Status in Iceland

EU membership: No.
While Iceland is not a member of the EU, some of the EU policies are integrated into Icelandic policy through the EEA (European Economic Area). However, the key biodiversity directives (Birds and Habitat) are not included.

Primary ecosystems and natural landscape: In terms of natural landscapes, Iceland is first and foremost characterized by volcanic nature and vast areas of uninhabited – and mostly uninhabitable – land.

In Iceland, there are certainly not many species on an international scale, but the value of biodiversity here lies in other aspects. The island country is geographically isolated in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in comparison to its nearest neighbouring countries. Additionally, Iceland was covered in glaciers during the last ice age a relatively short time ago. This environment has created exceptional conditions for organisms to colonize and evolve. There is great geological diversity in Iceland, which has created unique habitat diversity promoting diverse ecosystems, including opportunities for the few species that have settled to adapt to different habitats without much competition, and in isolation from the continents. This is often reflected in significant biodiversity within species and special local adaptations. Therefore, a simple species count alone is not a useful measure of the value of bio­diversity in Iceland (Sandberg et al. 2025). Our task – and priority – is to assess and preserve the bio­diversity that has developed here due to unique conditions, and to preserve the circumstances that underlie it.

Main biodiversity challenges: Climate change is particularly impacting the fishing industry, in both marine and freshwater ecosystems. Land use changes, especially in the lowland areas, are putting more pressure on key biodiversity areas such as natural birch forests, wetlands, and geothermal sites. Additionally, growing sectors such as tourism, aquaculture, and industrial forestry are placing a heavy load on often-sensitive ecosystems.

In Iceland, there are considerable gaps in knowledge of key concepts, the lack of mandate and responsibility for many key topics, and uncertainty regarding further implementation. Biodiversity governance is limited, not well defined, and spread out across various environmental government sectors (e.g., natural resources and spatial planning). Although a special Climate Council exists in Iceland, no cross-sectoral gover­nance body for biodiversity exists. With limited capacity to implement the GBF, Iceland failed to submit an updated NBSAP for COP16 in 2024. Further slowing the process during 2024 were factors such as political instability, difficult procedures regarding the establish­ment of new key protected areas through the Natural Heritage Register (Náttúruminjaskrá), and lack of implementation of necessary actions (e.g., to address invasive alien species). Unfortunately, there are also many examples of expert work that have not led to policy improvements, for example a failed attempt in 2013 to improve the Act on the Conservation and Hunting of Wild Birds and Mammals. Consequently, while the status of implementation is unknown for all GBF targets, it is clear that Iceland is far from reaching them. With a new government in 2025, there are positive signs of improvement regarding the CBD and GBF in Iceland.

Many attempts have been made by experts to improve Icelandic policy regarding biodiversity and nature conservation, with some positive outcomes. For example, the White Paper on Nature Conservation (Hvítbók um náttúruvernd) in 2011 led to significant improvements in the Nature Conservation Act (Lög um náttúruvernd), particularly regarding biodiversity goals. However, the Nature Conservation Act remains inadequate, and the implementation of key elements has been slow and full of challenges.

In October 2020, biologists at a European Molecular Biology Laboratory workshop identified Iceland as a key case study for biodiversity conservation. This led to the creation of Biodice, a network of scientists focused on research and raising awareness of biodiversity to address global ecosystem challenges.

At the beginning of 2024, the Ministry for the Environment, Energy, and Climate in Iceland established a policy group for the development of a strategy and action plan for biodiversity. It includes representatives from six ministries as well as a represen­tative from the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities. The policy group is responsible for writing a White Paper on Bio­diversity (strategy and action plan), which also supports the implementation of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In the autumn of 2024 Skúli Skúlason, the chairman of the board of Biodice, was appointed as the representative from the Ministry of Culture, Innovation and Higher Education in the policy group for the develop­ment of a biodiversity policy. This is a direct result of the successful workshop that was held in Iceland in April 2024. The policy group is aiming to publish their results in June 2025, and the work supports the outcomes of the Green Paper on Biodiversity (Grænbók um líffræðilega fjölbreytni íslenskra vistkerfa) that was made in 2022.

Additionally, there have been recent policy improvements related to national and regional spatial planning, land reclamation, and forestry and fisheries manage­ment. These improve­ments include some legislative measures and a clear focus on the ecosystem management approach. Although many key implementation steps remain unfinished, the Master Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilization (Rammaáætlun) is an example of a successful process. It contains holistic evaluation methods, based on scientific databases (including biodiversity data), to provide a foundation for decision making regarding the use of renewable hydro and geo­thermal energy sources and the protection of areas from such utilization.

Another recent positive example is that the Ministry of Food, Agri­culture and Fisheries established a policy group in March 2023 to lead the work of defining Iceland's priorities regarding the protection of marine areas within Icelandic jurisdiction. A final report from the policy group, Marine Protected Areas (Verndarsvæði í hafi), was published in 2024, including recommendations regarding priorities for government action and which areas can be considered marine protected areas. The policy group believes that, given the current state of knowledge about marine ecosystems, it is a significant challenge to achieve the goal of protecting 30% of Iceland’s exclusive economic zone by 2030, as outlined in the CBD. However, it is realistic to take immediate steps based on the existing knowledge and governance system, and to define how this goal will be pursued in the coming years.

Biodiversity is only superficially integrated into laws on spatial planning and is usually addressed in national, regional, and coastal plans, albeit at very varied levels. A positive example is that the protection of biodiversity is defined as one of the key issues in the new National Planning Strategy 2024–2038 (Landsskipulagsstefna). However, clear guidelines for biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning are missing for munici­palities and necessary guidance is sorely needed. This is concerning, as one of the major obstacles identified in the NBF workshop in Iceland was the lack of knowledge about biodiversity within planning authorities, which affects decision-making. Furthermore, there is a general lack of understanding about invasive alien species (IAS) in Iceland and considerable dis­agree­ment regarding the use of potentially invasive species – especially in the context of carbon forestry.

The NBF project in Iceland was expanded by the establishment of a cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, for whom Biodice has conducted an analysis of how the legislations and policies relate to the GBF. In this collaboration, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries set a great precedent in assessing its sectors for connections to biodiversity actions. These sectors include land reclamation and forestry, agri­culture, aquaculture, and fisheries. The assessment analysed how the GBF targets are being pursued within the institutions of the Ministry, and which stakeholders are involved. The assessment was divided into the following tasks:

Biodiversity has, in general, not been adequately integrated into Icelandic laws and policy. Many of the laws relevant to Targets 1–8 do not mention biodiversity but instead emphasize environ­mental matters and nature conservation. There are a few exceptions, such as the Nature Conservation Act (Lög um náttúruvernd) and the Act on Environmental Assessment for Projects and Plans (Lög um umhverfismat framkvæmda og áætlana), in which biodiversity is well integrated into the legal framework. Some action plans have integrated biodiversity in their policy: The Action Plan for Land Reclamation and Forestry (Land og líf) 2022–2026, the National Planning Strategy 2024–2038 (Landsskipulagsstefna), the Action plan for Agricultural Policy 2024–2040 (Aðgerðaáætlun landbúnaðarstefnu til 2040) and the Action Plan for Climate Change (Aðgerðaáætlun í loftslagsmálum) 2024. Further­more, there are policies in develop­ment in the sectors of fisheries, aquaculture, wind energy, waste reduction, and others where biodiversity is expected to play a significant role.

Despite these, by the end of 2024, no one from the administration had been working on gathering information for the monitoring framework (GBF indicators). The status of implementation is therefore unknown for Targets 1–8 but it is clear that Iceland is not even close to reaching them.

Further information on GBF target implementation for Iceland and an extensive detailed policy review on Targets 1–8 is available on biodice.is/nbf-policy

Headline indicator: none (relies on component and complementary indicators)

Climate change and biodiversity loss are not two problems which can be tackled separately but are intrinsically connected. Biodiversity is both the foundation for life and the foundation for the chemical processes that constitute our planet’s climate. At the same time, anthropogenic climate change threatens to upset the patterns of biodiversity, which has the potential to further exacerbate climate change. Climate mitigation strategies that harm biodiversity will therefore be ineffective in addressing climate change, and vice versa. Target 8 of the GBF therefore requires that climate and biodiversity be thought of as integrated problems. This is a relatively new approach within the political way of thinking.

In 2024, the Icelandic government released an Action Plan for Climate Change (Aðgerðaáætlun í loftslagsmálum) containing over 150 action points to tackle climate change. Most of these action points do not mention biodiversity, except those relating to ecosystem restoration. The Action Plan for Land Reclamation and Forestry (Land og líf) calls for the mapping and monitoring of the effects of climate actions, such as forestry, on biodiversity. With the exception of forests to climate change, most of the actions in the Action Plan for Land Reclamation and Forestry (Land og líf) have not yet begun in Iceland, having only a proposed budget but no secured funding. It is important to note that all climate actions can have either positive or negative effects on biodiversity. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the effects of all climate actions on biodiversity are positive and contribute to its conservation. It is not enough to focus solely on carbon sequestration and reducing carbon emissions, as in the Paris Agreement, but attention must also be paid to ecosystem restoration and biodiversity conservation.

The objectives of biodiversity restoration or conservation must be equally prioritized alongside climate actions. For example, land reclamation and forestry are best carried out using the guiding principles of the Ecosystem Approach, nature-based solutions, and sustainability. Land use is one of the largest contributors to Iceland’s emissions, accounting for about 62% of total emissions in 2022. The largest causes of these emissions are degraded eco­systems, such as drained wetlands and soil erosion. Ecosystem restoration (e.g., in wetlands) and increasing vegetation cover are strong actions to reduce emissions and increase carbon sequestration. These actions also contribute to improving ecosystems’ ability to adapt and enhance the services that ecosystems provide to humans and other living organisms. Ecosystem restoration and better land use is mentioned in the action plan for agriculture as a method for lowering emissions in agriculture (Target 2.3 of the action plan for agriculture).

Forestry is considered a strong climate action for carbon sequestration, but it can become complicated on the biodiversity front. This deserves special attention in Iceland where forestry commonly uses alien species which have become invasive and reduced biodiversity in other countries (Nuñez et al. 2017; Kourantidou et al. 2022). The EU has already increased requirements for the use of native species in restoration and climate actions. It is necessary to ensure that the goals of these climate actions promote bio­diversity and ecosystem functions (e.g., through restoration) along­side emission reduction to meet the targets of the GBF and other international agreements.