While the author very much sympathizes with the conservation
movement in general, the total protection of all whales from
human impact, regardless of the status of the stocks, does not
seem to be a rational approach toward management of resources
in a world of food shortage and poverty. As a citizen of
Iceland, a small island in the far north of the North
Atlantic, where the 240,000 inhabitants are overwhelmingly
dependent on the exploitation of the surrounding seas, I
believe the major issue is to secure that no overhunting of
any stocks in the area occurs. Any management measure needs
therefore to be based on the best scientific knowledge
available to safeguard whales as a resource for future
generations.
The History of Whaling
Although Icelanders were not a part of this early history of
whaling in the open seas, the utilization of whales in Iceland
as a source of food is well documented in medieval manuscripts
dated as early as the 13th century. Whales were harpooned (or
speared), driven ashore, or utilized when they were found
naturally beached (the Icelandic word hvalreki, meaning
literally "a stranded whale," has thus acquired its present
meaning of "a godsend"), and it often filled a desperate need
in a hard year. It was thus not the modest harvest by
Icelanders through the centuries that depleted some of the
stocks of whales off Iceland in the old days, but rather the
large foreign fleets that visited northern waters in search of
a quick profit.
Unfortunately, the lessons of the past went largely unheeded
during the so-called era of modern whaling that began some 100
years ago, after the invention of steam ships and the
explosive harpoon. Now the numerous and fast-swimming
rorquals, blue (Balaenoptera musculus), fin (B. physalus), sei
(B. borealis), and humpback whales became the main species of
economic interest, as well as the sperm whale. As late as 20
years ago, these whale species were still excessively hunted
in some oceans areas, although during the more recent period
whaling came under control.
The first successful whaling station in Iceland, set up and
owned by Norwegians in 1883 in Alftafjord, West Iceland,
heralded the era of modern whaling in Iceland. A second
station, also Norwegian-owned, followed in 1889, and from then
on foreign stations and vessels multiplied. By 1902, thirty
ships were landing some 1,300 whales caught off Iceland with
an unknown proportion of whales struck but not retrieved.
Before the turn of the century, seven land stations were
located in the Western Fjords concentrating on blue, fin, and
humpback whales, while sei and sperm whales were taken in
smaller numbers.
As the stocks apparently became depleted, most of the stations
moved to the East Coast where large whales were still in good
numbers. However, after a short period of increased yield,
both the total catch per vessel rapidly declined, followed by
a lesser reduction in fin whales. The decline of the industry
is well demonstrated by comparing the bumper year of 1902 with
1914, when only three operating vessels caught a mere 35
whales. Aware of the clear signs of overexploitation, the
Icelandic parliament (Althingi) proclaimed a ban on all
whaling activities to begin at the close of the 1915 season.
This was the first serious measure taken by Icelandic
authorities to conserve the whale stocks. Ever since, whaling
in Iceland has been subject to strict government control and,
since 1949, to the International Whaling Commission (IWC)
regulations. No permits were issued for whaling from land
stations in Iceland until 1935, when a single station in
western Iceland was allowed to operate two or three vessels.
This operation ceased during World War II, and the stocks
evidently recovered, at least those of fin whales.
After the war those Icelandic authorities had not forgotten
the fate of the industry at the turn of the century, and a
permit was again issued for only one station, located in
Hvalfjørdur, in southwest Iceland. The main species caught
from this station has always been fin whales (average yearly
catch 1948-85:234 whales), while the catch of sperm (average
82) and sei whales (average 68) was economically far less
important. Hunting sperm whales was prohibited in the North
Atlantic by the IWC in 1982, following similar protective
measures taken in the 1950s for blue and humpback whales, both
of which are showing clear signs of recovery.
There is one more aspect to whaling in Iceland, the
traditional small-type minke, B.acutorostrata, whaling
operation by fishermen in coastal water, mainly in West and
North Iceland. From 1914 until the 1950s, annual average
catches of minke whales were less than 50. The products were
used domestically for human consumption. Then, as the domestic
demand increased and new export markets opened, catches
gradually increased and became regulated by the IWC in 1977.
In recent years the annual catch has been about 200 animals.
Modern Icelandic Management Ideology
In the last few years in Iceland, both scientists and the
fisheries management have seriously discussed the so-called
multispecies management, whereby measures taken aim at the
optimum yield of the harvest in biological, economic, or
social terms. Although the development of the multispecies
concept is still in its earliest phase, it is being recognized
as a future goal in the management. Also of concern it that
whales in Iceland waters probably consume far more food than
the total harvest of the fishing fleet in the area. Much of
the food is, however, of no direct economic value, although
the whales may in general constitute a significant competitor
to some of the commercially valuable fish species. More
evident are the interactions between the fisheries and the
killer whales, Orcinus orca, that aggregate annually on the
herring grounds, consuming significant quantities of fish, and
often interfering with the fishing operation. Another example
is the humpback whale, now alleged to interfere with the
important capelin fishery off northern Iceland during winter.
Recently, major damages of fishing gear and loss of catches
due to humpbacks are being reported as a serious threat to the
industry.
It is perhaps easy to understand the categorical view of urban
dwellers in the United States or continental Europe, where the
environment is under immediate threat by human activities and
where many species of animals have disappeared from the local
fauna, that no harvesting of whales should be permitted. But
such an attitude is hard to understand for the inhabitants of
the sparsely populated and harsh northern regions, where
pollution on land or in the sea is not at present a direct
threat to animal life, where the resources of the sea are
practically the only ones available to support life, and where
most of the stocks of whales are in healthy condition. The
pledge to stop whaling in Iceland for the unforseeable future
means, in reality, that one of the few nations that happened
to utilize this resource successfully will be punished by
those who did not. It would be equivalent to banning the
hunting of caribou in the Canadian Arctic because stocks
elsewhere had become endangered.
The IWC's Role
In its early years, the IWC devoted a great deal of effort to
biological research and related studies necessary for
conservation and management of the whale stocks. Because
quantitative stock assessments were lacking, scientists had
great difficulties in convincing the whaling industry about
the progressive depletion of the stocks. The whale fishery was
so competitive, especially in the Antarctic, that it drove the
many nations involved in whaling at that time to take as many
whales as possible. "Otherwise somebody else would get the
share," went the argument.
It was not until the early 1960s that due note was taken of
the recommendations made by scientists, in particular after
the independent group of scientists appointed by the
commission, The Committee of Three (later Committee of Four),
was established to review the status of the stocks. These
scientists introduced new methods to assess whale stocks on
which proposals of catches and protection of a number of
stocks in the following years were based. And after the so-
called New Management Procedure (NMP) was adopted in 1975 as a
basis for advice made by the Scientific Committee of the IWC,
one can say that all endangered stocks became protected by the
commission.*
The Moratorium Issue
In 1972, the IWC had 14 member nations, of which eight, or 57
percent, conducted commercial whaling. By 1982, however, the
situation was completely different. The member nations had
increased to 39, of which seven, or 23 percent, conducted
commercial whaling, and three - the United Stated, the Soviet
Union, and Denmark (Greenland) - caught whales under the so-
called aboriginal/subsistence scheme whereby their indigenous
northern populations were allowed to continue their
traditional hunts. A number of proposals for ending commercial
whaling were on the commission's agenda in 1982. One of these
was adopted (by a vote of 25 to 7, with 5 abstentions). It
called for phasing out commercial whaling over a period of
three years and setting zero-catch limits on all stocks of
whales for the 1985/86 Antarctic season and the 1986 season
elsewhere. Interestingly, the Scientific Committee was still
not able to support the moratorium proposal on purely
scientific or management grounds, although some members voiced
their belief that a halt in whaling might give an opportunity
to conduct an in-depth study of the status of the world's
whale stocks.
In principle, the decision on zero-catch limits does not rule
out the resumption of whaling if scientific evidence shows
that stocks are able to support catches. It will, however, be
difficult to change this provision, since a three-quarters
majority of votes in the commission is required. Nevertheless,
the decision provides an important task for the commission to
carry out. The commission decided that by no later than 1990,
a review of the effects of this decision on the whale stocks,
a comprehensive assessment, would be undertaken for subsequent
consideration of establishing other catch limits.
Since 1982, the definition, timing and implementation of the
comprehensive assessment had been a constant bone of
contention. It was not until April 1986 that the Scientific
Committee and the commission adopted a specific proposal
assuming the comprehensive assessment implied not only an
assessment of the effect of the zero-catch limit on the
stocks, but more importantly, an in-depth evaluation of the
current status of the stocks in the light of present
management objectives and procedures.
