Iceland review - 2016, Qupperneq 75

ICELAND REVIEW 73
ing, their main approach is not to force,
but to demonstrate that there is an
alternative. Environmental radicalism,
Sigursteinn remarks, has already worked
in favor of those who wanted to start
whaling again. In 1986, activists from
the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
sank two of Hvalur’s unoccupied whaling
vessels, which were moored at Reykjavík
harbor: “It was categorized as terrorism
and it mobilized Icelanders around the
idea that anything like that could not
stop us.”

DEFINING ‘SUSTAINABLE’
“The government totally relies on advice
from the Marine Research Institute
[MRI, the entity that defines what is sus-
tainable for the country’s fishing indus-
try] of Iceland on the number of whales
it is allowed to catch each year,” responds
Jóhann Guðmundsson, deputy director
general of the Ministry of Industries and
Innovation, regarding possible changes
in regulations on whaling.
“We calculate quota using a manage-
ment system that has been developed by
the International Whaling Commission.
It is a very conservative procedure that
takes a very precautionary choice,” states
Gísli Víkingsson, whale specialist at the
MRI. In the northern hemisphere, he
says, fin whales have recovered and keep
increasing in number. Still, scientists
observe fewer minke whales in Iceland’s
coastal areas—the stock is thought to
be as little as half what it was in 2009,
but research is ongoing. They hypothe-
size that the missing minke whales have
gone to Greenland, following their main
food source, the sand eel stock, which
has crashed in Iceland—due to climate
change.
Gísli reassures that whaling doesn’t
threaten the whale stock, as catches
are in line with the recommendations.
Near his office there is a locker with
an inscription: “Eat fish—live longer,
eat oysters—love longer, eat clams—last
longer.” How about eating whales?
Ásbjörn Björgvinsson, chairman of the
Icelandic Tourist Association, is among
those who believe that preserving all
members of these species is much more
worthwhile and sustainable with respect
to future generations. He considers
whaling “a pride, which is stronger than
common sense,” lacking social benefits,
as it doesn’t provide many jobs and has
unclear long-term effects: “It is like pee-
ing in your shoe: you get warm for a little
while, but then you get really cold.”
WHO WANTS TO EAT WHALES?
Anti-whaling activists stick to the argu-
ment that eating whale meat is abso-
lutely unnecessary. Their main nemesis,
Kristján, doesn’t hesitate to needle: “If
they want to stay slim—and they have
a problem with this in America—they
should eat whales: no added hormones.”
Meanwhile, a Gallup poll conducted in
October shows that Icelanders’ support
for whaling is dropping: 42.6 percent
responded that they are in favor of fin
whaling and 50.1 percent said they are
for minke whaling, compared to 56.9
percent and 65.7 percent respectivly in
2013. More than 80 percent haven’t pur-
chased any whale meat over the course
of the year. However, Gunnar Bergmann
asserts that he doesn’t feel any shortage
of demand: “We even had to import from
Norway [this year].” This season his crew
managed to catch 29 whales, while the
quota allowed 229. Next season, says
the whaler, they will try to catch at least
50 minke whales. Although he admits
that since “something is going on in the
ocean,” they might need to go further
north in search of their vanishing prey.
Gunnar Bergmann sounds hopeful but a
bit sad: such long-range maneuvers are
very costly. *
WHALING