Ghoti papers Ghoti aims to serve as a forum for stimulating and pertinent ideas. Ghoti publishes succinct commentary and opinion that addresses important areas in fish and fisheries science. Ghoti contributions will be innovative and have a perspective that may lead to fresh and productive insight of concepts, issues and research agendas. All Ghoti contributions will be selected by the editors and peer reviewed. Etymology of Ghoti George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), polymath, playwright, Nobel prize winner, and the most prolific letter writer in history, was an advocate of English spelling reform. He was reportedly fond of pointing out its absurdities by proving that `fish' could be spelt `ghoti'. That is: `gh' as in `rough', `o' as in `women' and `ti' as in palatial.
Individual transferable quotas and ecosystem-based fisheries management: it’s all in the T
Article first published online: 25 SEP 2009
© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Fish and Fisheries
Volume 10, Issue 4, pages 470–474, December 2009
How to Cite
Gibbs, M. T. (2009), Individual transferable quotas and ecosystem-based fisheries management: it’s all in the T. Fish and Fisheries, 10: 470–474. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2009.00343.x
- Issue published online: 16 NOV 2009
- Article first published online: 25 SEP 2009
- Received 22 Jan 2009 Accepted 19 Aug 2009
- Catch rights;
- ecosystem-based fisheries management;
- fisheries management;
- individual transferrable quotas;
Recent articles in high-profile journals advocating the widespread establishment of economic rights-based approaches for managing fisheries has re-kindled the debate over the efficacy of incentive-based vs. regulatory-based management approaches. Inspection of these works, written from the particular perspectives of economics, fisheries biology, or marine ecology, reveals that advocates of rights-based regimes such as Individual Transferrable Quotas are sometimes recommending these policy instruments for quite different reasons. Hence, the advantageous attributes of rights-based approaches from the perspective of one discipline may be quite different when seen from the perspective of another discipline. This is of concern as it exposes a tendency for particular disciplines to consider only the advantages of rights-based approaches, such as establishing a harvest cap, but to implicitly discount the disadvantages such as less attention being paid to critical ecological and ecosystem issues.