Sustainability survey results comparison

Tables comparing some of the major results from the 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 surveys.

On this page

• Precautionary approach and fish stocks
• Management plans and species at risk
• Related links

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 2022 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.

Fish stock status

The following table shows the status of the fish stocks in the survey.

The 2022 survey results show some changes in the number of stocks in the different status categories. Compared to the 2015 survey, the number of stocks with uncertain status increased 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.

Management plans and species at risk

The survey also looks at the status of integrated fishery management plans (IFMPs) and the number of stocks whose fisheries interact with species at risk.

Fishery management plans

The following table shows the status of IFMPs. The 2022 survey results show an increase in the number of stocks in the survey which are a part of a fishery plan.

Species at risk

The following table shows the number of stocks on the survey whose fisheries interact with species listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). It also shows the number that have management measures in place to mitigate risks to species at risk.

The 2022 results show no significant change between years.

In the 2017 and 2018 survey, the decrease in stocks on the survey with management measures in their fisheries to mitigate risks to species at risk was largely a result of a change in definitions. Previously, if a fishery on a stock on the survey 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.

Related links

• Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach
• Application of the sustainable fisheries framework through the integrated fisheries management planning process
• Species at Risk Act