Iceland announced their return to commercial whaling in May 2008 only months after their 2007 decision to halt this brutal practice. When their return to whaling drew worldwide protest, Iceland responded with a misleading letter. HSI answers the questionable statements with fact:

1. Are the whales Iceland is killing really abundant and not endangered?
2. Is the United States really a major whaling country? Is the whaling program in Iceland the same as the whaling program in the United States, Russia, Norway, Japan or Greenland?
3. Does Iceland's economy depend on hunting whales?
4. Iceland claims that whaling is part of responsible and sustainable management of fisheries. Is that true?
5. Was Iceland's scientific research really needed to better understand the interaction between the different whale stocks and other marine species and the role of whales in the marine ecosystem?
6. Is it true that Iceland's resumption of sustainable whaling is legal under international law?
7. Why has no progress been made on the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) discussions? Is this a valid reason for Iceland to make a unilateral decision to resume its commercial whaling program?
8. Has Iceland really been a leading advocate for international cooperation in ensuring sustainable use of living marine resources, including whales?

1.  Are the whales Iceland is killing really abundant and not endangered?

Whales were hunted to the brink of extinction during the height of commercial whaling. Even though a moratorium on commercial whaling has been in effect for 22 years, whales have not recovered to their pre-exploitation levels and many are in serious trouble. One of the reasons that they have not recovered is because Japan, Norway and Iceland are still whaling. Since the ban went into effect, these three countries have killed 25,447 whales.

Iceland kills minke whales (listed as threatened) and fin whales (listed as endangered and at risk for extinction in the wild). According to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), trade of minke and fin whales is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

2.  Is the United States really a major whaling country? Is the whaling program in Iceland the same as the whaling program in the United States, Russia, Norway, Japan or Greenland?

Norway and Iceland are the only countries that openly hunt whales for commercial purposes. Both countries ignore the IWC ban on commercial whaling and undermine international conservation efforts.

Unlike Norway, Iceland’s quota has included endangered fin whales.

Japan claims to hunt whales for scientific purposes, but sells the whale meat on the commercial market. Most scientists and the majority of IWC member countries consider the country's research program to be a commercial whale hunt in disguise.

Iceland, Norway and Japan all have small domestic markets for whale meat. Growing stockpiles of whale meat in these countries is commonplace, and whale meat goes uneaten and sometimes even used as fertilizer or pet food.

The United States, Greenland and Russia allow aboriginal hunting of whales for strictly subsistence purposes. In the United States, Inuits are given annual quotas of whales that they are permitted to hunt, and the products from these whales are for subsistence purposes and must not be sold commercially.

3. Does Iceland's economy depend on hunting whales?

• Iceland did not hunt whales for commercial purposes for 20 years, and there is no basis for whaling now.
• Despite attempts by the Icelandic government to promote the consumption of whale meat, the domestic market is extremely small.
• Trade in whale products is restricted under CITES but in June 2008, Reuters reported that Iceland sent 80 tons of fin whale meat to Japan, historically Iceland's primary market for whale products. This meat is from whales caught in 2006 which reportedly could not sell domestically so it either rotted or sat frozen until a buyer could be found. 
• Whale watching contributes more to Iceland's economy than hunting whales.

4.  Iceland claims that whaling is part of responsible and sustainable management of fisheries. Is that true?

Pro-whaling nations claim whales eat too many fish, which poses a major threat to commercial fish stocks worldwide and contributes to world hunger. In fact, whales, and other top predators, are components of healthy marine ecosystems, and removing or depleting their populations may even have negative consequences for fisheries. The greatest threat to fish stocks is humankind. Some 75% of fish stocks are depleted, and over-fishing by humans is the primary cause of the declines. 

5.  Was Iceland's scientific research really needed to better understand the interaction between the different whale stocks and other marine species and the role of whales in the marine ecosystem?

The IWC rejected Iceland's so-called scientific proposal to kill whales as unnecessary and further called on Iceland to abandon its plans for whaling. Although the country has killed at least 463 whales in the name of science since 1986, no scientific papers have ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal. 

Iceland's stated purpose for killing whales for scientific purposes was to examine the contents of their stomachs in order to prove that whales eat fish. Not only does this study oversimplify the relationship between whales and their ecosystems, but it is also possible to study whales' diets through biopsy sampling, a non-lethal method. 

6.  Is it true that Iceland's resumption of sustainable whaling is legal under international law?

Iceland agreed to be bound by the IWC ban on commercial whaling that went into effect in 1986. Iceland later decided that it no longer wanted to honor its international obligation to not hunt whales and it quit the IWC. It later illegally rejoined but this time exempted itself (took a reservation) from the ban. When a country holds a reservation to a ban, it is not legally bound to abide by the specific ban.

Iceland's reservation to the ban is controversial. When Iceland rejoined the IWC, 16 member countries filed legal objections. Iceland's act of rejoining with a reservation to the ban when it previously agreed to uphold the ban was unprecedented and completely undermines all efforts to protect whales.

In 2002, The United States government certified Iceland under provisions of the Pelly Ammendment for undermining the IWC moratorium. The Pelly Ammendment requires the Secretary of Commerce to certify to the President when foreign nations are diminishing the effectiveness of an international conservation program. This certification is still under consideration because of Iceland's most recent shipment of fin whale meat to Japan.

7.  Why has no progress been made on the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) discussions? Is this a valid reason for Iceland to make a unilateral decision to resume its commercial whaling program?

Pro-whaling nations have fought every guideline or rule that even attempted to impose sustainability, accountability or humane concerns into the RMS. Because of their persistence, we are currently left with a draft RMS that would be as disastrous as those pre-moratorium days when whaling ships routinely underreported the number and size of whales killed as well as the number of female whales killed. 

The lack of progress on the RMS is not a valid reason for Iceland to make a unilateral decision to resume its commercial whaling program. In order to ensure the survival of great whales, all countries must cooperate to implement management and conservation measures. Iceland's commercial whaling undermines these efforts. Additionally, its planned commercial hunts will be conducted without any transparency in its welfare measures or measures to ensure that quotas are not exceeded.

8.  Has Iceland really been a leading advocate for international cooperation in ensuring sustainable use of living marine resources, including whales?

No. Iceland has consistently rejected international efforts to conserve whales. Instead of advocating for international cooperation, Iceland has undermined the agreements of international bodies, including the IWC, and as a result, threatened the survival of great whales. 

Iceland has:

• A long history of commercial whaling and bogus scientific whaling;
• Opposed the moratorium on commercial whaling;
• Opposed the establishment of a conservation committee in the IWC, and supported the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration, which attacked the moratorium on commercial whaling and whale protection efforts by non-governmental organizations;
• Converted its commercial industry to a so-called "scientific" whaling program when commercial whaling was banned in 1986; 
• Stopped scientific whaling in 1989 only after global condemnation over its whaling;
• Left the IWC in 1992, frustrated by the IWC's efforts to protect whale populations; 
• Rejoined (illegally) the IWC in 2002 with a reservation (objection) to the commercial whaling moratorium; 
• Disregarded an IWC request not to begin whaling by hunting minke whales through the "scientific" loophole;
• Defied CITES by stating an intent to export one to two tons of whale meat to the Faroe Islands in September 2006, a move similar to an illegal export of whale meat from Norway to the Faroe Islands;
• Stated an intent to reduce the current protections for fin whales under the CITES criteria for listing threatened or endangered species.