On tuesday Hvalur HF announced that the whaling ship Hvalur 9 was back in harbour and that the fin whaling season is over for the year.
Seven fin whales were struck and landed, out of a quota of nine total.
I want to provide my perspective on the whaling issue in Iceland and a possible political resolution:
to cut a long story short, the whaling quota should be open for bids, and the whale watching companies should buy it and not use it.
Whaling in Iceland has an extensive history. In Konungsskuggsjá (Speculum Regale), a 13th century "advice to kings", the expected yield of whale horn (narwhal and teeth) and meat and oil from the waters of Iceland, Greenland, Faeroe and Norway are discussed, as is the advisability of the hunt.
History shows instances, as recent as the late 19th century, where the whale hunt was the only thing that saved entire regions from mass starvation.
The language has whaling concepts embedded in it, the concept of having caught, or come upon a whale still denotes great serendipitous fortune.
But, Iceland is split on whaling - I don't know the numbers, and they would depend on how the question is phrased: I'd expect 80+% to say "No" to a "Should whaling be banned in perpetuity" but a majority might say "No" to "Should Iceland resume commercial whaling now over the objection of the international community". It is a delicate issue, telling Icelanders that they will endanger the whales or hunt them to extinction will be met with derision and hostility by the majority; as will any claim of whales being special, or specially intelligent.
Arguments about conforming to international will, also need to be made carefully, or they backfire. Small nations do not like being told what to do.
Whale meat is eaten in Iceland. According to Greenpeace statistics, about 1% of the population eats it at least once a week; and among teens (group least likely to consume funny ye olde foods) over 20% eat it at least once a year (presumably token pickled blubber on þorrablót or some such occasion).
That is actually a lot; probably creates a net demand of a couple of hundred tons per year, about the current catch. The meat is easily bought, both in town and out in the country, and is also served in restaurants.
There are two whale hunts in Iceland: the minke hunt, done by small motorboats operating out of coastal villages, mostly in the north and east. A lot of the meat is subsistence food, it is eaten locally (or sent as care packages to friends and relatives in town), a cheap substitute for beef.
It is similar to the hunt in Norway, and the Faeroes; and in fact in Greenland and the US. Small fishing boats huntin shallow coastal whales, small enough to handle on light boats. These towns are quite isolated, very traditional and they'll continue. In terms of regional politics trying to stop the hunt, in the absence of threat of extinction (and in the US even that is insufficient, apparently), is not viable.
Yes, Icelanders (and Norwegians) are rich, the people in these towns could go on welfare and eat canned spam, like everyone else. Current policy is that it is not acceptable to force that issue, and that isolated coastal communities must be sustained.
In Iceland, there is also the fin whale hunt. A much larger deep water whale, more threatened, although the current catch is nowhere near the level where the population would be put under pressure and the hunt will not be expanded significantly.
The decision to open the hunt, which Iceland had formally notified the IWC it would do when it rejoined the IWC (after walking out of the IWC in a huff over the persistent failure of the IWC to set hunt quotas). However, the announcement of the resumption of the hunt this year, by the fisheries minister, was a major surprise (it was within his powers to do so, just not terribly polite to not tell people, or have some debate on the issue). Except, that is, to the owner and operator of Hvalur 9.
He was told, and the ship was demothballed and the whaling station got ready to run again.
So, here is the catch: Hvalur HF was given the whaling quota.
This was done under a Good Old Boy, wink'and'a'nod, system.
It is a hot-button issue, and it really pisses people off.
In Iceland, fishing is regulated, quotas are strict and tightly enforced.
Owning a quota is generally a license to make money, and the distribution system is a nightmare, largely based on obsolete historical allocations, complex trading rules and Good Old Boy favours.
This is partly from necessity, regional policy requires that local fishing villages retain quota rights or they would shrivel and die, the most efficient trawlers from the large towns, tied to the largest and best capitalized processing plants could buy up all the quota, leaving only 3-4 ports operating.
So... who decided Hvalur HF should be given the whaling quota, and why?
The quota should have been bid out. The current fin quota is worth about a million dollars, gross, so it might sell for ~ $100,000 net, if bid out. More if the quota is expanded, as expected.
This is money owed to the nation, from allocation of a commons.
And, here is a solution.
The owner of a quota is under no obligation to use it. And were there any doubt on this point, Hvalur has just settled it, they had a quota for 9 whales, but caught only 7 before stopping for the season.
So, the whale watching companies, who have $tens of millions at stake, could form a co-op and bid for the whaling rights, and then announce that they will refrain from using them...
That is a solution that should make everyone happy, except for those absolutely stuck on ideological purity.
It is pragmatic, acknowledges the reality of life in Iceland, and the problems of regional politics; does not violate Iceland's principle of managing its economic zone and fisheries in accordance with scientific management recommendations, provides income for further studies, protects the tourist trade, and stops the killing of the fin whales.
Only catch, will be to convince the current government that it must offer the quota in an open auction. That might take a few years and some subtle political pressure.
Go to it.
- Log in to post comments
Steinn, thank you for writing this. I certainly have a better appreciation for Iceland's predictament now. I think your solution is an excellent one where everyone wins, hopefully someone in authority will have a similar idea.
Well, I also talk to Icelanders.
The idea has been planted part of the way up the chain, and was at least implicit in some of the debate I saw over the issue of how the quota came to be given to Hvalur HF.
But, I don't know all the internal political issues, and I may well be missing some angle that makes this impossible to implement.
I don't think I have any in with the "progressives" (rural/agrarian party who currently would be decisive), and the people I know in the "independence" party (conservative) are mostly in the faction that is out of effetive power right now, and the united left and left-green have no influence on the current government.
We'll see what happens.
I doubt the bidding for whaling quotas is a game that the whale watcher (or any conservation group) is interested in playing if they don't have to. Even if they are successful in winning those quotas and they aren't used, that would justify raising the allowable catch to the whalers. This might happen after only a couple of years without whaling.
It's why I have lost faith in playing economics with precious natural resources. These things should be removed completely from the game. Fishing regulations should be put in place solely on population viability and other scientific measures.
Well, if the catch is regulated based just on population viability, then the Iceland whale hunt will be expanded by a factor of few over the next few years, and the only open question is whether Hvalur HF will automatically be allocated all the quota (except for the regional Minke hunt) on historical basis, or whether the quota will be bid out and anyone will compete for it.
That is currently the entire range of options, and it'd take signficant politicking to get the quota put up for bid, since it might set precedents that some people do not want set.