Whales and dolphins

> Questions and anwers on whales and whaling

In 2006 the world witnessed the biggest whale slaughter for a generation

Questions and answers on whales and whaling

General / background

Japan

Iceland

Q1: What is the United Kingdom's position on whaling?

The UK is opposed to whaling and strongly supports the current International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling. We do not believe there is any justification for whaling apart from some limited subsistence whaling by indigenous people. The UK would like to see all other forms of whaling, including special permit (scientific) whaling, stopped. We believe that whaling does not serve any genuine need and involves unacceptable cruelty.

Q2. How many different types of whales are there?

Thirteen species are generally considered as "great whales". They are:

  • Blue,
  • Fin,
  • Sei,
  • Bryde's,
  • Northern Minke,
  • Antarctic Minke,
  • Humpback,
  • Gray Southern Right,
  • North Atlantic Right,
  • North Pacific Right,
  • Bowhead and
  • Sperm.

Most can be split into further distinct populations - an important factor in the management and protection of whales.

Many species of great whale continue to be listed as threatened or endangered. Despite the moratorium, stocks have not recovered to pre-exploitation levels.

Q3: How many countries hunt whales?

Seven Countries currently report involvement in whaling operations of these Norway and Iceland carries out commercial whaling under objection to the International Whaling Commission Moratorium and is not therefore legally bound by it. Japan and Iceland take whales under Special Permit (so called 'scientific' whaling) and the remaining four countries are involved in aboriginal subsistence whaling.

Aboriginal whaling is not affected by the moratorium on commercial whaling and is permitted under IWC rules from Denmark (Greenland, Fin and Minke whales), the Russian Federation (Siberia, Gray whales), the USA (Alaska, bowhead and occasionally off Washington State, Gray whales) and St Vincent and the Grenadines, (Humpback whales).

Q4: What effect will killing whales for commercial and scientific gain have on whale populations?

We believe that whales should not be killed unless out of absolute necessity - i.e, for the subsistence needs for people such as the Alaskan Inuit.

There is still much uncertainty about whale numbers in IWC Scientific Committee, we do not believe that whale stocks have recovered from the overexploitation in past centuries, and are now facing other serious threats such as pollution, habitat degradation, and climate change.

Q5: Is whaling cruel? Do whales suffer when being killed?

Modern whalers use explosive harpoons that detonate a penthrite grenade in the head or thorax of the whale to induce neurotrauma and thereby death. This is, at present, considered to be the most humane method.

The UK continues to try to improve welfare in whaling, at the 2006 IWC meeting the UK convened a special meeting on whale killing methods and associated welfare to try to improve all aspects of welfare in whaling. However, whaling can still be appallingly cruel and the whale often takes minutes to die. The methods used to kill Fin whales (the second largest animals ever to have lived on the planet) are especially cruel. The much larger Fin whales (which are up to 12 times heavier than Minke whales) are clearly more difficult to kill and may well have much longer times to death. Blubber thickness, bone structure and location of vital organs differ between species and influence the efficiency of a particular killing method, including the course of the harpoon through the body. These factors mean that larger species are likely to take a much longer time to die.

It is deeply regrettable that Iceland announced at the 2006 annual IWC meeting that it would not supply data on times to death of harpooned whales if it resumed hunting. The statement below (used by the Icelandic Government as evidence that whaling is not cruel) describes the Norwegian whaling for Minke whales contains several misrepresentations;

"The methods used for hunting the whales are the best available. No high-speed chase is involved and most of the animals die without realising that they are being hunted. Statistics from Norway, where the same methods are used, show that around 80% of the animals die instantly upon being hit. An overwhelming majority of the remaining 20% die within minutes. The methods used ensure that the catches are done in the quickest and most humane way possible and that suffering is minimised. In fact, these methods are more effective and humane than those used for hunting other large mammals, such as deer."

Q6: What has the UK Government done to protest to those countries that kill whales?

The UK Government has consistently voiced its strong opposition to countries engaged in lethal 'scientific' and commercial whaling programmes.

Last year the UK took part in two diplomatic démarches presented to the Japanese Government regarding their 'scientific' whaling operations: in January 2006 over the JARPA II whaling programme, and a similar protest in December 2006.

In April 2006, the British Charge d'Affaires in Oslo delivered a démarche to the Norwegian Government, on behalf of the UK and 11 other countries, urging it to stop its commercial whaling programme.

In November 2006, the UK led a diplomatic démarche of 25 countries, together with the European Commission, in condemning the Icelandic Government's decision to resume commercial whaling.

