The implementation gap in Canadian fishery policy: Fisheries rebuilding and sustainability at risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) established the Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) in 2009 to help meet Canada’s international commitments towards sustainable fisheries management. The SFF is a suite of policies and tools intended to ensure the precautionary approach (PA) is incorporated into fisheries management. Seven years later (2016) a federal government audit by the Canadian Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) found that although DFO had identified key components necessary for successful fisheries management in the SFF, it had failed to put these components in place for many stocks and did not always apply them even when they were in place. The DFO response to the CESD audit included a commitment to develop work plans with deliverables outlining priorities and timelines for implementing key aspects of the SFF: reference points, harvest control rules, management plans and rebuilding plans for critically depleted stocks. The present study evaluated progress towards meeting this commitment and found that only 38% of the expected products were completed, 14% are in progress, 40% have progress delayed and are not proceeding as anticipated, while the remaining 8% were suspended. This weak performance highlights a larger trend of inadequate and slow implementation of legislative and policy tools in the management of Canada’s fisheries and oceans. With declining health status of Canadian stocks and less than half of critical stocks with rebuilding plans, these failures are having a significant impact on the ability of good policy to promote the long-term health of Canada’s fisheries and fishing communities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".