Search

Five coastal states of the central Arctic Ocean (CAO) and five non-coastal actors concluded negotiations on the draft Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean in November 2017 after six meetings within two years. The Agreement is unique because it is highly precautionary – crafted even before the opening of any fisheries. This is because it is to be considered an interim instrument that is part of a “stepwise approach”, and because the negotiating states did not and do not have immediate fisheries interests in the high seas of the CAO. The United States was the driving force of the complex negotiations where interests of Arctic and non-Arctic actors were diverse and in conflict. They all place these fisheries negotiations within the context of their Arctic policies. Consequently, implications of topics and discussions relating to Arctic issues were strongly recognised by the actors in the negotiations. Amongst other things, a consensus decision-making system and a stepwise approach, paired with a mechanism of moving to a next step of considering the establishment of one or more regional fisheries management organisations, were created in order to accommodate the conflicting interests of both Arctic and non-Arctic actors alike.

Covering nearly half of the Earth׳s surface, the high seas provide a diverse range of ecosystem services crucial to human well-being and the health of both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. At the same time, the vastness of the high seas and the limitations of corresponding governance instruments present a considerable challenge to policy-makers working to promote sustainable management. This report reviews new developments in sustainable management of the oceans, including the high seas, which has often focused primarily on fishing regulations, while lacking broader consideration of marine ecosystem services and material cycles. In addition, an overview is provided of paradigms for assessing and managing marine systems. Enhanced interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral communication based on clear definitions is needed to achieve deeper understanding of marine ecosystems and the services they provide. Experts discussed these and other issues on October 1, 2013 within the context of an international symposium held at the University of Tokyo on the “Future Management of Ocean Ecosystem Services”. This manuscript provides a brief overview of these discussions together with supplementary background material.

A review of the International Whaling Commission’s institutional discourse related to the “moratorium” as reflected in the Commission’s documents together with a literal reading of Schedule paragraph 10(e) of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) shows that the moratorium does not include language which permanently prohibits commercial whaling, does not include any expression which demonizes whaling, does not label the killing for commercial purposes as criminal as opposed to catching for indigenous purposes, and does not reflect any value judgments about whales and whaling. Rather, this paper shows that with only few exceptions these documents together with the language of paragraph 10(e) clearly demonstrate that the moratorium was intended as a temporary conservation and management measure related to uncertainties of scientific information. Notwithstanding this, anti-whaling NGOs have mischaracterized the moratorium as a permanent prohibition or ban on commercial whaling. This mischaracterization was a major factor in the failure of the “Future of IWC” process which was aimed at getting compromises from both pro-whaling and anti-whaling members to resolve the bipolar, conflictive and dysfunctional nature of the organization. Finally, it is concluded that the moratorium as a permanent prohibition would be inconsistent with the purpose of the ICRW and that science related to the management of whales and international law, in this case the literal interpretation and implementation of the Schedule paragraph 10(e), provide the only possible means to resolve the controversy concerning whaling.

The contentious whaling dispute can be described as a scientific dispute over resource management, the collision between nations that regard whales as food and nations that see whales as special, political game played by politicians who like to be seen as environmentally conscious by opposing whaling, and economic interests of the whaling industry and fundraising anti-whaling organizations. All of these different interpretations are correct, however, none, by themselves, can explain the whole picture of the controversy. This paper, by constructing a matrix, presents a comprehensive picture of this complex dispute and some options for making a progress.

°No carboxypeptidase A activity was detected in the extract of pancreas of the cafish Parasilurus asotus. However, when the extract was left at 4C, carboxypeptidase A activity increased with the time and reached to a maximum level after 4 days. These results indicate that carboxypeptidase A is stored as zymogen in the pancreas.Carboxypeptidase A was isolated from the autoactivated extract of the catfish pancreas by CM-cellulose column chromatography and affinity chromatography. The homogeneity of the enzyme was demonstrated by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The molecular weight of the enzyme was estimated as 34, 000 by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The amino acid composition of the catfish enzyme was found to be similar to those of the carboxypeptidases A from other species.