The Committee agreed that it would need to:
In 1985, the Scientific Committee had noted that for many
important stocks currently protected, no new information had
been obtained since exploitation had ceased. In 1986, the
committee concluded that if current trends in whale
populations were to be studied seriously, IWC member nations
should give a high priority to continuing monitoring studies.
The committee further assumed that all national research
programs would at least continue at their present levels and
that new resources would be provided by the commission and
member nations in order to accomplish the comprehensive
assessment.
When the IWC voted for the temporary ban on whaling in 1982,
the Icelandic Government had to decide whether or not to lodge
an objection, and thus not be bound by it. The Althingi, after
long hours of debate, voted 29 to 28 against objecting to the
ban. The government announced it would act accordingly. It was
a difficult and controversial decision that involved the
rights of a coastal state to utilize the living resources of
the sea in a rational manner, and to defend the interests of a
well established whaling industry that had functioned for 35
years without signs of endangering the stocks. It was also
felt unfair that exempted from the ban were the so-called
aboriginal hunt, which is not very different from the
traditional minke whaling in Iceland (now defined as
commercial), and the yearly incidental killings of tens of
thousands of dolphins in the tuna fishery, mainly in the
Pacific.
Foreign intervention had also to be considered. Particularly
important was the urging by the U.S. authorities that no
objection be lodged against the IWC measure, and the overt
threat by U.S. conservationists and private companies of their
intention to boycott Iceland's frozen seafood products.
However, common to all views expressed was that the IWC
decision calling for intensified research of the whale stocks
was very important. That whales constitute an integral part of
the marine ecosystem around Iceland that should be conserved
and utilized rationally was never an issue of dispute.
The government's policy on the issue was thus clearly outlined
by the Althingi: Iceland would abide by the IWC decision on
the temporary ban on commercial whaling, and greatly intensify
the research on the whale stocks in order to form a policy by
1990, based on the best scientific knowledge.
The Research Program, 1986-1989
The research program is an ambitious one, and substantial
funding has been allocated to it. It comprises more than 30
separate research projects, addressing the different aspects
of stock assessment, management, and ecology of whales in the
waters around Iceland.
The program consists partly of research based on material
obtained by direct take and examination of whale carcasses.
However, most of the research is based on nonlethal
techniques, such as photoidentification, biopsy dart sampling,
radio-tagging, and sighting surveys. In conjunction with the
research, the Icelandic government issued permits to catch a
limited number of fin and sei whales for scientific purposes -
80 fin whales in each of the 1986-´88 seasons and 40, 20, and
10 sei whales successively, in the same years. To maximize the
use of the catch, Icelandic authorities have formally offered
foreign experts in whale biology access to all scientific
material and the research facilities where the whales are
examined. Scientists from a number of countries have made sue
of this unique opportunity to investigate large whales.
The experimental catch has made possible studies of changes in
growth rate and maturity, yearly fluctuations in sexual
condition and pregnancy rates, and the energetic status of the
whales with special respect to reproductive status and the
environmental conditions on the whaling grounds. Biochemical
studies for stock identification and the development of the
so-called DNA-fingerprint method for individual identification
of large whales are also under way. Many of these studies
would not have been possible during normal whaling operation
or without the special arrangements made in connection with
the experimental catch.
The ongoing research has made a substantive addition to our
knowledge of large whales off Iceland. The studies on
energetics have given results essential for ecological
modeling of the whale stocks. Of interest are the findings
that show a close relationship between the energetic status of
the animals and fecundity, which is of importance when
monitoring the productivity of the stock. The experimental
catch has also revealed important findings regarding between-
year fluctuations in ovulation rates in fin whales. It is
becoming evident that an application of constant values for
fecundity in the present assessment models is a rather
unreliable procedure; the yearly changes are simply too big to
allow such robust methods to be used. The animals seem to be
more sensitive to environmental fluctuations than had been
thought.
Earlier findings derived from studies on age-length
relationship in the fin whale catch have shown increased
growth rate and decline in age at sexual maturity in animals
born prior to 1970. The results obtained more recently, partly
by the research catch, indicate reversed growth rate and
increase in age at maturity. It must therefore be stressed
that only by continued monitoring of the biological features
of the stocks can one expect to come to conclusions about the
validity of the present simplistic population models. For
instance, it is crucial for an improved understanding of the
possible range of maximum sustainable yield rates (whether one
can harvest one to four percent of the stock size each year or
even more) to have reliable information on the age at maturity
as well as the fecundity rate.
Electrophoretic studies showing the presence of genetically
distinct populations of fin and sei whales are also an
important element of the research. The results show that only
one stock of fin and sei whales enter the area, and an
apparent difference in biochemical composition in fin whales
off Iceland and Spain has been demonstrated. The first steps
toward applying the DNA-fingerprint method on fin and sei
whales have been taken. Samples from the catch of large whales
were offered for the ongoing IWC contract study on
biogenetics. This is in fact the only source of samples for
these species. Material from mother-fetus pairs has
demonstrated simple Mendelian transmission. Although, as yet,
interpretation of the detected differences is far from simple,
the material obtained will play a key role in understanding
the transmission of patterns of the DNA. A special project to
develop species-specific probes for large baleen whales is
under way. The potential of such methods is evident, although
the actual applicability of the method has perhaps been
exaggerated; the DNA-fingerprint method is still at a
developing stage as regards large whales. However, when the
technique has been refined, it can be a very powerful tool.
But of course the limitations will always be the costly
sampling part of such research, at least for species that
occur in the open waters like fin and sei whales off Iceland,
or minke whales in the Antarctic.
Undoubtedly the results of the sighting surveys off Iceland in
1986 and 1987 are, as yet, the most significant findings of
the research program. As a part of international efforts in
the northeastern Atlantic in 1987, the North Atlantic
Sightings Survey 1987 (NASS-87), Iceland allocated three
ocean-going vessels for five weeks each and one aircraft.
Eight vessels and two aircraft scouted the vast ocean area
from West Greenland to the Norwegian coast, and from
Spitzbergen and the Barents Sea to the Spanish coast. The
cruises were designed with special emphasis on these two
species. Based on the surveys, it is estimated that the size
of the East Greenland/Iceland stock of fin whales in the
survey area (East Greenland/Iceland/Jan Mayen regarded as a
separate stock) were estimated about 20,000. Both these stocks
appear therefore to be in a healthy state, despite decades of
harvesting.
All other whale species were recorded during the survey,
including the once very rare humpback whale, now estimated at
somewhat less than 2,000 animals in the survey area covered by
the Icelandic vessels. NASS-87, perhaps the largest
multinational simultaneous whale sightings survey ever
conducted, demonstrates how much can be accomplished by
organized cooperation between nations. A second international
survey is planned for 1989 (NASS-89), to which even more
resources will be allocated, possibly with an extensions of
the survey area to the northwestern Atlantic.
The research activities by iceland have been subject to
criticism by some IWC members as well as by some
nongovernmental environmental groups. Some organizations have
even used the very limited scientific catch as a reason to
conduct boycott actions against Icelandic fish and other
exports. It is being alleged that the issuance of scientific
permits is a circumvention of the temporary ban on commercial
whaling, and that it is not at all necessary to catch whales
for research purposes.
The boycott actions and insulting attacks singled out against
one nation are of course a very serious matter in itself. When
such actions are repeated often enough, the public may have
difficulties in evaluating what is right and what is wrong.
Such actions remind one of the dangerous fanaticism practiced
in the past, but which has not been judged sympathetically by
history. It is frightening that a catch of relatively small
number of whales, which are by no means in a threatened status
can create such a vulgar undertaking. It has been suggested
that the anti-Iceland campaign is simply a ploy for raising
funds by some conservation groups to help secure their
existence and fight other issues, such as the dumping of
chemical and nuclear wastes, for which financial support from
the public is harder to obtain than for saving the whales, the
beautiful creatures of the oceans.
The issuing of scientific permits by IWC member governments is
in full compliance with the convention and its regulations. It
is highly inappropriate for critics to take only parts of the
Icelandic research program and evaluate them in isolation. The
whole project needs to be looked at as a package aimed at
answering relevant questions regarding stock management in the
area. Although major parts of the program are based on
nonlethal methods, direct sampling from a fishery often leads
to answers to urgent questions more quickly and at less cost.
Indeed, the program has already given valuable information on
the status of the stocks around Iceland, which will improve
the basis for future management.
To state that since the whales are processed and sold after
they have been sampled is just a continuation of the past
commercial operation, is untrue. In the IWC convention it is
very clearly stated that all whales landed under special
permits are to be fully utilized. Consequently, the products
must be processed and sold. But also important here is that
when issuing the permits, the government imposed very drastic
measures on the industry to ensure that all profits made by
the catch process would support further research. Direct
funding - excluding costs of running laboratories, whaling
vessels and the processing factory - by Iceland to the
project, mainly financed from the specially established
research fund, is now on the order of $ 1.5 million, a
substantial contribution from a small community. It should
also be borne in mind that by the implementation of its wide
ranging program, Iceland is one of a very few IWC member
nations that have made serious attempts to fulfill the
commission's commitment to conduct in-depth research into the
stocks before the year 1990.
The Future
In the present situation, when many of the world's whale
stocks are evidently at an exploitable level, some numbering
hundreds of thousands of animals, countries dependent on
marine resources will not go along with a total protection of
all whale stocks. If there is no change of attitude, a new
international management body will eventually be formed,
replacing the IWC. This would be an unfortunate fate for an
international organization that has great potential, the best
expertise in the field, and that some 15 years ago started
taking itself seriously after years of failures. The only hope
for the IWC is a greater tolerance by its members toward the
traditions, culture, and ethics of the communities involved in
the exploitation of whales. Why shouldn't this be possible for
nations, that besides harvesting the sea, are managing the
hunt of their own land mammals, such as the deer and kangaroo?
* The NMP divides stocks into clearly defined categories
according to their current status, based on the most recent
assessment of the Scientific Committee and the principle that
all whale stocks should be stabilized at a level of the
maximum sustainable yield. Catch limits can be recommended
after predetermined procedures, but the system protects all
stocks from commercial catches that are below 54 percent of
their original level.
Undeniably, the classic pattern of whale exploitation
throughout the world has been that of overhunting, where one
stock after another has been depleted. Such development took
place as early as in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the
black right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, and the Greenland
right or bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, were the main
targets of the large pelagic fleet operating form Europe in
the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. In the 18th and 19th
centuries the American whalers entered the scene and an
intensive hunt of sperm whales, Physeter catodon, took place
along with other species such as humpback whales, Megaptera
novaeangliae, taken in smaller numbers.
For a nation whose exports are largely fish and other marine
products - more than 70 percent by listed value - the
importance of rational management of these resources is
evident. The well known overhunt of whales at the turn of the
century and the more recent collapse of commercially valuable
fish stocks, such as the capelin, Mallotus villosus, and
herring, Clupea harengus, emphasize the need for the strictest
regulatory measures to be imposed on fisheries and ensure the
rational utilization of the resources.
After several decades of major whaling operations, including
the large-scale expeditions to the Southern Ocean from the
beginning of this century, the International Convention for
the Regulation of Whaling was signed by 14 countries. The
convention is to provide a proper conservation and management
of the world's whale stocks as a resource, and the orderly
development of the whaling industry.
Although the whale conservation movement had won a victory by
the late 1970s, the call for a moratorium on commercial
whaling from conservation groups and from several member
nations of the IWC hadn't yet gained sufficient support to be
adopted. During its meeting in 1972, the IWC's Scientific
Committee concluded that "a blanket moratorium would not be
justified scientifically since prudent management requires
regulation of the stocks individually. It would probably also
bring about a reduction in the amount of research whereas
there is a prime need for substantial increase in research
activity."
The government requested the Marine Research Institute, its
main advisory body on marine resource management, to design
and implement a four-year research program to take effect in
1986. A review of the results was to be made available to the
scientific community and the public in spring 1990.
With far better knowledge on the status of many whale stocks
than just several years ago, the whale conservation movement
needs now to decide whether all stocks of whales should be
totally protected. For the IWC, the year 1990 will be a
turning point. The commission will have to form a policy on
future whale conservation and management. If the commission is
willing to accept its original role as clearly spelled out in
its convention, it has to move form an organization of whale
protection to a serious organization of conservation and
rational utilization of whales as a resource available to
mankind.