Marine Protection

Southern Shelf Slopes (Southern Rim)


Recommendations of the MFRI on marine protection
Author

Marine and Freshwater Research Institute

Published

10. June 2026

Protected Area

The area advicerd for protection includes the shelf slopes of southern Iceland, from Háfadjúp in the west to the Faroe Ridge in the east, and from the shelf edge along the shelf break and down beyond the canyons and ridges that dissect the shelf break (Figure 1).

The boundaries of the area were delineated according to the following criteria, with the aim of conservation while also minimising impacts on fishing:

The first step was a geomorphological analysis of the canyon system of the continental slope, which delineated an area of 23,793 km². The shallower boundaries were aligned with the boundary between the shelf and the shelf break, and were partly adjusted to account for trawling lanes at and near the break. The deep boundaries are governed by the limits of the canyon system, which extend down to the ocean floor. Coral protection zones under Regulation 188/2023 lying within and adjacent to the shelf break were incorporated into these boundaries. These comprise areas A. Reynisdjúp, B. and C. in Skaftárdjúp, D. Skeiðarárdjúp, E. Hornafjarðardjúp, F. the rim off Hornafjarðardjúp, H. the rim off Lónsdjúp to Papagrunn, I. the rim off Papagrunn and J. an area on the Iceland–Faroe Ridge known as the Rose Garden (Rósagarðurinn) (Figure 2 and Figure 3). It is also proposed to incorporate coral reefs at Öræfagrunn, which lie close to the shelf edge (Figure 4). The predicted distribution of two coral species that form coral reefs around Iceland, as derived from a habitat suitability model, was used as a reference, though the model only covered areas shallower than 800 m.

The total area is 32,712 km², which corresponds to 4.3% of Iceland’s exclusive economic zone (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Location – coordinates and map

The area is shown on a map and coordinates are provided.

Figure 1: Proposed protected area within Iceland’s exclusive economic zone.
Table 1: Coordinates of the protected area (WGS84).
Coordinates 1–33
Coordinates 34–66
Coordinates 67–99
No. Latitude N Longitude W No. Latitude N Longitude W No. Latitude N Longitude W
1 64° 1.18' 13° 5.92' 34 63° 16.36' 19° 4.53' 67 63° 24' N 16° 3.46'
2 63° 56.9' 13° 10.91' 35 63° 15.8' 19° 0.74' 68 63° 25.05' 15° 56.7'
3 63° 32.49' 12° 54.6' 36 63° 15.36' 18° 56.44' 69 63° 27.87' 15° 45.81'
4 63° 26.1' 13° 0.69' 37 63° 14.82' 18° 54.85' 70 63° 28.34' 15° 40.8'
5 63° 15.18' 14° 15.8' 38 63° 14.31' 18° 52.98' 71 63° 28.4' 15° 30.92'
6 62° 39.8' 14° 58.73' 39 63° 15.09' 18° 50.01' 72 63° 30.85' 15° 17.88'
7 62° 11.69' 18° 52.7' 40 63° 13.9' 18° 46.62' 73 63° 33.68' 15° 4.35'
8 61° 48.99' 18° 40.52' 41 63° 13.9' 18° 44.04' 74 63° 35.67' 14° 50.1'
9 61° 32.47' 18° 44.35' 42 63° 13.98' 18° 40.92' 75 63° 36.27' 14° 48.5'
10 61° 57.93' 19° 20.89' 43 63° 13.3' 18° 36.35' 76 63° 36.66' 14° 48.51'
11 62° 14.36' 19° 19.42' 44 63° 12.95' 18° 32.87' 77 63° 37.22' 14° 47.5'
12 62° 53.3' 18° 48.01' 45 63° 13.01' 18° 22.76' 78 63° 37.54' 14° 41.75'
13 62° 51.94' 19° 12.28' 46 63° 12.39' 18° 15.06' 79 63° 37' N 14° 39.28'
14 62° 39.87' 19° 44.63' 47 63° 11.78' 18° 11.23' 80 63° 38' N 14° 36.02'
15 62° 41.71' 20° 35.41' 48 63° 10.98' 17° 59.91' 81 63° 39.59' 14° 31.82'
16 62° 58.94' 20° 9.82' 49 63° 11.4' 17° 56.98' 82 63° 43.64' 14° 20.75'
17 63° 3.72' 20° 7.46' 50 63° 11.42' 17° 54.49' 83 63° 45.78' 14° 12.54'
18 63° 6.09' 20° 8.11' 51 63° 12.58' 17° 50' W 84 63° 46.71' 14° 7.61'
19 63° 9.35' 20° 11.83' 52 63° 12.59' 17° 43.31' 85 63° 46.54' 14° 4.53'
20 63° 11.76' 20° 11.89' 53 63° 13.4' 17° 38.03' 86 63° 47.05' 13° 59.06'
21 63° 12.99' 20° 10.89' 54 63° 13.7' 17° 35.03' 87 63° 48.24' 13° 51.26'
22 63° 13.95' 20° 9.03' 55 63° 13.9' 17° 27.01' 88 63° 49.41' 13° 49.13'
23 63° 14.37' 20° 6.48' 56 63° 15.68' 17° 13.69' 89 63° 50.48' 13° 48.06'
24 63° 14.83' 20° 0.09' 57 63° 16.27' 17° 9.53' 90 63° 51.53' 13° 46.37'
25 63° 17.66' 19° 48.51' 58 63° 18' N 17° 1.61' 91 63° 52.27' 13° 45.32'
26 63° 19.25' 19° 45.72' 59 63° 20.07' 16° 55.24' 92 63° 52.56' 13° 45.01'
27 63° 20.22' 19° 42.79' 60 63° 20.17' 16° 48.03' 93 63° 54.15' 13° 42.59'
28 63° 20.88' 19° 40.27' 61 63° 18.23' 16° 47.32' 94 63° 55.74' 13° 38.95'
29 63° 21.12' 19° 37.6' 62 63° 19.15' 16° 39.15' 95 63° 57.71' 13° 33.47'
30 63° 19.72' 19° 29.08' 63 63° 21.61' 16° 28.6' 96 63° 58.61' 13° 30.16'
31 63° 19.1' 19° 22.99' 64 63° 22.24' 16° 22.48' 97 63° 59.43' 13° 27.13'
32 63° 18.55' 19° 17.66' 65 63° 22.7' 16° 17.72' 98 64° 0.05' 13° 23.05'
33 63° 17.36' 19° 11.66' 66 63° 23.19' 16° 9.39' 99 64° 1.18' 13° 5.92'
Figure 2: Existing coral protection zones under Regulation 188/2023 (A–J) (blue polygons), outline of the canyon system at the southern shelf break (pink polygon), and the proposed protected area (black hatched polygon).
(a) Skaftárdjúp B and C
(b) Hornafjarðardjúp E and F
(c) Cumulative trawl effort 2015–2024 (Skaftárdjúp)
(d) Cumulative trawl effort 2015–2024 (Hornafjarðardjúp)
Figure 3: Under the proposal, the existing protected areas at Skaftárdjúp B and C would be merged (left) and those at Hornafjarðardjúp E and F would be merged (right). The lower images show cumulative bottom trawl effort for 2015–2024.
(a) Circular formations (red circles) interpreted as coral reefs at Öræfagrunn. The black hatched area is the proposed protected area.
(b) Cumulative bottom trawl effort 2015–2024 at Öræfagrunn.
Figure 4: Öræfagrunn. Red circles indicate circular formations considered to be coral reefs (left). The right image shows cumulative bottom trawl effort 2015–2024. Inset maps show the location of Öræfagrunn (blue box).

Conservation Objectives

The designation of the area must reflect its conservation objectives and needs. The area contains sensitive ecosystems, sensitive species (such as corals and sponges), red-listed species and special geological formations. To achieve these objectives, protection is required under which all activities that contact or could otherwise affect the seabed should be prohibited.

Protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems and measures to prevent fishing within them fall under the Act on Fisheries within Iceland’s Fisheries Jurisdiction – Article 9. Designation under that legislation protects the area against incursion by fishing gear, but not against other human activities.

There are nine Icelandic protection categories (see: Government of Iceland | Protection Categories), which correspond to the classification system of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Under that system, the protection category Náttúruvé (Nature Reserve) would best match the conservation objectives for the area. IUCN classifies protected areas into six categories, and under its definitions the area should be classified as Protection Category Ia – Strict Nature Reserve.

Rationale for Protection

The criteria and benchmarks applied in assessing the area are set out in the introduction to the advisory report (Marine and Freshwater Research Institute 2026a). Existing data, references and predictive models for the area were used. The area is considered to require protection because it contains:

  1. A unique landscape, a sensitive natural equilibrium of geological strata and a remarkable geological history.

  2. Sensitive ecosystems and species.

Geology and geological history

The seabed landscape within the area is unique among marine areas around Iceland. It is characterised by a steep shelf break dissected by gullies and canyons. The thick sediment fill shaped by the canyons and channels preserves a long history of sediment transport and records repeated glacial outburst floods, volcanic eruptions and sea-level changes. The slopes in this area are near the threshold of collapse and stability, where large-scale disturbance could disrupt the natural equilibrium between stability, mass wasting and sediment transport. The area also contains the Katla Ridges (Kötluhryggir), which form a spectacular submarine landscape. The substrate and oceanographic conditions in the area create favourable conditions for diverse ecosystems.

Sensitive ecosystems and species

Within the area, 33 species of coral are known, together with 7 fish species included on the IUCN Red List. The area contains several ecosystems identified as Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) under the guidelines by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), or as habitats and species defined as “threatened and/or declining” under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention). These include coral reefs, coral gardens, sea-pen gardens and sponge aggregations.

Coral reefs have a limited distribution around Iceland, occurring almost exclusively on the shelf south of the country, on the shelf break to the south and west, and to some extent along the Reykjanes Ridge (Sigmar A. Steingrímsson and Sólmundur T. Einarsson 2004). Coral reefs have not been found to the north or east of the country, in fjords, or close inshore. Coral reefs along the shelf break have been largely destroyed, with only a small fraction remaining living, as these reefs lied on what is now one of the main trawling grounds around Iceland. Photographic evidence also shows considerable amounts of discarded fishing line entangled in the corals (Petrún Sigurðardóttir and Steinunn H. Ólafsdóttir 2022). Coral areas on the shelf at Skaftárdjúp, Skeiðarárdjúp and Lónsdjúp were protected in 2005 and 2011, and at the same time areas along the shelf break were protected in Reynisdjúp, off Skaftárdjúp, off Hornafjarðardjúp, off Lónsdjúp and at Papagrunn (Figure 2). The Skaftárdjúp and Hornafjarðardjúp areas were divided in two to allow trawling between them (Figure 3). Fishing thus takes place close to the coral, which may affect recruitment and recovery of coral reefs. Recovery of cold-water coral reefs is slow (Williams et al. 2010; Huvenne et al. 2016) and it is important that coral areas can receive new larvae and provide suitable conditions for their growth. Coral reefs at Öræfagrunn were in very poor condition when surveyed in 2004 (Sigmar A. Steingrímsson and Sólmundur T. Einarsson 2004). Electronic logbook data show that the area is now avoided by trawlers (Figure 4), and footage from 2019 shows that coral trees and sponges are now growing there, supporting the conclusion that recovery is underway and underscoring the importance of the area (Steinunn H. Ólafsdóttir et al. 2021).

Research and Background Data

Geology and Geological History

The continental shelf of southern Iceland, from Háfadjúp in the west to Papagrunn in the east, spans an area approximately 400 km in length, characterised by shallow banks and deep troughs (Figure 5). The mean depth is approximately 200 metres, of which roughly 60% lies at depths of 110–200 m, delineating the banks that separate seven glacial troughs reaching up to 370 m depth. The shelf break in this section is sharp, and beyond it the continental slope descends to the deep ocean at a gradient of approximately 15° (Pálmason, 1974). Multibeam bathymetry shows that the upper part of the slope is relatively smooth, while the lower part is dissected by canyons, and that the present shelf break overrides the upper reaches of those canyons. Guðrún Helgadóttir and Kjartan Thors (2010) described how the present shelf break probably began to form at the start of the Holocene, approximately 10,000 years ago, and that the canyons south of Iceland – in particular Reynisdjúpsgljúfur and Mýrdalsjökulsgljúfur – formed from the onset of the ice ages and have been incised and maintained by powerful turbidity currents transporting large volumes of volcanic and ice-rafted sediment from the southern Iceland shelf down the continental slope and out into the Iceland Basin. Seismic surveys by the US Navy in the early 1970s suggested that the sediment pile at the base of the western Iceland–Faroe Ridge, in the area near Lónsdjúp, could be up to 1 km thick (Johnson & Tanner, 1971).

Automated landscape feature mapping was carried out using the BRESS software, based on a 50 × 50 m bathymetric grid, a 1° flatness threshold and inner and outer search windows of 5 and 10 cells. The method classified the outer shelf as a “flat” landform and identifies the shelf break and upper slope as a continuous band of steep forms. Below this band the canyon system emerges clearly as slopes, ridges and channels.

The mapped area covers the main belt of canyons, ridges, channels and terraces and spans the depth range where cold-water corals and other sensitive seabed habitats are known to occur. The thick sediment fill shaped by the canyons and channels preserves a long history of sediment transport and records repeated glacial outburst floods, volcanic eruptions and sea-level changes. Multibeam bathymetry shows that the slopes in this area, and more broadly along the shelf break, are near the threshold of collapse and stability, where large-scale disturbance could disrupt the natural equilibrium between stability, mass wasting and sediment transport. The clear distinction between the younger, relatively smooth upper slope and the older, deeply incised lower slope provides a good cross-section through two stages in the development of the continental shelf off southern Iceland. Treating the shelf break, continental slope and canyon system as a single continuous geological unit strengthens the case for protecting the entire canyon and slope belt as one coherent area.

Figure 5: Delineation of the canyon system of the continental slope off the southern shelf break.

Benthic Biology Research

Submarine canyons are known habitats of sensitive species. In addition to their favourable environmental conditions, canyons provide areas where sensitive ecosystems such as corals and sponges are largely protected from trawling, although net and line fishing can take place there. Coral reefs occur in canyons in the Bay of Biscay, the Mediterranean and the Whittard Canyon within Irish jurisdiction (Rodríguez-Basalo et al. 2026; van den Beld et al. 2017; Fernandez-Arcaya et al. 2017; Huvenne et al. 2011). Coral reefs have been protected at Darwin Mound off Scotland (De Santo and Jones 2007) and on continental slopes off Norway (Armstrong and van den Hove 2008). Canada has protected “The Gully”, a submarine canyon off Nova Scotia, for the conservation of biological diversity. The area covers 2,363 km², is home to more than 30 coral species and is also important for whales (The Gully Marine Protected Area).

Research on the benthic fauna of the area is listed in Table 2. The earliest records of coral within the area date back to 1896 during the Ingolf Expedition. Most coral records come from the project “Benthic Invertebrates of Icelandic Waters” (BioIce 1992–2004), in which corals were recorded at 29 of the 30 stations sampled within the area between 1993 and 2002, with records extending down to 1,950 m depth (BIOICE). Samples were collected using benthic invertebrate sledges or dredges. From these stations, 33 coral species from 18 families have been identified. In total, 27 species from 21 coral families have been identified from underwater video footage obtained during five habitat mapping surveys within the area. Material was collected along the shelf break and down to 600 m depth on 35 transects (Table 2) (Steinunn H. Ólafsdóttir et al. 2020, 2021a). Coral carpets and coral reefs were recorded within the area. In addition, corals were observed in footage collected in connection with surveys by the French research institute IFREMER and the German research institute Senckenberg, though analysis of that material is not yet complete. Corals (unidentified species) have been retrieved as bycatch at 16 stations from Háfadjúp eastward to the Síðugrunn shelf break in the Marine and Freshwater Research Institute’s net survey, all of which lie within the area. Seven coral species were recorded as bycatch in the autumn groundfish survey in 2016, 2017 and 2018 at four stations (Steinunn H. Ólafsdóttir and Guðmundur Guðmundsson 2019).

Table 2: List of surveys, stations, research methods and purpose of research within the proposed protected area. *coral carpets, **coral reefs.
Survey Stations Research method Purpose/project No. of coral species/families
Habitat mapping surveys (B8-2019, B7-2012, B9-2010, B6-2009, B6-2004) 32 stations (606, 613*, 619*, 625*, 627*, 629', 630*, 632*, 635*, 640*, 641*, 642**; 390*, 392**, 393**, 394, 395*, 396*, 397**, 398**, 399**, 400*, 401*, 402, 403**; 424**, 425*, 433**, 435**, 436**; 374**, 390*; 5–7) Underwater video cameras Seabed habitat mapping. 27/21
ICECTD 2012 2 transects Underwater video cameras Research project of the French research institute IFREMER. Analysis not complete
IceAGE 2020 1 transect Underwater video cameras Research project of the German research institute Senckenberg. Analysis not complete
Net survey 1–16 Nets Annual net survey of the Marine and Freshwater Research Institute. unidentified
Autumn groundfish survey (A11-2016, A13-2017, A12-2018) Fixed stations 270-61, 363-1, 363-2, 316-61 Standard research trawl Autumn bottom fish stock assessment – annual survey of the Marine and Freshwater Research Institute. 7/4
BIOICE (B-9-93, B-13-95, B-8-97, B-11-01, B-11-02) 17 stations (566–570; 722, 723, 725–727; 276–278, 300, 301; 727; 536) RP sledge, Sneli sledge, Triangle, Agassiz trawl Collection of benthic invertebrates within Icelandic waters. Major project 1991–2004. Institute of Biology, Marine and Freshwater Research Institute, Icelandic Institute of Natural History in collaboration with foreign partner institutions. 33/18
Thor 1903, 1908 166, 167 — Fisheries research 4/4
Ingolf Expedition 1896 7, 53, 54, 55, 57 — Expedition of Danish scientists to survey the waters around Iceland. 7/5

List of coral species:

Acanella arbuscula, Acanthogorgia armata, Anthomastinae, Anthomastus purpureus, Anthopthilum murrayi, Clavularia arctica, Desmophylum petusum, Distichoptilum gracile, Duva florida, Drifa glomerata, Funiacyathus (F) fragilis, Funiculina quadrangularis, Gersemia fruticosa, Heteropolypus sol, Kophobelemnon sp., Pennaula aculeata, Primnoa resedaeformis, Lateothela, Madrepora oculata, Muriceides kuekenthali, Paragorgia arborea, Protoptilum thomsonii, Pseudoanthomastus, Paramuricea biscaya, Placogorgia graciosa, Pseudodrifa groenlandica, Pseudodrifa racemosa, Premocyathus cornuformis, Stylatula elegans, Telestula septentrionalis, Umbellula encrinus, Vaughanella, Virgularia mirabilis.

Habitat Suitability Modelling for Two Coral Species

Knowledge of the distribution of organisms on the seabed is limited, but targeted habitat mapping is used to improve species inventories and identify community structures. Models can be applied to supplement this knowledge by predicting, at a broader scale, where suitable habitats exist for selected species. These models use information on environmental conditions at the seabed, such as depth, slope, aspect, bottom roughness, temperature, salinity, aragonite saturation and nitrate concentration. Occurrence records for selected species are then incorporated, enabling the models to identify the environmental conditions under which the species thrive and to predict areas where they are likely to be found.

A habitat suitability model was run for the distribution of the coral species Desmophylum pertusum and Madrepora oculata based on occurrence records from BioIce and the habitat mapping surveys (Figure 6).

The modelling results suggest that the most suitable habitat conditions for these two coral species are primarily found on the Reykjanes Ridge, in Háfadjúp, on the southern slopes and in the deep waters off south-east Iceland (Figure 7). Habitats classified as good or very good (orange and red in Figure 7) cover approximately 3,500 km², and habitats classified as moderate (yellow in Figure 7) cover approximately 6,800 km². These areas occur mainly where depths range from 230–1,640 m and sea temperatures are between 5.6 and 7.8 °C. The model indicates that habitat conditions are better on sloping and rough terrain than on flat areas. Data collection at depths greater than 800 m has been limited, leading to greater uncertainty in model results for deeper areas. In the data used for modelling, four coral occurrence records came from depths of 1,000–1,700 m.

