Commercial whaling in Iceland
Iceland Naturalist is a small travel company specialising in showing visitors Iceland's wildlife and wild places. Our clients are invariably knowledgeable about natural history and conservation issues and often ask us about Iceland's rather strange position on whaling. In October 2006 the Icelandic Government announced that commercial whaling could resume. This short document provides answers to some of the frequent questions that we get about this issue.
The great whales were amongst the first species that the international community campaigned to conserve during the 1960s. Commercial hunting threatened the survival of several species, including the blue whale, the largest animal to have ever lived on our planet. The campaign to 'Save the Whale' was an important global achievement so why has Iceland started commercial whaling again?
When trying to answer this question the most important point to remember is that many Icelanders believe that whales are simply a marine resource to be used in the same way as fish. Additionally, fishermen are concerned that whales eat large quantities of the fish on which the national economy depends. In 2003 Icelandic politicians decided to hunt minke whales for 'scientific research' and in October 2006 extended this decision to allow the full commercial hunting of minke whales and fin whales — a globally endangered species. Now only Norway and Iceland hunt whales commercially. Japan continues to hunt whales for 'scientific' reasons whilst a few other countries (including the USA and Russia) allow indigenous peoples to hunt whales in traditional ways. Many Icelanders resent what they see as ‘interference’ from abroad and the view, ‘to hell with what others think — it’s our right to hunt whales if we want’, is frequently heard.
What does the international community think?
The IWC (International Whaling Commission — a body set up in 1946 to control whaling) does not agree with Iceland's stance and has been critical of Iceland's position in recent years. Many nations objected to the manner in which Iceland was readmitted to the Commission in 2002 (in 1992 Iceland rather petulantly left the IWC). In 2003 Iceland's Government received, without precedent, a document signed by many countries criticising its decision to allow so-called 'scientific whaling'. In the IWC legal wrangles about the legitimacy of Iceland's stance continue. Iceland's major trading partners in North America and Europe strongly disagree with Iceland’s case and Australia and New Zealand have been very pointed in their criticisms. Only two other nations, Japan and Norway, currently hunt whales on a large scale. Norway is open about its right to hunt whales as a marine resource. Japan uses the 'scientific research' argument to continue whaling.
Is Iceland's decision a dreadful blow for conservation?
Iceland's fisheries minister is quick to point out that the numbers of individuals allowed to be 'harvested' will not have any impact on the species' conservation. However, fin whales (one of the largest of whale species) are still considered endangered and many people consider that even taking small numbers is not a sensible thing to do. Killing minke whales at the limits allowed is unlikely to have any impact on the population of this species.
Does Iceland make a lot of money by selling whale meat?
The sale of whale meat is considered economically important within the country though stocks of meat released into commerce from the scientific programme remain unsold and Icelandic supermarkets have recently offered heavy discounts to shoppers. The Icelandic Government has used tax revenue for its 'scientific whaling' research and whilst the true position is unclear it does seem likely that whale hunting, at least in the short term, will be a net cost to the nation rather than a net benefit. International rules mean exporting whale meat is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Demand for whale meat seems to be falling in Norway where the authorities have also issued warnings about potential health problems through toxic residues likely to be found in the flesh and blubber.
But surely it is cruel and inhumane to hunt whales in this way?
Yes it is. Even with the best equipment and competent marksmen, firing explosive harpoons into large mammals seldom results in instantaneous death and often many minutes pass between the time of strike to the time of death. The Icelandic government insists the hunting takes place in as humane a way as possible but up until now has not allowed independent journalistic access to establish what exactly goes on during a hunt. The IWC's own information indicates that animals suffer before death. As an aside, Iceland has strict rules concerning the humane killing of animals in slaughterhouses. The procedures used in whale hunting simply cannot meet these criteria.
I am appalled by Iceland's position. Should I stop buying Icelandic fish?
Western consumers wield a great deal of economic power concerning the day-to-day choices they make. The Icelandic fishing industry is very important to the country's economy. If consumers choose not to buy Icelandic fish and mention their displeasure over commercial whaling a very strong message is sent. This has to be an individual's (or company's or organisation's) decision as international trade agreements make it very difficult for governments to boycott goods.
I am unhappy with Iceland's decision, should I cancel my holiday there?
This is of course your choice and if you do you will make a very firm statement of your displeasure. However, before you decide you may find it helpful to think about the following:
There are many businesses and individuals in Iceland opposed to the resumption of commercial whaling.
Whale watching has grown tremendously in recent years and the companies involved deserve support in their 'non-lethal whale utilisation programmes' to use the current jargon. Supporting these companies, and others in Iceland opposed to commercial whaling, whilst at the same time expressing your concerns in other ways (see the answers to questions above and below) is perhaps a more appropriate thing to do.
Policies and practices of other nations often raise similar questions of conservation and animal welfare. In Britain the recent debate concerning fox hunting is topical, but UK residents would have been perplexed if visitors from other countries used this as a reason not to visit. In Britain for example, would you cancel your holiday to:
- Scotland, where it is possible to kill grouse and other wild birds for sport?
- Cumbria, where it is possible to hunt pink-footed geese, most of which breed in Iceland, each winter?
- Kent, where there are plans to build a new airport on an estuary, which is internationally important for its wildlife?
And further afield:
- Mediterranean countries, where the capture and killing of migrating birds is a real conservation worry?
- Spain, where the inhumane ways in which bulls are treated in bull fights upsets many people?
- Brazil, where the continued destruction of rain forest is a conservation problem of global proportions?
- East Africa, where governmental ineffectiveness permits big game poaching to continue on a large scale? And so on.
You may also like to read this short essay which covers some of these points in greater detail.
How can I express my displeasure?
Never underestimate the effect of a short, well-written letter expressing your concerns, and consider asking for journalistic access to the hunting expeditions in order that we may all see and understand what is happening.
The Icelandic Fisheries minister is:
Einar Guðfinnsson
Sjávarútvegsráðuneytið
Skúlagötu 4
150 Reykjavík
The minister responsible for tourism is:
Sturla Böðvarsson
Samgönguráðuneytið
Hafnarhúsinu,
Tryggvagötu
150 Reykjavík
Iceland Naturalist's home page
© Iceland Naturalist October 2006