Immediately, on Iceland's announcement, the previous Minister for Marine and Animal Welfare, Ben Bradshaw, issued a statement condemning the decision as 'inexplicable and inexcusable' and that this was 'a flagrant dis-regard of the internationally agreed moratorium on commercial whaling'.

He also summoned Iceland 's ambassador to explain why the country has decided to start hunting endangered whales. In diplomatic circles, summoning an ambassador is regarded as a serious expression of displeasure. The UK will continue its efforts, along with other countries, to urge Iceland to reconsider their position and reverse this unjustified and unnecessary decision.

Q7: What is the UK's position on Japanese Scientific Whaling activities?

Japan abides by the moratorium on commercial whaling, but exploits a loophole in the convention, which allows it to undertake special permit (so-called "scientific") whaling. Its research programmes have not met with universal support or acclaim from the IWC Scientific Committee. That committee has not endorsed this so-called research and has expressed many reservations.

The UK, together with a majority of IWC members, has consistently criticised Japan for its lethal whaling operations that are authorised under special permits (so called "scientific" whaling). Japanese whaling vessels are currently engaged in a programme of scientific whaling known as JARPA II in the Antarctic in which Japan plans to kill 935 Minke whales each year. It will also kill 50 Fin and 50 Humpback whales.

This is particularly alarming as Humpback and Fin whales are classified as "vulnerable and endangered" respectively in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Such action severely hampers international efforts to conserve and protect whales, and clearly demonstrates that these programmes are driven by Financial gain, rather than by science. We consider special permit whaling programmes to be unnecessary, deeply flawed and of questionable scientific value.

There are perfectly adequate non-lethal alternatives which could secure the information required by the IWC for stock assessment and management purposes. Unfortunately, they have continued to ignore strong international opinion that whaling should be stopped despite the very real conservation arguments.

Japan has killed over 10,250 whales since the moratorium came into force. By contrast, it killed just 840 whales in the name of scientific research between 1954 and the international moratorium on commercial whaling, imposed in 1986.

Q8: What are the Findings of Japans "scientific" research?

None of Japan's research has been published (and therefore neither properly assessed and peer reviewed) in the official scientific journal of the IWC (The Journal of Cetacean Research and Management).

We do not believe that such lethal research is necessary - a great deal of information is already available on whale diets and further data, especially on stocks or populations, can be obtained by non-lethal means.

In 2006 there were 488 papers on whales on the ISI Web of Knowledge database. Only 0.8 per cent of these came from Japan's whaling programme or involved techniques that required euthanisation."

Q9: How are Fin, Humpback and Minke whales classified under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red list of threatened species?

The Fin whale ( Balaenoptera physalus) is currently listed as 'Endangered' on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, one of the most serious categories of listing. This means that it "is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future". IUCN based this in an observed, estimated, inferred or suspected reduction of at least 80% over the last 10 years or three generations.

Humpback whales are listed as 'vulnerable' with the common Minke whale 'near threatened' due to the fact that it was widely exploited from past whaling [2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species].

Q10: Are whales having an effect on fish stocks? If so shouldn't there population numbers be controlled?

Iceland and Japan often argue for whaling on the basis that whales eat fish and are therefore in direct competition with humans for a food source.

We consider the 'whales eat fish' argument to be deeply flawed and simplistic. Many experts within the IWC Scientific Committee have criticised this highly biased approach and the fact that it ignores complex ecosystem interactions. For example, not all fish eaten by whales are targeted by commercial fisheries, and some species eaten by whales may in fact be major predators of other commercially important fish. Equally, it has been shown that over-exploitation by man is primarily responsible for the parlous state, or collapse, of many commercial fisheries.

Q11: Countries claim whaling is 'sustainable'?

All references to sustainability are meaningless since countries have not stated what future policy will be. Sustainability implies the long-term viability of a stock - that's why the Revised Management Procedure (the method for calculating a catch of whales that will not effect the viability of populations) is evaluated against a variety of future scenarios for 100 years. Sustainability also requires that an acceptable risk level that a stock should not be depleted (at a certain level of probability) below some chosen level (e.g. some fraction of its carrying capacity or pre-exploitation level) has been specified and evaluated, so that the risk of extinction of the stock is not seriously increased by exploitation, this has not been done by the IWC Scientific Committee.

Furthermore, sustainable management is deFined as "managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well being".

Whaling does not fit this criteria as it damages other industries such as whalewatching. We believe that a well-regulated whalewatching industry is the only truly sustainable use of whales as a resource.

Q12: Do people eat a lot of whale meat?

There is already a glut of unwanted whale meat in Iceland (and Norway and Japan. A Gallup poll, commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare found that, "Only 1.1 percent of Icelanders eat whale meat once a week or more, while 82.4 percent of 16 to 24-year-olds never eat whale meat."

There is simply not sufficient demand for this amount of whale meat in Japan and there is still a glut of whale meat in cold storage from recent 'scientific' hunts. Japan has over 4,500 tonnes of whale meat stockpiled. (Source. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan Sep 2007)

MORI polls show that only 1% of Japanese regularly eat whale meat. Only 11% support whaling at all.

Q13: Is it safe to eat whale meat?

The UK Government has not assessed the effects to human health of consuming polluted whale and dolphin products. Nevertheless, we are aware that the presence of organochlorines (such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and dioxin) and heavy metals (such as methylmercury) in whales have lead to several Japanese and other international toxicologists voicing concerns about the health risks associated with eating contaminated whale meat.

It is widely known that North Atlantic Minke whales caught by Norway have such high levels of PCBs in their blubber and that, under Japanese law, it would be illegal for Japan to import and sell them for human consumption.

Norway's Food Safety Authority and Iceland's Directorate of Health have advised pregnant and nursing women to reduce, or stop eating whale meat because of high levels of contaminants.

The negative effects on human health through consumption of whale products is an emerging issue that the UK believes the International Whaling Commission is wholly competent to address.

Q14: Why did Iceland decide to resume commercial whaling?

The Icelandic Government has stated that it is because "The Icelandic economy is overwhelmingly dependent on the utilization of living marine resources". However, it has been shown that there is little, if any demand for whale meat both in Iceland or worldwide. Furthermore, trade in all whale products are banned under the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES).

Q15: So Iceland has a reservation against the moratorium. What does this mean?

The moratorium on commercial whaling was introduced by the IWC in 1985/86. Iceland was originally bound by the moratorium as the Icelandic Government agreed to abide by it when it was introduced. However, it controversially left the IWC in 1992 stating that the moratorium was no longer needed, only to rejoin the IWC in 2002 with a reservation on the moratorium.

The UK Government registered with the US State Department (as the depository country for the instrument of adherence to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling) a formal objection to Iceland's reservation. This objection still remains.

Q16: Is Iceland already whaling under a so-called scientific permit?

Iceland is currently engaged in a programme of scientific whaling under special permit which is due to end in 2007 with the killing of another 39 Minke whales (out of a total 200 since 2003). We believe that there is no need for lethal scientific whaling as almost all the information necessary for conservation and management can be obtained by non-lethal means.

In September 2003 the UK Government presented a démarche on behalf of 22 countries to the Icelandic Government in Reykjavik to condemn Iceland 's decision to start scientific whaling. The formal written statement presented by the UK Ambassador described Iceland's proposal to kill Minke whales in the name of science as being 'unjustified and unnecessary'.

Q17: Will Iceland seek to trade this whale with other countries, such as Japan?

The Icelandic Government has already expressed its desire to export Minke whale meat taken from its lethal scientific research programme to the Faroe Islands. It has also indicated that "whale products are likely to be consumed both domestically and overseas" suggesting that it will seek to trade in whale products.

However, Fin whales and Minke whales are listed under Appendix I of the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) which means that it is illegal to trade in the meat of these animals or any products derived from them. Whilst Iceland holds reservations against the listing of Common Minke whales and Fin whales under Appendix I, any attempts to circumvent such an important international Convention will be taken very seriously by the international community.

Q18: Has the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission reviewed Iceland's proposal to kill whales?

No. The UK is particularly concerned that the Icelandic Government should set quotas before any possible effects on whale populations have been properly assessed and peer-reviewed by those bodies recognised as competent to manage whale resources - the Scientific Committee of the IWC and - in light of its Findings - the IWC itself.

Q19: Will whaling damage Iceland's reputation as a tourist destination?

A growing number of jobs in Iceland depend on the developing whale-watching industry. Whale watching is reported as Iceland's fastest-growing tourism sector. In the past year, thousands of visitors from overseas (over 70,000 were British) have experienced the joy and excitement of sailing off the coast of Iceland to see whales swimming in their natural habitat.

Whale watching is worth more to Iceland that commercial whaling is ever likely to be and those who go whale watching are far more likely to want to visit a country that does not hunt whales commercially.

Q20: Surely Iceland has the right to manage its own marine resources?

Yes, however, it is well recognised that cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are highly migratory animals that do not respect international boundaries. Cetaceans require international conservation measures to ensure that we do not return to the slaughter that brought many cetacean species to the brink of extinction in the past.

Q21: Where can I Find more information?

Page published: 28 August 2007
Page last modified: 20 December 2007

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs