Sustainability survey results comparison
Tables comparing some of the major results from the 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 surveys.
On this page
Precautionary approach and fish stocks
Section 1 of the framework on fisheries decision making looks at the implementation of the precautionary approach policy and its impact on fish stocks.
Reference points and harvest control rules
The following table shows the status of the precautionary approach reference points and harvest control rules for the stocks tracked by the survey. The 2020 survey results show, compared to 2015, an increase in the number of stocks surveyed that have reference points and harvest control rules. This reflects our commitment to developing these reference points through the annual Sustainable Fisheries Framework work plan.
|Total number of stocks in survey||Number of limit reference points||Number of upper stock reference points||Number of removal reference points||Number of harvest control rules|
|2015 survey results||159||87||75||72||90|
|2016 survey results||170||103||81||79||102|
|2017 survey results||179||105||80||90||117|
|2018 survey results||177||104||79||98||106|
|2019 survey results||176||106||80||103||106|
|2020 survey results||180||112||83||99||116|
|Difference between 2015 and 2020 survey results||Increased by 21||Increased by 25||Increased by 8||Increased by 27||Increased by 26|
Fish stock status
The following table shows the status of the fish stocks in the survey.
The 2020 survey results show some changes in the number of stocks in the different status categories. The number of stocks with uncertain status showed as an increase as a result of:
- lack of limit reference points
- insufficient data on some stocks
- fluctuations in population level make assigning a stock status difficult
- transboundary stocks where data isn’t shared between Canada and the U.S.
“Uncertain” does not mean that there is no data for this stock. DFO has sufficient information to manage the fisheries on these stocks.
|Total number of stocks in survey||Number of stocks in the healthy zone||Number of stocks in the cautious zone||Number of stocks in the critical zone||Number of stocks with uncertain status||Number of stocks with uncertain status where conservation risk to the stock is likely or possible|
|2015 survey results||159||78||28||19||34||10|
|2016 survey results||170||76||31||21||42||14|
|2017 survey results||179||63||25||18||73||22|
|2018 survey results||177||58||27||19||73||25|
|2019 survey results||176||52||29||25||70||26|
|2020 survey results||180||56||23||23||78||32|
|Difference between 2015 and 2020 survey results||Increased by 21||Decreased by 22||Decreased by 5||Increased by 4||Increased by 44||Increased by 22|
Management plans and species at risk
Section 2 of the framework looks at the status of integrated fishery management plans (IMFPs) and the number of stocks whose fisheries interact with species at risk.
Fishery management plans
The following table shows the status of IFMPs. The 2020 survey results show an increase in the number of stocks in the survey which are a part of a fishery plan.
|Total number of stocks in survey||Number of management plans developed||Number of management plans posted|
|2015 survey results||159||57 plans covering 116 stocks||35|
|2016 survey results||170||59 plans covering 122 stocks||39|
|2017 survey results||179||64 plans covering 137 stocks||52|
|2018 survey results||177||65 plans covering 158 stocks||56|
|2019 survey results||176||64 plans covering 154 stocks||55|
|2020 survey results||180||61 plans covering 160 stocks||59|
|Difference between 2015 and 2020 survey results||Increased by 21||Increased by 4 plans covering 44 stocks||Increased by 24|
Species at risk
The following table shows the number of stocks on the survey whose fisheries interact with species listed ‘at risk.’ It also shows the number that have management measures in place to mitigate threats to species at risk. The 2020 results show no significant change between years.
The decrease in stocks with management measures to mitigate risks to species covered by the Species at Risk Act (SARA) was largely a result of a change in definitions. Previously, if a stock had handled SARA species “in a manner that causes the least amount of harm,” we included it as a mitigation measure.
However, handling with minimal harm is no longer considered a mitigation measure by the survey. This is because it’s now a requirement under the licence conditions of harvesters and not an optional mitigation measure.
|Total number of stocks in the survey||Number of stocks that have interactions with species at risk||Number of stocks that have management measures in place to mitigate risk to species at risk|
|2015 survey results||159||112||109|
|2016 survey results||170||106||101|
|2017 survey results||179||92||65|
|2018 survey results||177||114||79|
|2019 survey results||176||115||105|
|2020 survey results||180||120||111|
|Difference between 2015 and 2020 survey results||Increased by 21||Increased by 8||Increased by 2|
Report a problem or mistake on this page
- Date modified: