Fin whaling should not have been postponed in summer

Iceland’s Parliamentary Ombudsman produced his report on Friday on whether the Fisheries Minister, Svandis Svavarsdottir, acted lawfully when she prohibited the whaling company Hvalur from going out whaling a day before it was due to start. The prohibition was due to last until August 31.

Not surprisingly, her decision was not popular with some of her colleagues in the ruling coalition, nor was it popular to the company itself and its employees. The Chair of the trade union for the area called a meeting in the nearby town of Akranes at which a lot of Hvalur employees and local right-wing politicians spoke up angrily about her decision, saying amongst other things that it went against the principle of proportionality, which is when someone gives a ruling that goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the desired result. The measure in question must not prove a burden to the party concerned.

The Minister had, however, done her homework very well and said that she had to act on animal welfare grounds because the Food and Veterinary Association (MAST) had produced a comprehensive report on the 2022 whaling season, which showed that a sizeable proportion of whales did not die instantly and some took up to 2 hours to die. She had subsequently commissioned the Council of Animal Welfare Specialists to look into the matter further, with an eye to animal welfare. They produced a report that said that whaling was inhumane and the Minister then postponed whaling.

Note that if the CEO of Hvalur, Kristjan Loftsson, had not kept delaying his reply to MAST after their draft report was complete, despite repeated requests from them, Svavarsdottir’s decision could have been made up to three months earlier. And Hvalur could have altered its plans, like not employing workers from June.

Loftsson intends to put in a claim for compensation of lost income – which might be difficult as whaling has not been profitable, as appeared in a report on the economic impact of whaling.

Nevertheless, the Ombudsman said (in long-winded, Icelandic text) that she had NOT accorded with the Principle of Proportionality, because she had not weighed up animal welfare with the basic principles of constitutional law on the protection of employment rights and freedom of employment of the licence holder’s (Hvalur) economic activity.

Yet he was sympathetic to her stance on animal welfare. One of the main issues seems to be that the Act on whaling dates from 1949, when attitudes were quite different to those today and animal welfare did not rank highly in society, let alone in legislation. The word “velferð” (Icelandic for “welfare”) does not occur in the 1949 Act. “It was not unnatural for the Minister to look into hunting equipment…” when interpreting Article 4 of the 1949 law, said the Ombudsman.

He also pointed out that when Loftsson was granted a licence for the years 2019 to 2023 inclusive, he was supposed to use equipment that would kill whales instantly or within the least possible time, and which caused minimal suffering. This has obviously not been the case. Magnusson says that the ministry should commission a report into hunting equipment and hunting procedures.

In his report, Magnusson said that it could not be excluded that the minister should take into account animal welfare considerations in her implementation of the 1949 law. Indeed, it was always assumed that changes would be made to the 1949 law in light of changes implemented at meetings of the International Whaling Commission. But this was not done in Iceland.

Not surprisingly, reactions have been heated to the Ombudsman’s decision. There have been calls for the Minister to resign, calls for a vote of no confidence, and supposition that this issue might cause the government to collapse. However, it is probable that nothing definite will happen until the parliamentary Althingi resumes on 22 January. Ironically, it is primarily those who are against whaling who are calling for a vote of no confidence while the Minister’s colleagues in the ruling party are mostly pro-whaling but are likely to support her – though probably unwillingly – with the aim of holding the government together until the next elections, which are scheduled for next year. Support for all three parties in the ruling coalition has decreased markedly since the last election.

The Minister has stood her ground despite criticisms and has said, for instance, that changes are being made to the 1949 legislation in terms of animal welfare in light of Magnusson’s comments.

Note that Kristjan Loftsson has not applied for a renewal of the five-year licence to hunt fin whales, which ran out at the end of last year. So maybe the whole thing is an academic exercise and fin whaling won’t happen again.

Update 25 January: Hvalur has submitted a claim to the State Attorney for “massive loss of income” while the whaling ban was in place and wants the State to pay the wages to Hvalur’s employees while the ban was in place. (Note that he kept on at least 80 employees, who were trying to remedy “faults” during the whaling season when things didn’t work as they should.)

Update 7 February: Kristjan Loftsson has applied for another licence for whaling for the next years, on the basis that the State Ombudsman said that everyone had a right to practise whatever employment they want – which in the case of Loftsson means whaling. What happens now is anyone’s guess.