The Baltic Cod Trawl Fishery: The Perfect Fishery for a Successful Implementation of the Landing Obligation?

  • Daniel ValentinssonEmail author
  • Katja Ringdahl
  • Marie Storr-Paulsen
  • Niels Madsen


The cod fisheries in the Baltic Sea were among the first EU fisheries with a full implementation of the EU Landing Obligation (LO) or so-called ‘discard ban’, phased in from 2015 onwards. This chapter describes key aspects for the successful management of Baltic cod such as the long history of scientific data collection for stock assessment and cod management as well as a well-documented history of work aimed at increased selectivity in cod trawls. We then analyse how the scientific data used for stock assessment has been affected by the LO and how the knowledge of Baltic cod selectivity has been used and developed since its introduction. We conclude that in spite of many good prerequisites, the introduction of the LO in Baltic cod fisheries has been unsuccessful and has failed to deliver any of the expected benefits. Data quality for stock assessments has deteriorated, discarding of cod has not decreased despite a reduced minimum size and there are no indications of increased gear selectivity in the fishery. Finally, we propose potential explanations for this failure and recommend actions that may be needed to make the Landing Obligation more successful.


Baltic Sea Common fisheries policy Discard ban Discards European Union Regionalisation Selectivity Trawl 


  1. Anon. (2014a). Baltfish Joint Recommendation No 1, 27 May, 2014. 28 pp.
  2. Anon. (2014b). Report of the regional co-ordination meeting for the Baltic (RCM Baltic). 151 pp.
  3. Anon. (2015). Annual report for the Swedish national programme for collection of fisheries data 2015. 60 pp.
  4. Anon. (2018a). Discarding and the landing obligation.
  5. Bagge, O., & Thurow, F. (1994). The Baltic cod stock: Fluctuations and possible causes. ICES Marine Science Symposia 198, 254–268.Google Scholar
  6. Borges, L., & Penas Lado, E. (this volume). Discards in the common fisheries policy: The evolution of the policy. In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, S.J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation – Reducing discards in complex multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. BSAC. (2015). The Baltic Sea Advisory Council’s recommendations on technical measures. 29th September 2015. Ref: BSAC/2015/6. 4 pp.
  8. BSAC. (2017). BALTFISH / BSAC / EFCA joint workshop on monitoring, control and enforcement of the Landing Obligation. 9th March 2017. Final Report. 6 pp.
  9. Casini, M., Käll, F., Hansson, M., Plikshs, M., Baranova, T., Karlsson, O., et al. (2016). Hypoxic areas, density dependence and food limitation drive the body condition of a heavily exploited marine fish predator. Royal Society Open Science, 3, 160416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Catchpole, T.C., & Gray, T.S. (2010). Reducing discards of fish at sea: A review of European pilot projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(3), 717–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Catchpole, T.L., Riberio-Santos, A., Mangi, S.C., Hedley, C., Gray, T.S. (2017). The challenges of the landing obligation in EU fisheries. Marine Policy, 82, 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chabot, D., & Dutil, J.D. (1999). Reduced growth of Atlantic cod in non-lethal hypoxic conditions. Journal of Fish Biology, 55, 472–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Condie, H.M., Grant, A., Catchpole T.L. (2014). Incentivising selective fishing under a policy to ban discards; lessons from European and global fisheries. Marine Policy, 45, 287292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eero M., Köster F.W., Plikshs M., Thurow F. (2007). Eastern Baltic cod (Gadus morhua callarias) stock dynamics: Extending the analytical assessment back to the mid-1940s. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, 1257–1271.Google Scholar
  15. Eero, M., Mackenzie, B.R., Köster F.W., Gislason, H. (2011). Multi-decadal responses of a cod (Gadus morhua) population to human-induced trophic changes, fishing, and climate. Ecological Applications, 21(1): 214–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eero M., Köster F.W., Vinther, M. (2012a). Why is the Eastern Baltic cod recovering? Marine Policy, 36 (1): 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eero, M., Vinther, M., Haslob, H., Huwer, B., Casini, M., Storr-Paulsen, M., et al. (2012b). Spatial management of marine resources can enhance the recovery of predators and avoid local depletion of forage fish. Conservation Letters, 5, 486–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eero, M., Hjelm, J., Behrens, J., Buchmann, K., Cardinale, M., Casini, M., et al. (2015). Eastern Baltic cod in distress: Biological changes and challenges for stock assessment. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72 (8), 2180–2186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feekings, J. P., Lewy, P., Madsen, N. (2013). The effect of regulation changes and influential factors on Atlantic cod discards in the Baltic Sea demersal trawl fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 70, 534–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrmann, B., Priour, D., Krag, L. (2007). Simulation-based study of the combined effect on cod-end size selection of turning meshes by 90° and reducing the number of meshes in the circumference for round fish.Fisheries Research, 84, 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hüssy, K., Mosegaard, H., Albertsen, C.M., Nielsen, E.E., Hemmer-Hansen, J., Eero, M. (2016). Evaluation of otolith shape as a tool for stock discrimination in marine fishes using Baltic Sea cod as a case study. Fisheries Research, 174, 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ICES. (2007). Report of the ICES advisory committee on fishery management, advisory committee on the marine environment and advisory committee on ecosystems. ICES advice. Book 8, 147 pp. Section ICES response to EU on selectivity of active gears targeting cod in the Baltic Sea.Google Scholar
  23. ICES. (2011). Report of the study group on turned 90° codend selectivity, focusing on Baltic cod selectivity (SGTCOD). 4-6 May 2011, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2011/SSGESST:08. 44 pp.Google Scholar
  24. ICES. (2013). Report of the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS), 10–17 April 2013, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:10. 747 pp.Google Scholar
  25. ICES (2017a). Report of the Workshop on Biological Input to Eastern Baltic Cod Assessment (WKBEBCA), 1–2 March 2017. ICES CM 2017/SSGEPD: 19. 40 pp.Google Scholar
  26. ICES (2017b). Interim report of ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), 4-7 April 2017, Nelson, New Zealand. ICES CM 2017/SSGIEOM: 13.Google Scholar
  27. ICES. (2017c). Cod (Gadus morhua) in subdivisions 24-32, eastern Baltic stock (eastern Baltic Sea). ICES advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort. Version 4: 8 March 2018. 10 pp.
  28. ICES. (2018). Report of the Baltic fisheries assessment working group (WGBFAS), 6–13 April 2018, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:11.Google Scholar
  29. Iñarra, B., Bald, C., Cebrián, M., Antelo, L.T., Franco-Uría, A., Vázquez, J.A., Pérez-Martín, R., Zufía, J. (this volume). What to do with unwanted catches: Valorisation options and selection strategies. In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, S.J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Land-ing Obligation – Reducing discards in complex, multi-species multi-juridictional fisheries. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. James, K.M. Campbell, N., Viðarsson, J.R., et al. (this volume). Tools and technologies for the monitoring, control and surveillance of unwanted catches. In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, S.J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation – Reducing discards in complex multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Kelleher, K. (2005). Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 470. 131 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Köster, F.W., Schnack, D., Möllmann, C. (2003). Scientific knowledge of biological processes that are potentially useful in fish stock predictions. Scientia Marina, 67 (1), 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kraak, S.B.M, & Hart, P.J.B. (this volume). Creating a breeding ground for compliance and honest reporting under the Landing Obligation: Insights from behavioural science. In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, S.J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation – Reducing discards in complex multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Krag, L.A., Herrmann, B., Feekings, J., Karlsen, J.D. (2016). Escape panels in trawls – A consistent management tool? Aquatic Living Resources, 29, 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lowry, N., Knudsen, L.H., Wileman, D.. (1995). Selectivity in Baltic cod trawls with square mesh codend windows. ICES CM, 1995/B:5.Google Scholar
  36. MacKenzie, B.R., Alheit, J., Conley, D.J., Holm, P., Kinze, C.C. (2002). Ecological hypotheses for a historical reconstruction of upper trophic level biomass in the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Madsen, N. (2000). Experimental adjustments of the escape window position in trawl codends – implications for Baltic Sea cod fishery. Meddelanden från Havsfiskelaboratoriet i Lysekil, 329, (ISSN: 1103-4777).Google Scholar
  38. Madsen, N. (2007). Selectivity of fishing gears used in the Baltic Sea cod fishery. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 17, 517–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Madsen, N., & Valentinsson, D. (2010). Use of selective devices in trawls to support recovery of the Kattegat cod: A review of experiments and experience. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67(9), 2042–2050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Madsen, N., Moth-Poulsen, T., Lowry, N. (1998). Selectivity experiments with window codends fished in the Baltic Sea cod (Gadus morhua) fishery. Fisheries Research, 36, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Madsen, N., Holst, R., Foldager, L. (2002). Escape windows to improve the size selectivity in the Baltic cod trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 57, 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Madsen, N., Tschernij, V., Holst, R. (2010). Improving selectivity of the Baltic cod trawl fishery: Experiments to assess the next step. Fisheries Research 103, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Madsen, N., Hansen, K., Madsen, N.A.H. (2015). Behavior of different trawl codends concepts. Ocean Engineering 108, 571–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mortensen, L.O., Ulrich, C., Eliasen, S., Olesen, H.J. (2017). Reducing discards without reducing profit: free gear choice in a Danish result-based management trial. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74 (5), 1469–1479.Google Scholar
  45. MRAG. (2007). Impact assessment of discard policy for specific fisheries. European commission studies and pilot projects for carrying out the common fisheries policy no. FISH/2006/17 –Lot 1, Brussels. 289 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Nielsen, E.E., Hansen, M.M., Ruzzante, D.E., Meldrup, D., Grønkjær, P. (2003). Evidence of a hybrid-zone in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the Baltic and the Danish Belt Sea revealed by individual admixture analysis. Molecular Ecology, 12, 1497–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nielsen, E.E., Grønkjær, P., Meldrup, D., Paulsen, H. (2005). Retention of juveniles within a hybrid zone between North Sea and Baltic Sea Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62, 2219–2225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nilsson, H.C. (Ed). (2018). Sekretariatet för selektivt fiske-Rapportering av 2016 och 2017 års verksamhet. Aqua reports 2018:4. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources, Lysekil, 211 pp. ISBN: 978-91-576-9557-4 (electronic version).Google Scholar
