Fisheries management expert Mogens Schou has questioned the Danish Government’s wisdom on imposing a blanket ban on trawling in coastal waters. Photo: DFPO
Mogens Schou, a respected fisheries management expert and partner at the consultancy Aquamind, is raising questions about the Danish government’s recent policy on bottom trawling.
A staunch advocate for “full accountability for commercial use of our natural capital,” Schou specializes in developing new management solutions, including Catch Quota Management and Transferable Fishing Concessions.
Mogens Schou
His firm, Aquamind, collaborates with leading research institutions, fishermen, and net makers to offer a wide range of solutions to challenges within the seafood sector. The consultancy is experienced in advising on the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and has a track record of completing projects with support from EU and Danish grant funds.
Blue marking: Danish areas to be closed for bottom trawling. Image: Mogens Schou
The Danish government has decided to close a large part of the Western Baltic to bottom trawling. But we cannot keep reaching for the prohibition lever. Instead, we need an effect-based management approach. Such a system would allow fisheries to continue within defined environmental boundaries rather than being subject to sweeping bans.
Across Europe, NGOs and governments are increasingly calling for trawl bans. It is politically attractive—easy to communicate, visually powerful, and popular with the public. Most recently, Denmark announced its intention to close the majority of the Western Baltic to trawling.
But does a strategy of broad prohibitions really deliver the best outcomes for the marine environment? Or does it risk sidelining a more effective balance: protecting sensitive habitats while still making sustainable use of fish resources?
Beyond Trawling: The Bigger Picture
Trawling is far from the only pressure on marine ecosystems. Seabeds are also heavily affected by nutrient runoff and chemical discharges. If we address these pressures, the relative impact of fishing becomes smaller. Perhaps we might even see the return of vibrant coastal fisheries.
As far back as 2002, the Hjortnæs Committee recommended a study of the effects of environmentally harmful substances on fish stocks. Yet we still lack clarity on the scale and consequences of these discharges—an omission that suggests a degree of calculated neglect by successive Danish environment ministers.
Meanwhile, the fishing industry has shown willingness to regulate its footprint. The real challenge is to shift the focus from the size of closed areas to the effect of regulation.
A Smarter Model: Effect-Based Management
Effect-based management starts with the actual environmental impact, regardless of gear type. The focus shifts from methods to results. Fishing tools that remain within defined impact thresholds should be permitted.
Such a model builds incentives for gentler and more innovative fishing practices. It can be anchored in indicators such as seabed condition, habitat diversity, biodiversity, sediment structure, and the share of untouched seabed.
For each area, environmental objectives and limits would be set—for example: no more than 15 percent seabed impact per year, at least ten percent untouched seabed, and minimum biodiversity levels. These thresholds can be adjusted to reflect local sensitivity and protection status, such as Natura 2000 sites or areas under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
Gear-specific impact scores could then be used to determine how often a given tool may be deployed. Crucially, fishing impacts should be assessed alongside other stressors like nutrient pollution to create a realistic picture of overall pressures.
Image: Mogens Schou
Incentives for Innovation
The less impact a fishing method has, the more it should be allowed to operate. In fact, fisheries could even be permitted to trade fishing time—where one operator who reduces seabed impact can buy time from another, ensuring overall impact does not increase. Such a system would accelerate the uptake of low-impact gear and smarter practices.
This model requires expanded seabed mapping, biodiversity data, and gear impact assessments, supported by real-time monitoring. Fully documented fisheries are already being rolled out in Denmark, which provides a strong foundation for effect-based regulation.
Balancing Protection and Use
Effect-based management would make it possible to protect sensitive habitats, encourage sustainable and innovative fishing, and tailor regulation to real-world conditions rather than relying on blunt bans.
It is also fully aligned with the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 14), and the principle of balanced, science-based resource management.
Yes, the approach is data-intensive and requires rigorous documentation. But the alternative—relying solely on blanket prohibitions—risks eroding the fisheries sector´s economic foundation and reducing access to local, sustainable food.
It is time for the responsible minister, together with his new fisheries partnership, to define and implement a model for effect-based management—one that can evaluate existing trawl bans and guide future regulation.
We must move beyond prohibition as the default. The future of Danish fisheries—and the health of our marine ecosystems—depends on it.
