Before the moratorium took effect, Norway killed an average of 2,000 minke whales a year.

Norway objected to the ban, allowing its commercial whaling industry to continue after 1986. Initially, this was done under the ‘special permit’ provision which allows IWC Contracting Governments to ‘kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research’.

In 1993, Norway resumed commercial whaling under its objection to the moratorium. From an initial catch of 157 minkes in 1993, Norway’s commercial whale hunt peaked with 763 whales killed in 2014. In total, Norway has killed 14,306 minke whales since 1986.

Since 2014, the number of vessels engaged in the Norwegian whaling industry has declined and the number of whales killed consistently falls far short of the quotas issued by the government. Only two large processing/distributing companies bought whale meat in 2017, down from five the previous year.

The Government acknowledges the problems within the whaling industry but attributes its struggles to a failure to recruit more fishermen into whaling, and to the simple fact that fishing is more profitable.

The market faces a growing glut of whale meat. In 2017, more than 80 pallets of unsold whale meat were given away ‘because stores can only keep the meat for a one year shelf life and this meat is seven- or eight-months-old and hard to sell’.

Iceland did not formally object to the 1986 moratorium and was thus bound by the ban. However, it continued whaling after the moratorium took effect under the special permit provision. In 1992, the country withdrew from the IWC.

In 2002, Iceland rejoined the IWC and lodged a reservation to the moratorium – a move disputed by many countries as being contrary to international law. Iceland resumed special permit whaling in 2003.

In 2006, the country resumed commercial whaling under its contested reservation to the moratorium, targeting endangered fin whales as well as minke whales.

In June 2018, the Hvalur whaling company resumed fin whaling after a two year hiatus. The company came under intense international criticism in early July, when it killed a rare blue/fin hybrid whale. According to recent tax filings, Hvalur has not made a profit from whaling for some time.

Public support for whaling has plummeted in Iceland. A 2018 survey found that 34 per cent of the population actively oppose it (compared to 18 per cent in 2013).

Opposition has extended to Iceland’s parliament, with a number of MPs calling for a review of the reputational impact of Iceland’s whaling policy on key sectors such as tourism, and to assess the economic contribution of whaling compared to other sectors. The review is underway.

Japan initially filed an objection to the moratorium and continued commercial hunting. Following intense pressure from the United States and a threatened loss of fishing access, Japan signed the Murazawa-Baldrige deal in 1987 and subsequently became bound to the global ban.

Immediately after this, the Japanese Government began issuing special permits for lethal research – initially in the Antarctic, and later in the North Pacific too. The country’s ‘scientific’ whaling has been repeatedly criticised by scientists, governments and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as well as by the IWC itself.

In 2010, Australia initiated proceedings against Japan through the ICJ, claiming that its Antarctic whaling programme was in breach of its obligations under international agreements. In 2014, the ICJ ruled that the special permits issued by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales were not granted ‘for purposes of scientific research’.

Although Japan initially complied with the ICJ ruling and suspended its hunt, it quickly replaced the condemned research programme with another, which proposed to kill up to 333 minke whales a year until 2027.

The Japanese Government has remained outspoken in its support for commercial whaling. The fisheries agency committed $900,000 to a study into replacing the 30-year-old whaling ‘mothership’ despite 85 per cent of Japanese citizens opposing the use of taxpayer yen to build a new factory ship.

Although viewed as the main market globally for edible whale products, whale meat is not commonly eaten in Japan. At least 3,500 supermarkets, including major chains such as AEON, Ito-Yokado and Seiyu, have stopped selling whale and dolphin products in Japan.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has banned international commercial trade in the products of endangered whale species. While trade among Iceland, Japan and Norway is technically legal since the countries hold reservations to the ban, the United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre has raised concerns that such sizeable levels of trade undermine the effectiveness of established protections.

Japan, Iceland and Norway all have specific health requirements relevant to the sale of edible whale products. The failure to meet these requirements, both domestic and foreign, has been a common hindrance to Iceland and Norway’s whale product trade.

There have also been problems with the DNA registries used for traceability purposes.

In an increasingly desperate search for profits, all three nations whaling for commercial purposes have looked to the production of feed for animals.

In 2016, it was reported that the Norwegian company Rogaland Pelsdyrfôrlag used more than 113 tonnes of dumped whale products as food for fur animals.