  49. Nilsson, H.C., Andersson, E., Hedgärde, M., Königson, S., Ljungberg, P., Lunneryd, S-G., et al. (2018). Projects accomplished by the selective fisheries secretariat 2014–2017: A synthesis report, Aqua reports 2018:13, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources, Lysekil, 26 pp, ISBN: 978-91-576-9576-5 (electronic version).Google Scholar
  50. Nuevo, M., Morgado, C., Sala, A. (this volume). Monitoring the implementation of the Landing Obligation: The last Haul programme. In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, S.J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation – Reducing discards in complex, multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. O’Neill, F.G., Feekings, J., Fryer, R.G., Fauconnet, L., Afonso, P. (this volume). Discard avoidance by improving fishing gear selectivity: Helping the fishing industry help itself. In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, S.J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation – Reducing discards in complex, multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Ridderstad, G. (1915). A new construction of trawl-net intended to spare under-sized fish. Svenska Hydrografisk-Biologiska Kommisionens skrifter, 6, 1–21.Google Scholar
  53. Robertson, J.H.B, & Stewart, P.A.M. (1988). A comparison of size selection of haddock and whiting by square and diamond mesh codends. ICES Journal of Marine Science 44:148–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). (2014). 45th Plenary meeting report for Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (PLEN-14-01). 86 pp.
  55. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). (2016). Methods and data requirements for LO. (STECF-16-13). 95 pp.
  56. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). (2017). Fisheries Dependent Information – Classic (STECF-17-09). 846 pp.
  57. Suuronen, P., Kuikka, S., Lehtonen, E., Tschernij, V., Madsen, N., Holst, R. (2000.) Improving technical management in Baltic cod fishery (BACOMA). Final report (EC 4th framework programme, contract FAIR CT 96–1994). 106 pp.Google Scholar
  58. Suuronen, P., Tschernij, V., Jounela, P., Valentinsson, D., Larsson, P.O. (2007). Factors affecting rule compliance with mesh size regulations in the Baltic cod trawl fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64(8), 1603–1606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Svedäng, H., & Hornborg, S. (2014). Fishing induces density-dependent growth. Nature Communications, 5, 4152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tschernij, V., & Holst, R. (1999). Evidence of factors at vessel-level affecting codend selectivity in Baltic cod demersal fishery. ICES CM 1999/R: 02.Google Scholar
  61. Tschernij, V, Larsson, P.O., Suuronen, P., Holst, R. (1996). Swedish trials in the Baltic Sea to improve selectivity in demersal trawls. ICES CM 1996/B:2.Google Scholar
  62. Tschernij, V., & Suuronen, P. (2002). Improving trawl selectivity in the Baltic. TemaNord 2002: 512. 56 pp.Google Scholar
  63. Tschernij, V, Suuronen, P, Jounela, P. (2004). A modelling approach for assessing short-term catch losses as a consequence of a mesh size increase. Fisheries Research, 69, 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Uhlmann, S.S., van Helmond, A.T.M., Stefánsdóttir, E.K., Siguroardóttir, S., Haralabous, J., Bellido, J.M., et al. (2014). Discarded fish in European waters: General patterns and contrasts. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71, 1235–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Valentinsson, D. (Ed). (2016). Sekretariatet för selektivt fiske- Rapportering av 2015-års verksamhet. Aqua Reports 2016:8. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources, Lysekil, 126 pp. ISBN: 978-91-576-9403-4.Google Scholar
  66. Valentinsson, D., & Tschernij T. (2003). An assessment of a mesh size for the “Bacoma design” and traditional diamond mesh cod-end to harmonize trawl selectivity and minimum mesh size. ICES CM 2005/B:05.Google Scholar
  67. Wienbeck, H., Herrmann, B., Moderhak, W., Stepputtis, D. (2011). Effect of netting direction and number of meshes around on size selection in the codend for Baltic cod (Gadus morhua). Fisheries Research, 109, 80–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Valentinsson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katja Ringdahl
    • 1
  • Marie Storr-Paulsen
    • 2
  • Niels Madsen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Aquatic Resources, Institute of Marine ResearchSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesLysekilSweden
  2. 2.National Institute of Aquatic ResourcesDTU-Technical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry and Bioscience – Section of Biology and Environmental ScienceAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations