Iceland Shelf and Sea
Click here to choose an LME

×
← go back to the LME Portal

LME 59: Iceland Shelf and Sea

Bordering country:

Iceland

LME total area:

1,176,522 km²

LME overall risk:

This LME falls in the cluster of LMEs that exhibit a significant influence of capacity-enhancing fisheries subsidies.
Based on a combined measure of the Human Development Index and the averaged indicators for fish & fisheries and pollution & ecosystem health modules, the overall risk factor is low.

Productivity

Chlorophyll-A:

The annual Chlorophyll a concentration (CHL) cycle has a maximum peak (0.778 mg.m^-3) in June and a minimum (0.215 mg.m^-3) during March. The average CHL is 0.511 mg.m^-3. Maximum primary productivity (279 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) occurred during 1998 and minimum primary productivity (188 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) during 2010. There is a statistically insignificant increasing trend in Chlorophyll of 6.28 % from 2003 through 2013. The average primary productivity is 220 g.C.m^-2.y^-1, which places this LME in Group 3 of 5 categories (with 1 = lowest and 5= highest).

Primary productivity:

Sea Surface Temperature:

From 1957 to 2012, the Iceland Shelf and Sea LME #59 has warmed by 0.36°C, thus belonging to Category 4 (slow warming LME). The thermal history of this LME is quite special. Three epochs can be distinguished here: (1) Abrupt cooling from the absolute maximum of >6.0°C in 1960 down to the absolute minimum of 4.0°C in 1969, a drop of >2.0°C in just 9 years; (2) Cold epoch from 1969 through 1995 with SST<5.1°C; (3) Abrupt warming from 4.2°C in 1995 to >5.9°C in 2003, an increase of >1.7°C in just 8 years. The extremely abrupt changes off Iceland can be explained by abrupt switches or shifts of ocean currents that flow past Iceland. The “Great Salinity Anomalies” that were transported by ocean currents past Iceland (Dickson et al., 1988; Belkin et al., 1998; Belkin, 2004) were associated with cold events in 1968-1972, 1981-1982, and 1993-1995.

Fish and Fisheries

Annual catch:

Total reported landings from 1950 to 2003 show a series of peaks and troughs. Reported landings fluctuated from a low of 100,000 t in the 1950s and 1960s to a high of 380,000 t in 1996. While historically cod dominated reported landings, in more recent years pelagic fish (notably capelin) dominate.

Catch value:

The value of the fisheries landings peaked in 1955 with an estimate of 300 million US$ (in 2005 real US$).

Marine Trophic Index and Fishing-in-Balance index:

Until the early 1970s, reported landings from this LME were dominated by cod, whose high trophic level dominated the mean trophic level of the entire fisheries in the region (i.e., the MTI). With new species coming under exploitation, and the gradual decline of cod landings, a classical ‘fishing down’ scenario ensued with trophic levels declining and some compensation through higher landings of species from lower trophic levels (e.g., capelin), the reason for the stability in the FiB index.

Stock status:

The Stock-Catch Status Plots indicate a high proportion of collapsed and overexploited stocks in the LME, and a high contribution of these stocks to the reported landings biomass. The jagged appearance of the latter plot reflects fluctuations in the reported landings.

Catch from bottom impacting gear:

The percentage of catch from the bottom gear type to the total catch fluctuated between 4 and 20% from 1950 to 2010. This percentage fluctuated between 8 and 16% in the recent decade.

Fishing effort:

The total effective effort continuously increased from around 17 million kW in the 1950s to its peak around 120 million kW in 2005.

Primary Production Required:

The primary production required (PPR) to sustain the reported landings in this LME reached to 35% of the observed primary production in the mid-1950s, but this relatively high value did not reoccur in recent years, and has remained mostly under 10 %. The countries with the largest share of the PPR or ecological footprint in this LME have changed frequently over the years, with Iceland accounting for the largest footprint in recent years.

