Iceland Scales Back Whaling Program

In August 2003, Iceland announced the resumption of its "scientific whaling" program.  After months of domestic and international pressure from conservation groups and individuals, on June 2, 2004 the government of Iceland advised it was scaling back its original proposal to hunt 500 whales.  The government killed 36 whales in 2003 and plans to kill another 25 this year.

Almost 60,000 of you pledged not to go to Iceland until it cancelled its whaling practices.  While Iceland's decision is not a full moratorium, it is a testament to the impact the grassroots community can make.

Taking a Stand

When Greenpeace first heard about Iceland resuming its whaling practices, we sent our flagship the Rainbow Warrior there to do something about it.

The Rainbow Warrior first sailed against Icelandic whaling on her maiden voyage, in 1978. We returned the second time to support local groups who fear the announcement by Iceland's Ministry of Fisheries is the first step toward a resumption of commercial whaling. In fact, the Ministry of Fisheries website openly declares that Iceland wants to resume commercial whaling in 2006.

"Whaling is part of Iceland's past," commented Greenpeace Executive Gerd Leipold, "and must remain so. We hope that we are able to give many Icelanders the confidence to say no to whaling - forever. A clear message must go to the Icelandic government - globally, as well as directly from the people of Iceland - that this will not be tolerated. Iceland can make more money from whale watching than whale killing and should be doing all it can to protect those whales in its seas."

No science justifies killing whales

Does a resumption of "scientific whaling" mean we can expect better data about the new threats to whales from climate change and shifting ocean currents? Will it mean a better understanding of why minke whales in the North Atlantic are contaminated with mercury? Will it mean new data to test the recent evidence that original whale populations have been vastly underestimated?

Nope. All it will mean is more dead whales.

"No science justifies the killing of whales. This is simply an underhanded attempt by the Icelandic government to resume commercial whaling." said Leipold.

Commercial whaling by the back door

Commercial whaling was banned by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1986, but a loophole allowing the killing of whales for research purposes has been exploited by several countries as a cover story for their commercial whaling programs.

While denying that they have a commercial interest in hunting whales, the Icelandic Fisheries Ministry all but apologizes at its website for the fact that it is "obliged" to sell the products of its scientific whaling program under IWC regulations and international law. Iceland hasn't always been so worried about international law: they have conducted illegal hunts in the past, but have chosen to put a more respectable adverb on their activities, in preparation for a return to full-scale commercial whaling. They're under internal pressure to do so: the Icelandic Tourist Association demanded that the government not undertake any whaling program unless it's legal, and Iceland's recent rejoining of the IWC appears to be part of a strategy to silence critics at home.

Excuses, excuses

As Icelandic Ambassador Helgi Ágústsson puts it in his automated response to a Greenpeace cyberaction: "The annual consumption of fish, krill and other biomass by whales in this region [Iceland's 200 mile economic zone] has been estimated around 6 million metric tons, several times the total Icelandic fishery landings of 1.5 to 2.0 million metric tons."
So it's all about fish, and how whales are eating more than their share?

Hang on. Have a look at that figure: the Fisheries Minister has lumped "krill and other biomass" into the tonnage consumed, neither of which are particularly sought-after delicacies for the Icelandic dinner plate or export market.

Unecessary, irrelevant science

The IWC's Science Committee failed to approve the Icelandic "scientific program." U.S. Commission delegate Rolland Schmitten said the plan was "not relevant science; it's not necessary."

There are plenty of non-lethal means of studying whale interactions with the ocean food chain, and according to the BBC, Australian scientists have perfected a new humane way of assessing fish consumption. They sample whale feces instead of killing them and slicing open their stomachs.

According to the study's principle scientist, Nick Gales, "We will be telling the International Whaling Commission that this is a robust, non-lethal method for studying whales."

"It's going to provide some real information to put into food web models. If it points out that whales are competing for fish stocks, then we'll have to deal with that."

Whale watching explodes

Iceland has been an increasingly popular tourist magnet, and a burgeoning whale watching industry has taken hold. A report on the economic benefits of whale watching has recently been released.  Whale watching has rapidly become one of the major pillars of tourism in Iceland, servicing more than 72,000 tourists in 2003.  At the present growth rate, clients of the whale watching industry will surpass 100,000 in 2007.  According to the Environmental News Network (ENN), a dozen firms have sprung up in Iceland over the past decade, generating around $8.5 million in revenue in 2001. Commercial whaling brought in $3 million to $4 million annually between 1986 and 1989, when commercial hunts were stopped.

The Icelandic Tourist Association voted in April of last year to strengthen its stand against whaling. One whale-watching village hung its flag at half mast when the Fisheries Ministry made its unpopular announcement.

And now, the Voice of America reports that the U.S. government has expressed "extreme disappointment" at Iceland's "unnecessary" lethal research. The United States will review options for trade sanctions against Iceland under the Pelly Amendment, which mandates that the U.S. State Department take action against countries which are undermining international agreements to protect endangered species.

Someone high up in the Icelandic government ought to be running a cost calculation of the relative value of a renewed whaling industry against lost tourism revenues, trade sanctions, possible fishery or tourist boycotts and a redirection of tourist dollars away from Icelandic whale watching to other, whale-friendlier shores.

Take Action!

Even though Iceland has dramatically reduced its whaling program, there are still 25 minke whales slated to be hunted.

• Send a letter to the Ambassador of Iceland and let him know that commercial whaling has no place in the 21st century.

• Join almost 60,000 world citizens refusing to visit Iceland while it continues to hunt whales. Pledge to consider Iceland as a travel destination once the whaling ban is re-instituted.  In response to your pledge, you will most likely receive an auto reply trying to portray the Icelandic position in a "fair and balanced" way. Visit our cyberactivist community to participate in discussions about this response.

• Find out about the Rainbow Warrior tour from the ship's weblog.  Asbjorn Bjorgvinsson, head of the Icelandic Whale Watching Association wrote Greenpeace regarding our recent visit.  He concluded his letter saying, "All in all, I can truly state that Greenpeace has helped a great deal changing views concerning whales, whale watching and conservation in Iceland."