Map showing occurrence of stony corals
Figure 6: Location of the stony corals Desmophyllum pertusum and Madrepora oculata (coloured dots) from BioIce data and habitat mapping surveys. Black dots indicate absence records.
Predicted habitat suitability map for corals
Figure 7: Model predictions showing the distribution of habitat suitability for Desmophylum pertusum and Madrepora oculata. Suitability has been divided into five classes based on the probability of coral occurrence given the environmental conditions in each 100×100 m cell: Very poor = 0.0–0.2; poor = 0.2–0.4; moderate = 0.4–0.6; good = 0.6–0.8; very good = 0.8–1. The light blue lines indicate the 200 and 800 m depth contours.

Sensitive Species and Ecosystems/Habitats

The area contains sensitive habitats and species or indicator species of habitats listed by OSPAR, ICES and NEAFC (Marine and Freshwater Research Institute 2026a) for the North Atlantic (Table 3 and Table 4, figures Figure 7 to Figure 12).

Table 3: Habitats on the OSPAR list that are threatened or in decline in OSPAR Region I and occur within the proposed protected area.
Habitat
☒ Coral gardens
☒ Deep-sea sponge aggregations
☒ Coral reefs – Lophelia pertusa reefs
Table 4: Sensitive ecosystems, sub-types and indicator groups listed by ICES and NEAFC where applicable, that occur within the proposed protected area.
Ecosystem Sub-type Indicator group NEAFC
Cold-water coral reefs Lophelia pertusa / Madrepora oculata reefs Stony corals x
Coral garden Aggregations of framework-forming stony corals Stony corals x
Coral garden Lace corals on hard substrate Lace corals/Stylasterids
Coral garden “Cup-coral” gardens Solitary stony corals x
Sea-pen fields — Sea pens x
Deep-sea sponge aggregations — Sponges of various types x

Cold-water coral reefs

Coral reefs and coral carpets of the species Desmophyllum pertusum (previously known asophelia pertusa), Madrepora oculata* and Solenosmilia variabilis (Figure 8 and Figure 9). Coral reefs are listed by OSPAR, FAO and ICES as sensitive ecosystems.

Coral reef off Papagrunn

Coral reef off Papagrunn

Figure 8: Coral reefs along the shelf break off Papagrunn.
Coral carpet and sponges off Mýragrunn
Figure 9: Coral carpet and sponges along the shelf break off Mýragrunn.

Sea-pen fields

Sea-pen fields on soft substrate are listed by ICES and NEAFC as sensitive ecosystems. Such fields are often formed by more than one sea-pen species. Along the shelf break south of Iceland they are widespread, with the most common species being Pennatula aculeata (red feather pen – proposed Icelandic name) and Kophobelemnon (Figure 10). In Háfadjúp, sea pens and the bamboo coral Acanella arbuscula form similar gardens.

Sea-pen garden along the shelf break
Figure 10: Two sea-pen species forming a garden, Kophobelemnon sp. and Pennatula aculeata, along the shelf break off Síðugrunn.

Coral garden on soft substrate

“Cup coral” is a collective term for several species from more than one family of stony corals that are solitary (do not form colonies). They can form aggregations on soft substrate (Figure 11), or settle on hard substrate including rock and other hard coral. There is no established English common name for this group of stony corals that would distinguish it in the context used here; it may be referred to as “cup corals” in direct translation. Such ecosystems are listed by ICES and NEAFC.

Cup coral aggregation
Figure 11: Aggregation of cup corals in sediment along the shelf break off Öræfagrunn.

Sponge aggregations

Many sponge species occur along the shelf break. Sometimes certain species are dominant (Figure 12), while at other times many species occur together.

Sponge aggregation off Mýragrunn
Figure 12: Sponge aggregation off Mýragrunn where plate-shaped sponges are dominant.

Red List Status

Cold-water corals have recently been assessed globally under the IUCN Red List classification (https://www.iucnredlist.org/; Sigwarts et al. 2025). Within the proposed protected area, one species was assessed as Vulnerable and five species are considered Near Threatened (Table 5).

Table 5: IUCN global assessment of the conservation status of cold-water corals. No such assessment has been carried out specifically for Icelandic waters.
IUCN category¹ Species
Vulnerable (VU) Desmophyllum pertusum (Linnaeus, 1758)
Near Threatened (NT) Paragorgia arborea (Linnaeus, 1758)
Funiculina quadrangularis (Pallas, 1766)
Kophobelemnon stelliferum (Müller, 1776)
Pennatula aculeata Danielssen, 1860
Primnoa resedaeformis (Gunnerus, 1763)
¹ Species are assigned to one of nine Red List categories: Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD) and Not Evaluated (NE).

Several fish species within the area appear on the European IUCN Red List as Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened (Table 6). Beaked redfish, roundnose grenadier, spurdog, leafscale gulper shark, Portuguese dogfish and birdbeak dogfish are classified as Endangered. Orange roughy and blue ling are Vulnerable, while rabbitfish and velvet belly lanternshark are considered Near Threatened in Europe. Beaked redfish is most common at 400–600 m depth on the continental slope in the warm Atlantic water to the west, south and south-east of Iceland (Marine and Freshwater Research Institute 2025 Beaked redfish). The distributions of rabbitfish, velvet belly lanternshark, spurdog, leafscale gulper shark, Portuguese dogfish and birdbeak dogfish also include the shelf break to the south and south-east of Iceland (Jac et al. 2021; Mattína et al. 2024; Sólmundsson et al. 2025).

Table 6: Fish species within the area that appear on the IUCN European Red List as Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened.
IUCN category¹ Species
Endangered (EN) Roundnose grenadier Coryphaenoides rupestris
Beaked redfish Sebastes mentella
Spurdog Squalus acanthias
Leafscale gulper shark Centrophorus squamosus
Portuguese dogfish Centroscymnus coelolepis
Birdbeak dogfish Deania calceus
Vulnerable (VU) Orange roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus
Blue ling Molva dypterygia
Near Threatened (NT) Rabbitfish Chimaera monstrosa
Velvet belly lanternshark Etmopterus spinax
¹ See footnote in Table 4 for category definitions.

Orange roughy occurs from the western Icelandic grounds south past Reykjanes and all the way to the Rose Garden off south-east Iceland (Gunnar Jónsson and Jónbjörn Pálsson 2013) and has mainly been caught by bottom trawl south of Skeiðarárdjúp and on the Katla Ridges (Klara Jakobsdóttir, unpublished). Orange roughy is also considered to be under pressure in the North Atlantic under OSPAR. Footage from habitat mapping surveys shows orange roughy in close association with sponges and corals along the shelf break (Figure 12). Roundnose grenadier is classified as Critically Endangered globally but Endangered in Europe.

Orange roughy at coral and sponge habitat
Figure 13: Orange roughy at a coral and sponge habitat along the shelf break off Öræfagrunn.

Fish–habitat associations are diverse. Certain areas serve as spawning grounds or nursery areas, others as feeding grounds, but these associations are often poorly understood. In some cases fish use other species to protect their eggs, as was evident in underwater footage from habitat mapping surveys where several egg cases of smooth lanternshark (probably Jensen’s lanternshark) were entangled in Primnoid coral (Figure 14), and a rabbitfish egg case (presumably) was observed lying on the seabed (Figure 15).

Shark egg cases on Primnoidae coral
Figure 14: Shark egg cases (yellow or brown, elongated) attached to branches of Primnoidae coral.

Rabbitfish egg case on the seabed

Rabbitfish egg case among sponges and corals

Figure 15: Rabbitfish egg case on the seabed among sponges, corals and other fauna.

Important Areas for Sharks and Rays

ISRA (Important Shark and Ray Areas) are defined by IUCN to identify marine areas of particular importance for sharks, rays and other chondrichthyans. Háfadjúp is among the areas around Iceland considered likely to be important, in particular for velvet belly lanternshark and rabbitfish.

Connectivity of Coral Areas

Connectivity between coral areas on the shelf and in the shelf break has not been studied, but coral larvae are released into the water column where currents carry them to other areas (Strömberg and Larsson 2017), maintaining recruitment to coral populations. The same species form coral reefs on the shelf and in the shelf break, although Solenosmilia variabilis also occurs at greater depths. It is important that the reefs are in good condition in order to contribute to the dispersal and maintenance of coral areas.

Impacts on Current Fishing Effort / Exploitation

Bottom trawling, longline fishing and cod-net fishing all take place on the shelf and in the shelf break (Figure 17, Figure 18 and Figure 19). To assess the impact of area closure on catches, information from electronic logbooks was used together with vessel positions derived from automatic identification systems. For longlines and bottom trawls, active fishing positions were restricted to those identified by fishing speed based on automatic measurements and by the time-stamped entries for start and end of fishing operations in the logbooks. For net fishing, where time-stamped records of individual fishing operations are often incomplete, only vessel speed within recorded fishing days according to the logbooks was used. The catch from individual fishing operations (longlines and bottom trawl) or fishing days (cod nets) was then distributed across individual fishing position records. The catch from each gear type in each year within cells of approximately 300×300 metres was summed. The total catch and the proportion within and outside each proposal were then used in the summary.

Total Catch

In general, the impact of the proposed area closure on annual catches over the past 10 years (2015–2024) is small for longlines and nets. The median share of annual catch on the Icelandic grounds over the past 10 years was around or below 0.1% within the area, with the share in individual years reaching a maximum of 0.3%. For bottom trawl, the median share of annual catch is around 0.6%, reaching at most 1% in individual years.

Table 7: Icelandic grounds 2015–2024. Median share (%) of annual catch and number of vessels within the proposed closure. Minimum and maximum annual values in parentheses.
Gear type Share of catch (%) Number of vessels
Bottom trawl 0.6 (0.4–1) 22 (19–30)
Longline 0 (0–0.3) 4 (1–8)
Cod net 0.2 (0–0.9) 3 (1–5)

Looking further back in time, the area’s share of total catch was generally higher during 2009–2014 than in more recent years (Figure 16). The highest share for bottom trawl was just under 2.5% in 2010, for longlines around 1.6% in 2011 and for nets around 1% in 2012.

Proportion of catch by gear type
Figure 16: Proportion of catch within the proposed protected area by gear type.

Catch by Species

The share of annual catch over the past 10 years (2016–2024) attributed to the proposed area for traditional commercial species is: beaked redfish (6% of annual catch), Atlantic salmon (19%), small redfish (17%), sailfin roughshark (3%) and large-eye dentex (26%) (Table 8).

Table 8: Mean annual catch (tonnes) on the Icelandic grounds 2016–2024 by longline, cod net and bottom trawl (Total), mean catch within the proposed area (Within area), and the area’s share of the total (Percentage).
Species Total (tonnes) Within area (tonnes) Percentage (%)
Blue ling 549 73 13
Orange roughy 16 15 96
Beaked redfish 8,145 503 6
Atlantic salmon 4,957 775 16
Golden redfish 38,041 206 1
Tusk 2,359 37 2
Ling 6,340 27 0
Small redfish 144 21 15
Haddock 679 4 1
Sailfin roughshark 182 7 4
Roundnose grenadier 20 5 27
Pink salmon 123 6 5
Large-eye dentex 122 34 28
Saithe 49,951 143 0
Haddock (Ýsa) 49,660 23 0
Cod 218,340 28 0

Distribution of Fishing

Distribution of bottom trawl fishing 2015-2024
Figure 17: Bottom trawl 2015–2024.
Distribution of longline fishing 2015-2024
Figure 18: Longline 2015–2024.
Distribution of cod net fishing 2015-2024
Figure 19: Cod net 2015–2024.

Metadata and Layers

Fishing effort patterns based on vessel monitoring system data linked to the recorded landing date, 2014–2024:

  1. Bottom trawl fishing
  2. Longline fishing
  3. Cod net fishing

Regulation boundaries downloaded from Hafsjá:

  1. Regulation 188/2023 containing coral protection zones.

Records of corals and sponges from databases:

  1. Records from the benthic invertebrate database
    1. BioIce
    2. Zoology of Iceland
    3. Ingolf Expedition
    4. Jón Bogason
    5. Miscellaneous records from the Icelandic Institute of Natural History
  2. Records from underwater video footage in the marine image database
    1. Habitat mapping surveys
    2. IFREMER – ICECTD project
    3. Senckenberg – ICEDIVA project
  3. Records from bycatch in fisheries research surveys
    1. Autumn groundfish survey
    2. Net survey

Multibeam surveys

Data based on single-beam and multibeam surveys from the Marine and Freshwater Research Institute and the Icelandic Coast Guard, supplemented by Olex and GBECO data where single- and multibeam coverage is lacking:

  1. Depth
  2. Slope
  3. Aspect
  4. Roughness
  5. Bathymetric position index (BPI: indicator of whether a location is a depression or elevation)

Data from marine surveys of the Marine and Freshwater Research Institute including measurements collected during bottom fish stock assessments:

  1. Temperature
  2. Salinity
  3. Aragonite saturation
  4. Nitrate

References

Armstrong CW, van den Hove S (2008). The formation of policy for protection of cold-water coral off the coast of Norway. Marine Policy 32: 66–73.

CBD. (2008). CBD COP 9 Decision IX/20. Annex I – Scientific criteria for identifying ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs). Retrieved from: https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=11663

CBD. (2010). Decision CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Tenth Meeting: The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Nagoya, Japan & Montreal, Canada, CBD.

CBD. (2018). Decision CBD/COP/DEC/14/8 Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Protected Areas and Other Effective Area-based Measures, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf

De Santo E, Jones PJS (2007). Offshore marine conservation policies in the North East Atlantic: emerging tensions and opportunities. Marine Policy 31: 336–347.

FAO. (2009). International guidelines for the management of deep-sea fisheries in the high seas. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 73 pp.

Fernandez-Arcaya, U., Ramirez-Llodra, E., Aguzzi, J., Allcock, A.L., Davies, J.S., Dissanayake, A., Harris, P., Howell, K., Huvenne, V.A., Macmillan-Lawler, M. and Martín, J., (2017). Ecological role of submarine canyons and need for canyon conservation: a review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, p.5.

Guðrún Helgadóttir, Kjartan Thors (2010). Turbidity currents and channels in the deep sea south of Iceland. Náttúrufræðingurinn, 80(3–4), 123–129.

Gunnar Jónsson and Jónbjörn Pálsson (2013). Íslenskir fiskar. Mál og menning 2013.

Huvenne VAI, Tyler PA, Masson DG, Fisher EH, Hauton C, Hühnerbach V, et al. (2011). A Picture on the Wall: Innovative Mapping Reveals Cold-Water Coral Refuge in Submarine Canyon. PLoS ONE 6(12): e28755. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028755

ICES. (2016). Report of the Workshop on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem Database (WKVME), 10–11 December 2015, Peterborough, UK. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:62. 42 pp.

ICES. (2019). ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC). ICES Scientific Reports. 1:56. 119 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5567

ICES. (2020). ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:62. 188 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.7503

Jac R, Höffle H, Albretsen J, Jakobsdottir K, Staby A, Søvik G, Junge C. (2022). Of three sharks and one chimaera: varied habitat preferences across a latitudinal range revealed by coastal and offshore surveys. Journal of fish biology, 100(3), 660–674.

Johnson, GL., Tanner, B. (1971). Geophysical observations on the Iceland-Faeroe ridge. Jökull, 21(1), 45–52.

Mattína H, Campana SE, Jakobsdóttir K. (2024). Environmental preferences and critical habitat for the velvet belly lanternshark (Etmopterus spinax) in Icelandic waters. PLoS ONE 19(3): e0299544. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299544

NEAFC. (2015). Recommendation 19 2014: Protection of VMEs in NEAFC Regulatory Areas as Amended by Recommendation 09:2015.

OSPAR 10/23/1-E, Annex 29. OSPAR Recommendation 2010/7 on furthering the protection and restoration of the Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) in the OSPAR Maritime Area.

Pálmason G. (1974). Insular margins of Iceland. In C. A. Burk & C. L. Drake (Eds.), The geology of continental margins (pp. 375–376). Springer.

Petrún Sigurðardóttir, Steinunn Hilma Ólafsdóttir. (2022). Litter on the seabed around Iceland: Summary of litter records from seabed habitat mapping 2004–2019. HV 2022-34. https://www.hafogvatn.is/is/midlun/utgafa/haf-og-vatnarannsoknir/rusl-a-hafsbotni-vid-island-samantekt-a-skraningu-rusls-vid-kortlagningu-busvaeda-a-hafsbotni-2004-2019-hv-2022-34

Rodríguez-Basalo, A., Abad-Uribarren, A., Rios, P., Sánchez, F., Cristobo, J., Gómez-Ballesteros, M., & Prado, E. (2026). Characterization of communities and habitats in submarine canyons. The case study of the Avilés canyon system, southern Bay of Biscay. Journal of Sea Research, 102674.

Sigwart JD, Allcock AL, Arantes RCM, Barnhill KA, Bax N, Beneti JS, … & de Wilt, ME. (2025). The first IUCN Red List of cold-water corals highlights global declines. Marine Biodiversity, 55(3), 51.

Sigmar Arnar Steingrímsson, Sólmundur Tr. Einarsson. (2004). Coral areas on the Icelandic fishing grounds: Assessment of status and proposals for protective measures. Report 110. Reykjavík 2004. 39 pp.

Sólmundsson, J., Jakobsdóttir, K.B. & Pétursdóttir, H. 2025. Deepwater sharks at their northern limits – distribution, diet and trophic relations. Marine Ecology, 46(1):e12854. https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12854

Steinunn Hilma Ólafsdóttir and Guðmundur Guðmundsson. (2019). Monitoring of benthic invertebrates in deep waters around Iceland. Marine and Freshwater Research, HV 2019-41. https://www.hafogvatn.is/is/midlun/utgafa/haf-og-vatnarannsoknir/voktun-botndyra-a-djupslod-umhverfis-island-hv-2019-41

Steinunn H. Ólafsdóttir, Julian M. Burgos, Fine Brendtner, María R. Þrándardóttir. (2021a). Benthic Habitat Mapping of the Seafloor 2019 – Cruise report B8-2019. https://www.hafogvatn.is/is/midlun/utgafa/haf-og-vatnarannsoknir/benthic-habitat-mapping-of-the-seafloor-2019-cruise-report-b8-2019-hv-2021-40

Steinunn H. Ólafsdóttir, Julian Burgos, Stefán Á. Ragnarsson, Hjalti Karlsson. (2020). Coral areas around Iceland: Research 2009–2012, description – distribution – protection. Marine and Freshwater Research, HV 2020-31. 84 pp. https://www.hafogvatn.is/is/midlun/utgafa/haf-og-vatnarannsoknir/koralsvaedi-vid-island-rannsoknir-2009-2012-lysing-utbreidsla-verndun-hv-2020-31

Steinunn H. Ólafsdóttir, Stefán Áki Ragnarsson, Julian M. Burgos, Einar Hjörleifsson, Klara B. Jakobsdóttir, Guðmundur Þórðarson. (2021b). Protection of vulnerable benthic ecosystems. Summary of information and assessment of five factors relating to vulnerable benthic ecosystems for the Ministry of Industries and Innovation. https://www.hafogvatn.is/is/midlun/utgafa/haf-og-vatnarannsoknir/vernd-vidkvaemra-botnvistskerfa-samantekt-upplysinga-og-mat-a-fimm-thattum-er-varda-vidkvaem-botnvistkerfi-fyrir-atvinnuvega-og-nyskopunarraduneytid-hv-2021-50

Strömberg SM, Larsson AI. (2017). Larval behavior and longevity in the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa indicate potential for long distance dispersal. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2017 Dec 12;4:411. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00411

van den Beld, I.M., Bourillet, J.F., Arnaud-Haond, S., De Chambure, L., Davies, J.S., Guillaumont, B., Olu, K. and Menot, L., (2017). Cold-water coral habitats in submarine canyons of the Bay of Biscay. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, p.118.

The Gully Marine Protected Area (MPA)