Why whaling continues!

Whaling season is now well underway again here in the northern hemisphere. The Norwegian fleet of five multi-purpose vessels has been in action for several weeks. Several hundred minke whales had been killed by mid-July. The fleet killed 429 in 2025 and so will certainly take many more before their current whaling season closes in the Autumn. Additionally, after much trumpeting of their intent, the whaling company in Iceland sent its two-remaining old, but purpose-built, whaling vessels out to sea in mid-June. These vessels are exceptional in that they are big enough to catch and tow very large whales. Their targets are fin whales, one of the true ocean giants (reaching lengths of up to 27m with adults weighing 45-75 tonnes). Of the whales brought back to land to be processed so far, one clearly shows four large wounds, evidence of the deployment of multiple harpoons. A particularly brutal and drawn-out kill.

The relaunch of the Icelandic whaling fleet this year is particularly disappointing given that Iceland did not take any whales at all in the preceding two years. Many of us were hoping this would soon become the permanent situation, especially given the growing lack of public support for this ongoing cruelty.

Japan’s whaling ships have also been in action. At this point, we know their quotas (145 minke whales, 153 Bryde’s whales, 56 sei whales and 58 fin whales) but not their actual catch, which will be published later in the year. The Japanese National Diet (their parliament) has shown how robustly they are in favour of whaling, evidenced by the funding, building and launching of a huge bespoke new whaling factory ship. The 9,300 ton vessel has been estimated to cost $47.4 million to $50.1 million (USD).

Meanwhile, in the Faroe Islands, a massive hunt of pilot whales (400+) and several hundred other dolphin species occurred on a single day, 27^th May 2026. Presumably the freezers in the island archipelago are now overflowing with meat from this and the earlier hunts conducted in the preceding months. We can speculate that they are probably dumping older meat to make space, a practice that has been widely reported previously, highlighting the fact that there is no real need for all this meat.

Whaling is a major political issue... for some.

Whilst the cetacean killing in Japan, Iceland, Norway and the Faroes operate in significantly different human cultural frameworks, there are some core similarities in their nationally-led pro-whaling campaigns. In all four nations politicians cite national sovereignty, cultural significance and cetacean impact on fisheries interests as justification. For these nations the whaling issue is politically significant, by which I mean that some politicians use support for whaling and dolphin hunting in their electioneering because in certain constituencies it gains them a significant number of votes.

The rhetoric of these politicians highlights the ‘importance’ of whaling and their role in defending it against outside forces, including ‘misguided’ nations and various ‘eco-freaks’ who are trying to deny their nation its ‘ancient right’ to harvest marine animals. Together these assertions make a series of strong and interlinked arguments the forcefulness of which helps explain why whaling persists.

Arguments of convenience

The whaling nations also make claims about cetacean population sustainability. They state that their kills make no significant difference to the survival of the populations concerned. As we learn more about whales and view how rapidly changing oceanic conditions are affecting them, such claims look increasingly challengeable.

The notion that whales and dolphins eat fish that human fishers would otherwise catch has been dismissed by the work of serious and independent scientists. The causes of failing fish stocks are more to do with human over-exploitation and climate change than cetacean feeding.

Finally, the pro-whaling protagonists in the whaling nations make loud statements about their methods being efficient and humane. Such claims are increasingly open to challenge as we have recently shown with the Faroes hunts. In addition, when Iceland took a good hard look at its whaling operations using its own independent observers in 2025 it concluded that Icelandic animal welfare laws were being broken. This predictable but important insight has probably helped to create the situation in this island nation where more people are now opposed to whaling than support it.

The Faroes government has reacted rather differently to the mounting evidence of the cruelty of its whaling. When a recent challenge went to its courts that a hunt had broken its national animal welfare law, the Faroe Islands legislature voted unanimously (all 33 of them) to totally remove whale and dolphin hunting from the provisions of that law. This must have been a popular win for the politicians but is a very sad result for the animals. The very next day (May 27th) saw the earlier mentioned huge multi-species hunt go ahead close to Tórshavn, the capital.

I should stress that in none of these countries is there any real need for food from hunted whales; all are relatively wealthy with access to plenty of other sources of food.

So why does whaling really continue?

In conclusion, let me further reinforce my point about national politics being a key driver and share what the Norwegian Fisheries Minister said earlier this year: “Norwegian whaling” she said, “is sustainable, strictly regulated, and the minke whale stock is in very good condition. Norway uses effective and animal welfare-friendly hunting methods. Furthermore, the whale’s large fish consumption affects the ecosystem, and to achieve the UN’s sustainability goals, we must also eat more seafood, and whaling provides healthy, locally sourced food.”

This invoking of the UN’s goals is truly remarkable. She is arguing that to achieve these important goals we should kill (and eat) more whales. For her this is clearly a politically expedient position to take and popular with her electorate (she represents the Northernmost constituency of Finnmark, where whaling will be a popular and vote winning issue). Her argument overlooks the relevant science about the contribution made by whales to ocean productivity.

So, in conclusion, my view is that the main reason that whaling continues in the wealthy nations described here is that it supports the political ambitions of some of their leaders. This can be contrasted with the situation inside those countries that oppose the continuation of commercial whaling. These include, Australia, Brazil, Spain, the UK and others, all of which also had a long history of whaling but, when faced with the scientific evidence, gave it up. In fact, many ceased whaling even before the ban on commercial whaling came into force in 1982, following a majority decision by IWC Member States. This very clearly shows that cultural change is possible where this is a national will.

In recent decades we have seen the IWC evolve from a whalers’ club focused exclusively on quota-setting to an important body that gives attention to all the threats facing cetaceans in the 21st century. Sadly, Japan and its allies largely opposed this evolution, but it has progressed nonetheless.

OceanCare as part of a coalition of more than 50 non-governmental organisations from all around the world has developed a 50-year vision for the IWC providing guidance towards global compliance and enforcement of the moratorium. This will further transform the IWC into a modern organisation that will provide guidance for the effective conservation of all whale and dolphin species on a global scale, thereby contributing to a healthy ocean. This vision was launched in 2021 and we stand by it and will con