Catch potential projections (under global warming):

Pollution and Ecosystem Health

Pollution

Nutrient ratio, Nitrogen load and Merged Indicator:

Human activities in watersheds are affecting nutrients transported by rivers into LMEs. Large amounts of nutrients (in particular nitrogen load) entering coastal waters of LMEs can result in high biomass algal blooms, leading to hypoxic or anoxic conditions, increased turbidity and changes in community composition, among other effects. In addition, changes in the ratio of nutrients entering LMEs can result in dominance by algal species that have deleterious effects (toxic, clog gills of shellfish, etc.) on ecosystems and humans.
An overall nutrient indicator (Merged Nutrient Indicator) based on 2 sub-indicators: Nitrogen Load and Nutrient Ratio (ratio of dissolved Silica to Nitrogen or Phosphorus - the Index of Coastal Eutrophication Potential or ICEP) was calculated.

Nitrogen load:

The Nitrogen Load risk level for contemporary (2000) conditions was very low. (level 1 of the five risk categories, where 1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk). Based on a “current trends” scenario (Global Orchestration), this remained the same in 2030 and 2050.

Nutrient ratio:

The Nutrient Ratio (ICEP) risk level for contemporary (2000) conditions was very low (1). According to the Global Orchestration scenario, this remained the same in 2030 and 2050.

Merged nutrient indicator:

The risk level for the Merged Nutrient Indicator for contemporary (2000) conditions was very low (1). According to the Global Orchestration scenario, this remained the same in 2030 and 2050.

POPs:

No pellet samples were obtained from this LME.

Plastic debris:

Modelled estimates of floating plastic abundance (items km^-2), for both micro-plastic (<4.75 mm) and macro-plastic (>4.75 mm), indicate that this LME is in the group with relatively low levels of plastic concentration. Estimates are based on three proxy sources of litter: shipping density, coastal population density and the level of urbanisation within major watersheds, with enhanced run-off. The low values are due to the relative remoteness of this LME from significant sources of plastic. The abundance of floating plastic in this category is estimated to be on average over 40 times lower that those LMEs with the highest values. There is limited evidence from sea-based direct observations and towed nets to support this conclusion.

Ecosystem Health

Mangrove and coral cover:

Not applicable

Reefs at risk:

The Iceland Shelf and Sea LME experienced an increase in MPA coverage from 24.1 km² prior to 1983 to 2,789 km²

Marine Protected Area change:

Not applicable

Cumulative Human Impact:

The Iceland Shelf and Sea LME experiences well above average overall cumulative human impact (score 4.40; maximum LME score 5.22). It falls in risk category 5 of the five risk categories (1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk). This LME is most vulnerable to climate change. Of the 19 individual stressors, three connected to climate change have the highest average impact on the LME: ocean acidification (0.95; maximum in other LMEs was 1.20), UV radiation (0.47; maximum in other LMEs was 0.76), and sea surface temperature (1.87; maximum in other LMEs was 2.16). Other key stressors include commercial shipping, ocean based pollution, pelagic low-bycatch commercial fishing, and all three types of demersal commercial fishing (demersal destructive, non-destructive low-bycatch, and non-destructive high-bycatch).

Ocean Health Index:

The Iceland Shelf and Sea LME scores above average on the Ocean Health Index compared to other LMEs (score 74 out of 100; range for other LMEs was 57 to 82), but still relatively low. This score indicates that the LME is below its optimal level of ocean health, although there are some aspects that are doing well. Its score in 2013 increase 1 point compared to the previous year, due in large part to changes in the scores for food provision and coastal economies. This LME scores lowest on coastal protection, coastal economies, and lasting special places goals and highest on artisanal fishing opportunities and clean waters goals. It falls in risk category 2 of the five risk categories, which is a moderate level of risk (1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk).

Socio-economics

Indicators of demographic trends, economic dependence on ecosystem services, human wellbeing and vulnerability to present-day extreme climate events and projected sea level rise, are assessed for this LME. To compare and rank LMEs, they were classified into five categories of risk (from 1 to 5, corresponding to lowest, low, medium, high and highest risk, respectively) based on the values of the individual indicators. In the case of economic revenues, the LMEs were grouped to 5 classes of revenues from lowest, low, medium, high and highest, as revenues did not translate to risk.

Population:

The coastal area stretches over 90 140 km². A current population of 324 thousand in 2010 is projected to increase to 404 thousand in 2100, with a density of 36 persons per 10 km² in 2010 increasing to 45 per 10 km² by 2100. About 29% of coastal population lives in rural areas, and is projected to be increase in share to 37% in 2100.

Coastal poor:

The indigent population makes up 6% of the LME’s coastal dwellers. This LME places in the very low-risk category based on percentage and in the very low-risk category using absolute number of coastal poor (present day estimate).

Revenues and Spatial Wealth Distribution:

Fishing and tourism depend on ecosystem services provided by LMEs. This LME ranks in the medium-revenue category in fishing revenues based on yearly average total ex-vessel price of US 2013 $488 million for the period 2001-2010. Fish protein accounts for 29% of the total animal protein consumption of the coastal population. Its yearly average tourism revenue for 2004-2013 of US 2013 $471 million places it in the very low-revenue category. On average, LME-based tourism income contributes 19% to the national GDPs of the LME coastal states. Spatial distribution of economic activity (e.g. spatial wealth distribution) measured by night-light and population distribution as coarse proxies can range from 0.0000 (totally equal distribution and lowest risk) to 1.0000 (concentrated in 1 place and most inequitable and highest risk). The Night Light Development Index (NLDI) thus indicates the level of spatial economic development, and that for this LME falls in the category with high risk.

Human Development Index:

Using the Human Development Index (HDI) that integrates measures of health, education and income, the present-day LME HDI belongs to the very high HDI and very low-risk category. Based on an HDI of 0.898, this LME has an HDI Gap of 0.102, the difference between present and highest possible HDI (1.000). The HDI Gap measures an overall vulnerability to external events such as disease or extreme climate related events, due to less than perfect health, education, and income levels, and is independent of the harshness of and exposure to specific external shocks.
HDI values are projected to the year 2100 in the contexts of shared socioeconomic development pathways (SSPs). This LME is projected to assume a place in the very low risk category (very high HDI) in 2100 under a sustainable development pathway. Under a fragmented world scenario, the LME is estimated to place in a medium-risk category (medium HDI) because of reduced income levels and increased population values from those in a sustainable development pathway.

Climate-Related Threat Indices:

The Climate-Related Threat Indices utilize the HDI Gaps for present-day and projected 2100 scenarios. The contemporary climate index accounts for deaths and property losses due to storms, flooding and extreme temperatures incurred by coastal states during a 20-year period from 1994 to 2013 as hazard measures, the 2010 coastal population as proxy for exposure, and the present day HDI Gap as vulnerability measure.
The Contemporary Threat Index incorporates a Dependence Factor based on the fish protein contribution to dietary animal protein, and on the mean contribution of LME tourism to the national GDPs of LME coastal states. The HDI Gap and the degree of dependence on LME ecosystem services define the vulnerability of a coastal population. It also includes the average of risk related to extreme climate events, and the risk based on the degrading system states of an LME (e.g. overexploited fisheries, pollution levels, decrease in coastal ecosystem areas).
The 2100 sea level rise threat indices, each computed for the sustainable world and fragmented world development pathways, use the maximum projected sea level rise at the highest level of warming of 8.5 W/m² in 2100 as hazard measure, development pathway-specific 2100 populations in the 10 m × 10 km coast as exposure metrics, and development pathway-specific 2100 HDI Gaps as vulnerability estimates.
Present day climate threat index of this LME is within the very low-risk (very low threat) category. The combined contemporaneous risk due to extreme climate events, degrading LME states and the level of vulnerability of the coastal population, is low. In a sustainable development scenario, the risk index from sea level rise in 2100 is very low, and remains the same even under a fragmented world development pathway.

Governance

Governance architecture:

In this LME, none of the transboundary fisheries arrangements (NEAFC, ICCAT, NAMMCO and NASCO) appear to be integrated while the three arrangements for pollution and biodiversity appear to have the Arctic Council as an integrating arrangement for one set of issues and the OSPAR Convention for a second set of similar issues relating to pollution and biodiversity. Additionally, the specific biodiversity arrangements for marine mammals and polar bears do not appear to have any formal linkages.
The overall scores for the ranking of risk were: