuses on scallop dredging and bycatch-heavy hauls, highlighting the most dramatic and destructive examples of the gear type. It’s a powerful narrative device, but not an accurate representation of bottom trawling globally.
When poorly managed or deployed over sensitive habitats like deep-sea coral or sponge beds, bottom trawling can be destructive. But most bottom trawling occurs on sand, mud, and gravel which are relatively resilient. Benthic communities in these areas recover quickly, especially when trawling is well-managed.
That’s the key: sustainability is a function of management, not gear type. Well-managed bottom trawl fisheries use tools like seasonal closures, gear modifications, habitat protections, and monitoring systems to minimize impacts. Poorly managed fisheries, like the ones depicted in Oceans, with high bycatch and discards, are not representative of bottom trawling as a whole.
Certifying and rating bodies reflect this nuance. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has certified over 80 bottom trawl fisheries worldwide. Seafood Watch, the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s influential sustainability rating system, lists several bottom trawl fisheries as “Best Choice” and even “Super Green”—its top designation for environmental and nutritional performance.
For a deeper dive, see a post I wrote last year: Bottom Trawling Sustainability 101. Seafish, a UK government-supported seafood authority, also published a technical response to Ocean with David Attenborough on bottom trawling.
A science-based lens
David Attenborough still inspires me, and his legacy has contributed to incredible progress in sustainable ocean management. I admire his commitment to abundance so that sustainable fisheries can continue to supply protein to a growing population, and so that beautiful marine ecosystems can continue to thrive. I hope that the call to action that this documentary inspires can take on a scientific lens that pushes us towards science-based solutions that value sustainable food production in harmony with healthy ecosystems.
If we care about the ocean and its biggest threats, we must care about how to feed the world. To me, and many others, feeding the world with the ocean’s abundance is one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce carbon emissions and protect biodiversity.
Max Mossler
Max is the managing editor at Sustainable Fisheries UW.
Follow us:
Share this story:
Subscribe to our newsletter:
Read more:
The Northern Cod Quota Increase – a risky decision or a precautionary approach?
Canada reopened the Northern cod fishery and doubled the quota. Learn what the data, scientists, and ecosystem indicators say about this controversial decision.
An Overview of Tuna and its Sustainability in 2025
Tuna is one of the most popular seafoods in the world — but not all tuna is created equal. This post breaks down how to buy sustainable tuna in 2025.
What is going on in the Falkland Islands squid fishery?
The Falkland Islands government has canceled all fishing activities for Patagonian squid, also called Loligo for the rest of the year. What happened?
Hope in the Water: the best seafood documentary ever?
Hope in the Water did a fantastic job depicting real seafood stories and optimism.
The Northern Cod Quota Increase – a risky decision or a precautionary approach?
Canada reopened the Northern cod fishery and doubled the quota. Learn what the data, scientists, and ecosystem indicators say about this controversial decision.
An Overview of Tuna and its Sustainability in 2025
Tuna is one of the most popular seafoods in the world — but not all tuna is created equal. This post breaks down how to buy sustainable tuna in 2025.
What is going on in the Falkland Islands squid fishery?
The Falkland Islands government has canceled all fishing activities for Patagonian squid, also called Loligo for the rest of the year. What happened?
Hope in the Water: the best seafood documentary ever?
Hope in the Water did a fantastic job depicting real seafood stories and optimism.
Your thoughts?