# Iceland - United States Department of State

- U.S. – Iceland Strategic Dialogue Office of the SpokespersonThe United States and Iceland held the annual U.S.-Iceland Strategic Dialogue in Reykjavik and Keflavik on May 2-3. The Dialogue was led by Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Deputy Assistant Secretary Douglas Jones, Office of the Secretary of Defense Principal Director for Europe and NATO Policy Alton Buland, Icelandic Permanent Secretary of State Martin Eyjólfsson, Director General for Defense Jonas Allansson, and Director General María Mjöll Jónsdóttir, with participation from U.S. Ambassador to Iceland Carrin F. Patman and Icelandic Ambassador to the United States Bergdís Ellertsdóttir.The United States and Iceland welcomed the robust ongoing security cooperation since the Dialogue last convened in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 2023. The delegations discussed, among other topics, expanding bilateral defense cooperation, support to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia’s aggression, the Indo-Pacific region, the situation in the Middle East, and Arctic Security. The two Allies also consulted on priorities for the upcoming NATO Summit in Washington, D.C. Over the past year, U.S. submarines have conducted four brief stops for personnel and supplies in Iceland. These stops facilitate U.S. presence in the North Atlantic and High North in support of the security of Iceland, the United States, and NATO. Both countries have also continued important air policing and antisubmarine missions bilaterally and in the context of NATO’s ongoing missions.The United States and Iceland reaffirmed the 1951 bilateral defense agreement and committed to further expanding the indispensable partnership between the two countries.
- Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Icelandic Foreign Minister Gylfadóttir HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Icelandic Foreign Minister Gylfadóttir				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Icelandic Foreign Minister Gylfadóttir																																		Readout																														April 19, 2024																																							The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Icelandic Foreign Minister Thórdís Gylfadóttir met today in Washington. The Deputy Secretary congratulated the foreign minister on her recent appointment. The two discussed deepening bilateral cooperation and continuing support to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia’s aggression. The Deputy emphasized the United States deeply values Iceland’s global leadership to combat the climate crisis and champion human rights, gender equality, and democracy.						Tags																					Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Deputy Secretary of State																								Iceland																								Office of the Spokesperson
- Iceland HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Iceland				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Iceland																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																											c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Iceland during the past year.There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses.The government took credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The constitution and law prohibited such practices, and there were no reports that government officials employed them.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						There were no significant reports regarding prison or detention center conditions that raised human rights concerns.Administration:  There were no significant reports regarding prison or detention center conditions that raised human rights concerns.Independent Monitoring:  The government permitted monitoring of prison conditions by media and independent local and international human rights groups, including the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The constitution and law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of an arrest or detention in court.  The government generally observed these requirements.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The law allowed police to make arrests when they believed a prosecutable offense had been committed, to prevent further offenses or destruction of evidence, to protect a suspect, or when a person refused to obey police orders.  The law explicitly required warrants only for arresting individuals who had failed to appear in court for a hearing or a trial, or at a prison to serve a sentence.The law required authorities promptly to inform a person under arrest of their rights and bring that person before a judge within 24 hours of arrest, and authorities respected this right.  There was no bail system.  A judge determined whether a suspect was required to remain in custody during an investigation and was able to grant conditional release, subject to assurances that the accused would appear for trial.  Upon arrival at a police station, the law entitled detainees to legal counsel, which the government provided for the indigent.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The constitution and law provided for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence and impartiality.																Trial Procedures						The constitution and law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and an independent judiciary generally enforced this right.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The constitution and law prohibited such actions, and there were no reports the government failed to respect these prohibitions.Immigration law allowed authorities to conduct home searches without a prior court order when there was a significant risk that delay could jeopardize an investigation of immigration fraud.  Immigration law also permitted authorities to request DNA tests without court supervision in cases of suspected immigration fraud.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution and law provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right.  An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to promote freedom of expression, including for media members.Freedom of Expression:  The law established fines and imprisonment for up to two years for “[a]nyone who publicly mocks, defames, denigrates, or threatens a person or group of persons by comments or expressions of another nature, for example, by means of pictures or symbols for their nationality, color, race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity, or disseminates such materials.”																Internet Freedom						The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The constitution and law provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights.																																				c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.Access to Asylum:  The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government established a system for providing protection to refugees.  The law allowed for an accelerated procedure by the Ministry of Justice’s Directorate of Immigration for applications involving unaccompanied children, “manifestly unfounded claims,” fraudulent applications, applicants deemed dangerous to themselves or others, or when an application was filed following the issuance of a deportation order.  An independent regulatory committee, the Immigration and Asylum Appeals Board, adjudicated asylum cases rejected by the directorate.The country did not return asylum seekers who had transited EU member states unless the asylum seekers had already received protection in those countries.  The country also did not return vulnerable asylum seekers to EU member states if they had not received protection in those countries.  Civil society observers asserted, however, that the bar for asylum seekers to be considered “vulnerable” was often unnecessarily high.Durable Solutions:  The government accepted refugees for resettlement, provided for their local integration, and assisted in their voluntary return to their areas of habitual residence.Temporary Protection:  The government provided temporary protection to individuals who may not qualify as refugees.  According to official numbers published by the Directorate of Immigration in July, the government provided asylum to 98 persons, subsidiary protection to 155 persons, and mass exodus protections to 914 Ukrainian nationals.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution and law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections:  The 2021 national elections were widely reported to be fair and free of abuses and irregularities.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, and the government generally implemented the law effectively.  There were no reports of government corruption.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						A number of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings.  Government officials were often cooperative and responsive to the views of these groups.Government Human Rights Bodies:  The parliament’s ombudsperson, elected by parliament for a period of four years, sought to secure the rights of citizens to equal and impartial treatment in their dealings with public authorities.  The ombudsperson was independent from any governmental authority, including parliament, when exercising their functions.  The ombudsperson conducted periodic site visits to prisons and psychiatric hospitals.  While the ombudsperson’s recommendations were not binding on authorities, the government generally adopted them.The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Judicial Affairs and Education was responsible for legislative oversight of human rights in the country.  The committee generally was considered effective.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence:  Conviction for rape or intimate partner violence against a person, regardless of gender, carried a maximum penalty of 16 years in prison.  Judges typically imposed sentences of two to three years.  The law did not explicitly address spousal rape.  The government generally enforced the law effectively.The law criminalized domestic violence and specified a maximum penalty of 16 years in prison.The government helped finance women’s shelters in Reykjavik and Akureyri, the Counseling and Information Center for Survivors of Sexual Violence, the rape crisis center of the national hospital, and other organizations that assisted survivors of domestic or gender-based violence.  These organizations offered services free of charge, regardless of a victim’s citizenship.  In addition, the government assisted immigrant women in abusive relationships, offering emergency accommodation, counseling, and information on legal rights.Discrimination:  The law and constitution provided the same legal status and rights for women as for men.  Although the government enforced the law effectively, employment discrimination occurred.Despite laws requiring equal pay for equal work, a pay gap existed between men and women.  According to Statistics Iceland, the gender pay gap was 14 percent in 2019, the latest year for which data was available.Reproductive Rights:  There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.The government provided access to sexual and reproductive services for sexual violence survivors, both on-site at hospitals, and via government-funded nongovernmental organizations that offered free counseling and psychiatric services.  Emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis were available as part of clinical management of rape.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										All discrimination was illegal, in both society and the labor market, including discrimination based on race and ethnicity.  Immigrants and asylum seekers, mainly of non-European origin or from Eastern Europe or the Baltic countries, suffered occasional incidents of social harassment based on their ethnicity.																																				Children										Child Abuse:  Child abuse was illegal, and the government enforced the law effectively.  The government was legally mandated to provide services for abused children, including a safe residence for children as well as specialized services.  Under the law, the public had a duty to notify authorities of suspicions of any form of child abuse.  The Government Agency for Child Protection was responsible for implementation of the law.  The agency operated a diagnostic and short-term treatment center for abused and troubled children and was responsible for three short-term treatment centers.  The government maintained a children’s assessment center to secure their well-being, lessen the trauma experienced by children, coordinate victim protection, and accelerate prosecution in child sexual abuse cases.  The prime minister appointed the ombudsperson for children, who acted independently of the government.  While the ombudsperson’s recommendations were not binding on authorities, the government generally adopted them.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage:  The minimum age for marriage was 18 and was effectively enforced by the government.  There were no reports of forced marriages.Sexual Exploitation of Children:  The law prohibited the payment or promise of payment or consideration of another type for the commercial sexual exploitation of a person younger than age 18.  Violations could be punished with fines or imprisonment for up to two years.  The law prohibited and punished child pornography by up to two years in prison.  The law criminalized statutory rape with incarceration of one to 16 years.  The government effectively enforced these laws.The minimum age for consensual sex was 15.  The law included a requirement for explicit consent for sexual acts, meaning that consent was not considered to be given freely if obtained through violence or the threat of violence, any kind of force, or the use of drugs or alcohol.																																				Antisemitism										The resident Jewish community was estimated at approximately 300-400 individuals.  There were no known reports of antisemitic incidents.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization:  The law did not criminalize consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults, cross-dressing, or other sexual or gender characteristic-related behaviors.Violence and Harassment:  Civil society observers reported an anecdotal uptick in reports of harassment, usually on social media, by private individuals against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) persons.  The same observers described authorities as generally sympathetic and respectful of the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons.In September, an LGTBQI+ individual was physically assaulted after attending a LGBTQI+ conference in Reykjavik.  The assault was under investigation as a potential hate crime as of November.Discrimination:  The law prohibited discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics.  It recognized LGBTQI+ individuals, couples, and their families and granted them rights equal to those of other persons.  The government generally enforced the law.While the constitution did not specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, it did so implicitly.  The law prohibited anyone from denying a person goods or services based on that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.  It also prohibited denying a person access to a public meeting place or other places open to the public on the same footing with others on grounds of that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.  The law further prohibited incitement to hatred against persons based on sexual orientation or gender identity and the dissemination of hateful material.LGBTQI+ activists reported generally positive conditions.  Nevertheless, the same activists continued to note the lack of explicit protections in hate crime laws for LGBTQI+ individuals.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition:  The law provided for the option of changing gender identity markers on legal and identifying documents through individual self-identification.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices:  Coercive medical and psychological practices specifically targeting LGBTQI+ individuals were illegal.  On June 9, parliament passed a law banning so-called conversion therapy practices on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.  The law outlawed unnecessary surgeries on intersex persons.  The government generally enforced the law.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly:  There were no restrictions on freedoms of expression, association, or assembly for LGBTQI+ persons or those advocating LGBTQI+ matters.																																				Persons with Disabilities										The constitution prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities, and several laws prescribe the rights and protections provided to such persons.  According to the law, municipalities were obliged to ensure that all school-age children with learning difficulties stemming from special needs, social, or emotional difficulties due to disability or health reasons received specialized support in accordance with their needs.  The same rules applied for upper secondary and university education.  The national curriculum emphasized nonsegregated education to the extent possible.By law, persons with disabilities were free to hire their own assistance providers and tailor assistance to their needs.  The law provided that persons with disabilities have access to buildings, information, and communications.The government generally enforced the laws effectively, but occasional discrimination occurred, and disability rights advocates complained that authorities did not fully implement the law and regulations.  While violations of these regulations were punishable by a fine or a jail sentence of up to two years, one of the main associations for persons with disabilities contended that authorities rarely, if ever, assessed penalties for noncompliance.Disability rights advocates asserted that persons with disabilities had a more difficult time finding jobs due to prejudice and because fewer job opportunities, especially part time, were available for persons with disabilities.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										Immigrants and asylum seekers, mainly Muslims of non-European origin, suffered occasional harassment based on their religion.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of workers to form and join independent unions, bargain collectively, and conduct strikes.  The law prohibited antiunion discrimination.  It was silent on whether workers fired for union activity should be reinstated, but it allowed for fining employers who engaged in this practice.  The law permitted the government to pass a provisional law to impose mandatory mediation when strikes threatened key sectors in the economy.The government effectively enforced the law.  Inspection was sufficient to enforce compliance, and penalties for violations (damages and fines) were commensurate with those for similar crimes.  Penalties were regularly applied against violators.The government and employers respected freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively.  Collective bargaining agreements covered nearly 100 percent of the formal economy’s workforce.  Independent contractors in various industries, but mainly in construction and tourism, sometimes hired subcontractors to avoid hiring workers with bargaining rights.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										The law prohibited the worst forms of child labor and provided for a minimum age of employment, including limitations on working hours, occupational safety, and health restrictions for children younger than age 18.  According to the law, children ages 13 and 14 could be employed in light work up to 12 hours per week and a maximum of two hours per day outside school hours during the school year and up to 35 hours a week or a maximum of seven hours per day during school vacations.  They were prohibited from working between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m.  Children between the ages of 15 and 18 who did not attend school were permitted to work up to 40 hours per week and a maximum of eight hours per day, but not between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.  For children ages 15 to 18 who remained in school, the law limited work to 12 hours per week and a maximum two hours per day during the school year, but up to 40 hours per week and a maximum eight hours per day during school vacations.  They were prohibited from working between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m.  Children younger than 18 were prohibited from employment in hazardous work as specified by law.The government effectively enforced applicable laws.  Penalties were commensurate with those for similar crimes and were regularly applied.  Inspection capacity was sufficient to enforce compliance.There were no confirmed reports during the year of the worst forms of child labor.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws:  The law did not establish a minimum wage.  The minimum wages negotiated in various collective bargaining agreements applied to all employees in those occupations, including foreign workers, regardless of union membership.  While the agreements could be industry wide, sector wide, or in some cases firm specific, the type of position defined the negotiated wage levels, which were higher than the poverty level.The law required that employers compensate work exceeding eight hours per day as overtime and limited the time a worker could work, including overtime, to 48 hours a week on average during each four-month period.  Collective bargaining agreements set the terms for overtime pay; these did not vary significantly across unions.  The law entitled workers to 11 hours of rest in each 24-hour period and one day off each week.  Under specially defined circumstances, employers could reduce the 11-hour rest period to a minimum of eight hours, but they then were required to compensate workers with corresponding rest time later.  They could also postpone a worker’s day off, but the worker was guaranteed to receive the corresponding rest time within 14 days.  The Administration of Occupational Health and Safety (AOSH) monitored and enforced these regulations.Occupational Safety and Health:  The law set occupational safety and health (OSH) standards that were appropriate for the main industries.  The Ministry of Welfare administered and enforced the law through AOSH, which conducted both proactive and reactive inspections.  Workers could remove themselves from situations that endangered health and safety without jeopardy to their employment.  AOSH could close workplaces that failed to meet safety and health standards.Except for certain asylum seekers, the government provided universal health-care coverage to all workers, including those in the informal economy.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement:  The government effectively enforced minimum wage, overtime, and OSH laws.  Penalties were commensurate with those for similar crimes, such as fraud or negligence.  Penalties were regularly applied against violators.  AOSH employed a sufficient number of inspectors to enforce standards effectively in all sectors.  Inspectors had the authority to make unannounced inspections.  AOSH levied daily fines on companies that did not follow instructions, urging them to improve work conditions.  According to government estimates, the informal economy accounted for approximately 3 to 7 percent of GDP.  The government generally enforced the laws in informal sectors effectively.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																						c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Iceland
- United States-Iceland Economic Partnership Dialogue Office of the SpokespersonThe United States and Iceland convened the fifth Economic Partnership Dialogue today in Washington, DC, led by Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Amy Holman and Icelandic Director General for External Trade and Economic Affairs Ragnar Kristjánsson. Additional participants included U.S. Ambassador to Iceland Carrin F. Patman and representatives from the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Bureau of Energy Resources, and Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy. Representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Department of the Treasury also attended.The participants welcomed the dialogue as an opportunity to deepen economic cooperation, address bilateral trade issues, and strengthen the already robust U.S.-Iceland economic and trade partnership. The principals also discussed the need to deepen joint work on supply chain resilience, investment security, and protection of critical infrastructure. The two sides agreed to continue collaboration on carbon management, hydrogen, and geothermal energy through the U.S.-Iceland Energy and Climate Partnership.The United States and Iceland committed to continue building upon their existing strong economic ties, deep-rooted cultural and historic relationships, common values of democracy and human rights, and mutual bilateral cooperation.
- Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Rao Gupta Travels to Iceland HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Rao Gupta Travels to Iceland				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Rao Gupta Travels to Iceland																																		Media Note																														November 13, 2023																																							U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Dr. Geeta Rao Gupta will travel to Reykjavik, Iceland from November 13 to 15.&nbsp; On November 14, Ambassador-at-Large Rao Gupta will speak at the Reykjavik Global Forum-Women Leaders, a conference co-hosted by the Government of Iceland and the Parliament of Iceland, in partnership with Women Political Leaders, a global network of women politicians.&nbsp; At this Forum, Ambassador Rao Gupta will engage with women leaders from diverse sectors to exchange best practices on the advancement of gender equality and women’s meaningful political participation and leadership.&nbsp; While in Reykjavik, the Ambassador will also meet with ambassadors and counterparts from various countries.For media inquiries, please contact stategwi@state.gov.						Tags																					Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																																Gender																																																					Global Women&#039;s Issues																															Iceland																								Office of Global Women&#8217;s Issues																								Office of the Spokesperson																																Official International Travel																																							Women&#039;s Issues																																							Women&#039;s Rights																																							Women’s Economic Empowerment
- Expanding the Global Equality Fund and Protecting Human Rights with New International Partners Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborArshelle CarterJust this last week, the United States welcomed New Zealand as the 19th government to the Global Equality Fund. Together with the private sector, the Global Equality Fund has dedicated over $100 million to more than 100 countries – providing advocates training, giving them tools to prevent violence, to prevent discrimination.In late June, Secretary Blinken announced New Zealand as the latest donor partner to join the Global Equality Fund (GEF), during a Pride Month event at the U.S. Department of State.  The GEF is a  public-private partnership comprised of like-minded governments and private-sector entities dedicated to advancing and defending the human rights and fundamental freedoms of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons around the world.  Through the GEF, governments, companies, foundations, and NGOs work collaboratively to advance local initiatives spearheaded by human rights defenders and civil society organizations working to protect LGBTQI+ persons from violence and abuse, criminalization, discrimination, and stigma, and to empower local LGBTQI+ movements and people.The New Zealand announcement follows the joining of another key ally to the GEF.  In May, the Secretary held a signing ceremony alongside Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares, announcing Spain’s commitment to join the Global Equality Fund (GEF) as a donor partner.  Spain and New Zealand’s partnership strengthens the GEF’s ability to support human rights and representative democracies.  Secretary Blinken and Spanish Foreign Minister Albares participate in a signing ceremony announcing Spain’s commitment to join the Global Equality Fund as a donor partner on May 10, 2023. &nbsp;GEF programs expand citizen access to full civic and political participation.  Promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons is a year-round commitment of the Department and critical for strengthening democracy.  GEF programs have made significant impacts globally.  In just the past two years, GEF programs have:trained and supported more than 6,600 human rights defenders globally;provided emergency assistance to more than 470 human rights defenders and more than 90 civil society organizations, helping to provide safety and security so they can continue their critical work; andimproved legal assistance for more than 2,300 individuals from low-income or marginalized communities through legal and victim’s aid.A telling example of the GEF’s impact is apparent in Botswana, where the sustained, flexible support of the GEF over 10 years contributed not only to the registration of the first LGBTQI+ organization in the country, but also to a historic decriminalization judgment.  Through a holistic approach, GEF support – coupled with efforts by other donors – enabled activists and partners to determine local priorities and to chart the best path forward.  The GEF supported projects to reduce stigma, discrimination, and violence by implementing an incremental strategy to decriminalize consensual same-sex sexual acts.  However, LGBTQI+ community needs do not end with major court decisions; the GEF will continue to fund community-driven movement building in Botswana and globally in pursuit of a safer, more equal world for all. Members of civil society in Botswana held public dialogues on the implications of decriminalizing same-sex relations. In November 2021, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court’s decision to decriminalize. As it enters its second decade, the GEF remains a leading global force to:   Mobilize funding and resources that strengthen local LGBTQI+ movements and leadership that reflect the diversity of the community; Empower locally led and diverse movements leading efforts to mitigate violence and discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons; and    Connect donors, international and regional institutions, and LGBTQI+ civil society groups to ensure that voices of local communities are heard, authentically represented, and affirmed. The critical work of the GEF is not possible without the support and leadership of its partners: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Montenegro, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay, the Arcus Foundation, the John D. Evans Foundation, the MAC AIDS Fund, Deloitte LLP, Royal Bank of Canada, Hilton, Bloomberg L.P., Marriott International, the Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Out Leadership. About the Author:  Arshelle Carter is a 2022 Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellow and Summer 2023 intern in the Office of Global Programs in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 
- Iceland HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Investment Climate Statements&#8230;Iceland				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Investment Climate Statements: Iceland																																																																																												 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment																																																									Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment																																																																											Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment																																																																											Other Investment Policy Reviews																																																																											Business Facilitation																																																																											Outward Investment																																																																																	2. Bilateral Investment and Taxation Treaties																															3. Legal Regime																																																									Transparency of the Regulatory System																																																																											International Regulatory Considerations																																																																											Legal System and Judicial Independence																																																																											Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment																																																																											Competition and Antitrust Laws																																																																											Expropriation and Compensation																																																																											Dispute Settlement																																																																			ICSID Convention and New York Convention																																																								Investor-State Dispute Settlement																																																								International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts																																																																																																																		Bankruptcy Regulations																																																																																	4. Industrial Policies																																																									Investment Incentives																																																																											Foreign Trade Zones/Free Ports/Trade Facilitation																																																																											Performance and Data Localization Requirements																																																																																	5. Protection of Property Rights																																																									Real Property																																																																											Intellectual Property Rights																																																																																	6. Financial Sector																																																									Capital Markets and Portfolio Investment																																																																																	Money and Banking System																																																									Foreign Exchange and Remittances																																																																			Foreign Exchange																																																								Remittance Policies																																																																																																																		Sovereign Wealth Funds																																																																			Iceland does not have a sovereign wealth fund.																																																																																																																								7. State-Owned Enterprises																																																									Privatization Program																																																																																	8. Responsible Business Conduct																																																									Climate Issues																																																																																	9. Corruption																																																									Resources to Report Corruption																																																																																	10. Political and Security Environment																															11. Labor Policies and Practices																															12. U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and Other Investment Insurance or Development Finance Programs																															13. Foreign Direct Investment Statistics																															14. Contact for More Information																																																					EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				Iceland is an island country located between North America and Europe in the Atlantic Ocean, near the Arctic Circle, with an advanced economy that centers around three primary sectors: fisheries, tourism, and aluminum production. Until recently, U.S. investment in Iceland has mostly been concentrated in the aluminum sector, with Alcoa and Century Aluminum operating smelters in Iceland. U.S. portfolio investments in Iceland have been steadily increasing in recent years. Iceland’s convenient location between the United States and Europe; its high levels of education, connectivity, and English proficiency; and a general appreciation for U.S. products make Iceland a promising market for U.S. companies. Americans made up a third of the tourist population that visited Iceland in 2022.There is broad recognition within the Icelandic government that foreign direct investment (FDI) is a key contributor to the country’s economic prosperity. As part of its investment promotion strategy, the Icelandic government operates a public-private agency called “Invest in Iceland” that facilitates foreign investment by providing information to potential investors and promoting investment incentives. Iceland identifies the following as “key sectors” in Iceland: tourism, food and natural products, data centers, energy and green solutions, innovation, fisheries, creative industries, and life sciences. Iceland offers incentives to foreign investors in certain industries.Tourism has been a growing force behind Iceland’s economy in the past decade, with opportunities for investors in high-end tourism, including luxury resorts and hotels. The number of tourists in Iceland reached more than 2.3 million in 2018. Tourism in Iceland contracted in 2019 and 2020 due to COVID-19, and the total number of tourists went down to 2 million in 2019 and then down to 486,000 in 2020. As of 2022, the tourism sector has fully recovered, with 698,000 tourists in 2021, around 1.8 million tourists in 2022, and a projected number of 2.3 million tourists expected for 2023.The startup and innovation communities in Iceland are flourishing, with the information technology and biotech sectors growing fast, particularly pharmaceuticals and wellness, gaming, and aquaculture. Iceland’s IT sector spans all areas of the digital economy. The Icelandic energy grid derives 99 percent of its power from renewable resources, making it uniquely attractive for energy-dependent industries.Iceland’s 2018 Climate Action Plan was updated in 2020 and is designed to achieve Iceland’s national climate goals of making the country carbon neutral by 2040 and cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030 under the Paris Agreement.Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine affected Iceland less than neighboring countries. Inflation has steadily risen since the invasion, as consumer product prices and gas prices continue to increase.&nbsp;Table 1: Key Metrics and RankingsMeasureYearIndex/RankWebsite AddressTI Corruption Perceptions Index202214 of 175http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview Global Innovation Index202220 of 132https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/analysis-indicator U.S. FDI in partner country ($M USD, historical stock positions)2021$878https://apps.bea.gov/international/factsheet/  World Bank GNI per capita2021$63,460https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD   																																					1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment						    																																																Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment										The government of Iceland maintains an open investment climate. The Act on Incentives for Initial Investments, which came into force in 2015, is intended to “promote initial investment in commercial operations, the competitiveness of Iceland and regional development by specifying what incentives are permitted in respect of initial investments in Iceland, and how they should be used.” The Act does not apply to investments in airports, energy production, financial institutions, insurance operations, or securities. For more information, see the English translation of the act:  https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/01&#8211;Frettatengt&#8212;myndir-og-skrar/ANR/Act-on-incentives-for-initial-investments-in-Iceland-English-2015.pdf .As part of its investment promotion strategy, the Icelandic government operates a public-private agency called “Invest in Iceland” that facilitates foreign investment by providing information to potential investors and promoting investment incentives. There is a debate, however, within Iceland over balancing energy-intensive FDI with the environmental impact associated with certain projects. That said, energy-intensive industries long dominated by aluminum smelting, have expanded to include silicon production plants and data centers. For further resources see:  http://www.invest.is/doing-business/incentives-and-support .Tourism has been a growing force behind Iceland’s economy in the past decade, with opportunities for investors in high-end tourism, including luxury resorts and hotels. The number of tourists in Iceland reached more than 2.3 million in 2018. However, tourism in Iceland contracted in 2019 with visitor numbers around 2 million, which can be largely attributed to the fall of Icelandic budget airline WOW Air. The COVID-19 pandemic had drastic effects on tourism, as well as on Iceland’s overall economy, which contracted by 7.1 percent in 2020, according to Statistics Iceland. Less than half a million tourists visited Iceland in 2020, with the number of tourists reaching around 700,000 in 2021. New airline Play Air had its first flight that same year. Play Air offers low-cost tickets and operates flights to North America and Europe. Industry stakeholders reported a strong recovery in 2022, with approximately1.8 million tourists visiting and hotels reporting full bookings for the spring and summer seasons and good booking positions for the autumn and winter seasons. Statistics Iceland projects 2.3 million tourists will visit Iceland in 2023.The startup and innovation communities in Iceland are flourishing, with IT and biotech startups seeking investors. Innovation hubs have been forming around Iceland, with the largest one, Groska, being in Reykjavik. The Icelandic Ocean Cluster (IOC), also in Reykjavik, is a cluster collaboration with over 70 companies, and the IOC house is a popular location for entrepreneurs.																																				Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment										The 1991 Act on “foreign investments for commercial purposes” limits foreign ownership of fishing rights and fish processing companies (only Icelandic citizens or companies that are controlled by Icelandic citizens and have less than 25 percent foreign shareholders can own or control fishing companies); of hydropower and geothermal utilization rights other than for personal use, energy processing, and transportation (only Icelandic citizens and legal persons, and individuals and legal persons who reside in the European Economic Area [EEA] can hold those rights); and of aviation operators (Icelandic ownership of aviation companies needs to be at least 51 percent, and this does not apply to individuals and legal persons that have EEA citizenship). The law further stipulates that foreign states, sub-national governments, or other foreign authorities are prohibited from investing in Iceland for commercial purposes, although the Minister of Culture and Business Affairs may grant exemptions. The responsibility to inform the relevant ministry of both new investments and investments in companies that the party in question has already invested in lies with the investor, or with the Icelandic company that the foreign individual or entity invested in (this does not apply to EEA citizens or residents).The 1991 Act does not stipulate how foreign investment is screened or monitored by relevant authorities, only that the Minister of Culture and Business Affairs handles permits and monitors the execution of this legislation. The Minister can block foreign investments if s/he considers it a “threat to national security or goes against public policy, public safety or public health or if there are serious economic, societal or environmental complications in specific industries or in specific areas, that are likely to persist...” The law further states that the “Minister has the authority to stop foreign investment in systematically important companies if such investment entails systematic risk.” If an investment has already taken place, the Minister of Culture and Business Affairs has the authority to compel the foreign person or entity in question to sell.																																				Other Investment Policy Reviews										Iceland has been a World Trade Organization (WTO) member since 1995 and a member of GATT since 1968. The WTO conducted its fifth Trade Policy Review of Iceland in 2017:  https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp461_e.htm . The review notes that “with a small population and limited natural resources, apart from energy and fish, trade remains important, but the range of exports is limited to tourism, fish and fish products, and aluminum and products thereof. Therefore, the country remains vulnerable to shocks, including the appreciation of the ISK, overheating of the economy, and Brexit. Furthermore, despite uncertainties relating to Brexit, as growth picks up in the EU, Iceland&#8217;s main trading partner, opportunities for trade in goods and services should continue to improve.”The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and UN Cooperation for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) have not conducted Investment Policy Reviews for Iceland.																																				Business Facilitation										Businesses are registered with Iceland Revenue and Customs (Skatturinn) ( http://www.rsk.is/english/ ). Applications for the registration of businesses can be filled in online, but some forms are in Icelandic only, and it is therefore necessary for foreign businesses to contract a local representative to complete the paperwork. The website of the Business Registry in Iceland is:  http://www.rsk.is/fyrirtaekjaskra  (Icelandic only). More information on establishing a business in Iceland can be found on the government’s website:  https://www.government.is/topics/business-and-industry/establishing-a-business-in-iceland/ .Services offered by Invest in Iceland, a public-private agency that promotes and facilitates foreign investment in Iceland, are free of charge to all potential foreign investors ( http://www.invest.is ). Invest in Iceland can provide information on investment opportunities in Iceland; collect data on the business environment, arrange site visits, and plan contacts with local authorities; arrange meetings with local business partner and professional consultants; and influence legislation and lobby on behalf of foreign investors ( https://www.invest.is/at-your-service/what-we-do ). Invest in Iceland offers detailed information on how to establish a company on its website:  http://www.invest.is/doing-business/establishing-a-company . Its sister agencies, Business Iceland (formerly Promote Iceland) ( https://www.businessiceland.is/ ) and Film in Iceland ( http://www.filminiceland.com ), aim to enhance Iceland’s reputation as a tourist destination and as a destination for filming movies and television productions. Other agencies include Creative Iceland ( https://www.islandsstofa.is/en/marketing-projects-creative-iceland ), which works towards increasing awareness of Icelandic Art and creative industries.																																				Outward Investment										The Icelandic Government along with other stakeholders promote exports of Icelandic goods and services through the public-private agency Islandsstofa, also known as Business Iceland ( https://www.businessiceland.is/ ). Business Iceland assists Icelandic businesses in the main industry sectors to export products and services, including fisheries (seafood and technology), agricultural produce (including organic lamb meat), high-tech products and solutions (software, prosthetics, etc.), and services (tourism). Business Iceland has been very active in the United States and Canada in recent years, with total exports to the United States eclipsing $562 million. A trade commissioner represents the Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs in New York, facilitating exports to the United States and promoting business relations between the two countries. Business Iceland also promotes exports to the United Kingdom, Europe, and Asia.Iceland imposed capital controls following the economic collapse in late 2008, which largely prevented Icelandic investors and pensions funds from investing outside of Iceland. The government lifted capital controls on March 14, 2017.																																												2. Bilateral Investment and Taxation Treaties						    																						The United States does not share a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) or a free trade agreement (FTA) with Iceland, although the two parties signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) in January 2009 and have an annual Economic Dialogue. The United States and Iceland currently do not have a treaty granting visas for commerce and navigation (i.e., E1/E2 visas for Treaty Traders and Treaty Investors).Iceland is a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and has access to the EU market through the EEA Agreement, as well as markets in Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein. The 1994 EEA agreement unites the EFTA and EU member states into one single market with free movement of goods, capital, services, and persons. The agreement further stipulates tariff-free trade of industrial products that originate from countries that are part of the agreement and reduced or eliminated tariffs on processed agricultural products and seafood. Iceland has a bilateral agreement with the EU dating back to 1972 with reduced or zero tariffs on Icelandic seafood exported to the EU. In 2018, an agreement came into force between Iceland and the EU concerning reduced or eliminated tariffs, and increased tariff quotas on unprocessed agricultural products. As part of this agreement, Iceland dropped tariffs on more than 340 categories of unprocessed agricultural products, and reduced tariffs of more than 20 categories. In June 2022, Iceland’s parliament voted to drop all tariffs on all Ukrainian imports to Iceland, effective until May 31, 2023. U.S. agricultural products exported to Iceland face tariffs that are up to 30 percent higher than products from the EEA.Iceland’s trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China (entered into force in 2014) offers reciprocal tariff-free treatment on a range of goods. Iceland has an FTA with the Faroe Islands (entered into force in 2006). Iceland signed a customs agreement with Denmark on behalf of Greenland (entered into force 1985). The EFTA member states have collectively signed FTAs with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Georgia, Guatemala, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Hong Kong, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestine, Panama, Peru, Singapore, Serbia, South Korea, Southern African Customs Union (SACU), Tunisia, Turkey, and Ukraine ( https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/utanrikismal/utanrikisvidskipti/vidskiptasamningar/friverslunarsamningar/ ).Iceland has signed Treaties with Investment Provisions (TIPs) with the following countries: EFTA States and Indonesia EPA (signed but not in force), EFTA States and Ecuador FTA (signed but not in force), EFTA States and Philippines FTA, EFTA States and Gulf Cooperation Council FTA (signed but not in force), ( https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/by-economy#iiaInnerMenu ).Iceland has signed Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) with the following countries: Egypt, India (terminated), Mexico, Lebanon (signed but not in force), Chile, Vietnam, Lithuania, Latvia, and China ( https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/by-economy#iiaInnerMenu ).The United States and Iceland have a double taxation treaty. An intergovernmental agreement implementing the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in Iceland was signed May 26, 2015. The United States and Iceland signed a social security totalization agreement with Iceland, titled &#8220;Agreement on Social Security between the United States of America and Iceland&#8221; and the accompanying legally binding administrative arrangement, titled &#8220;Administrative Arrangement between the Competent Authorities of the United States of America and Iceland for the Implementation of the Agreement on Social Security between the United States of America and Iceland&#8221; (collectively the &#8220;Agreements&#8221;) in 2016, which entered into force on March 1, 2019. Iceland is a member of the OECD Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting.																																		3. Legal Regime						    																																																Transparency of the Regulatory System										The system is transparent, although bureaucratic delays can occur. All proposed laws and regulations are published in draft form for the public record and are open for comment. Icelandic laws regulating business practices are consistent with those of most OECD member states. Iceland’s laws are generally based on European Union directives as a result of Iceland&#8217;s membership in the European Economic Area (EEA), which legally obligates it to adopt EU directives and law concerning the four freedoms of the EU: free movement of goods, services, persons, and capital.The Competition Authority is responsible for enforcing anti-monopoly regulations and promoting effective competition in business activities. This includes eliminating unreasonable barriers and restrictions on freedom in business operations, preventing monopolies and limitations on competition, and facilitating new competitors’ access to the market. The Consumer Agency holds primary responsibility for market surveillance of business operators, transparency of the markets with respect to safety and consumers&#8217; legal rights, and enforcement of legislation concerning protection of consumers&#8217; rights. For more information see the Competition Authority’s website: ( https://en.samkeppni.is/ ) and the Consumer Agency website ( https://www.neytendastofa.is/English ).The Icelandic Parliament (Althingi) consists of a single chamber of 63 members; a simple majority is required for ordinary bills to become law. All bills are introduced in the parliament in draft form. Draft laws and regulations are open to public comment and are published in full on the parliament&#8217;s web page ( http://www.stjornartidindi.is ) and on the websites of the relevant ministries (often in English). Invest in Iceland also maintains an information portal website that includes information on industry sectors, the business climate, and incentives that foreign investors may find useful ( http://www.invest.is ).Ministries or regulatory agencies develop bills, which are available to the public. Ministries or regulatory agencies publish the text of the proposed regulations before their enactment on a unified website ( https://www.stjornartidindi.is/ ). Ministries or regulatory agencies solicit comments on proposed regulation from the public. Laws and regulations are published on both the parliament’s website ( https://www.althingi.is/ ) and separate website managed by the Ministry of Justice ( https://www.stjornartidindi.is/ ).The OECD published their economic snapshot report on Iceland in September 2019. One of the findings of the report was that regulatory barriers were high in Iceland. The report states: Regulation should be more commensurate with the needs of a small open economy. Product market regulation is stringent and the administrative burden for start-ups is high, holding back investment and innovation. Restrictions to foreign direct investment are among the highest of the OECD, dampening employment and productivity gains through international knowledge transfer. The government should set up a comprehensive action plan for regulatory reform, prioritizing reforms that foster competition, level the playing field between domestic and foreign firms, and attract international investment. ( http://www.oecd.org/economy/iceland-economic-snapshot/ ). OECD conducted an economic survey of Iceland in 2021, with key findings showing: “the pandemic-related collapse of foreign tourism and international travel, which account for almost a fifth of GDP, highlighted the need to diversify the economy. Iceland needs to improve resilience and find new drivers of productivity and employment growth, in particular given the objective of emission reductions. Boosting skills across the population is hence the top priority, along with reforms to strengthen competitive forces.”The Iceland Chamber of Commerce operates an independent arbitration institute, the Nordic Arbitration Centre (NAC). The NAC provides for a dispute resolution mechanism, allowing parties to solve their dispute efficiently and safely. Both the arbitration process and the Arbitral Tribunal’s final awards are strictly confidential. There have been no known cases of discrimination against U.S. investors. For more information visit the Iceland Chamber of Commerce’s website:  https://www.chamber.is/arbitration .Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures are mandatory under three acts: Act on equal status and equal rights of the sexes; Law on equal treatment outside the labor market; and Act on equal treatment in the labor market regardless of race, ethnic origin, religion, outlook on life, disability, reduced work capacity, age, sexuality, gender identity, and gender characteristic or gender expressions. The Equality Office operates under the authority of the Prime Minister. Volunteer ESG disclosures are encouraged through institutions or third parties, such as the Federation of Icelandic Industries’ quality assurance certification.Iceland scores 4.75 out of 5 (best possible) on The World Bank’s Global Indicators of Regulatory Governance index:  https://rulemaking.worldbank.org/en/data/explorecountries/iceland# .																																				International Regulatory Considerations										Icelandic laws regulating business practices are generally consistent with other OECD members. Iceland’s laws are generally based on EU directives as a result of Iceland&#8217;s membership in the EEA, which legally obligates it to adopt EU directives and law concerning four freedoms of the EU: free movement of goods, services, persons, and capital.Iceland has been a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since January 1, 1995. Iceland and the United States signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) in January 2009.																																				Legal System and Judicial Independence										The Icelandic civil law system enforces property rights, contractual rights, and the means to protect these rights. The Icelandic court system is independent from the parliament and government. Foreign parties must abide by the same rules as Icelandic parties, and they enjoy the same privileges in court; there is no discrimination against foreign parties in the Icelandic court system. When trade or investment disputes are settled, the settlement is usually remitted in the local currency.Iceland has a three-tier judicial system, eight District Courts (Héraðsdómstólar), the Court of Appeal, (Landsréttur), and the Supreme Court (Hæstiréttur Íslands). All court actions commence at the District Courts, and conclusions can then be appealed to the Court of Appeal. In special cases, the conclusions of the Court of Appeal can be referred to the Supreme Court. A new public agency, the Judicial Administration (Dómstólasýsla), along with the Court of Appeal (Landsréttur) began operating on January 1, 2018.The Landsdómur is a special high court or impeachment court to handle cases where members of the Cabinet of Iceland are suspected of criminal behavior. The Landsdómur has 15 members — five supreme court justices, a district court president, a constitutional law professor, and eight people chosen by parliament every six years. The court assembled for the first time in 2011 to prosecute former Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde for alleged gross misconduct in the events leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. He was found guilty of failing to hold regular cabinet meetings during the crisis but was not convicted of gross misconduct.																																				Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment										Icelandic laws regulating and protecting foreign investments are consistent with OECD and EU standards. As Iceland is a member of the EEA, most EU commercial legislation and directives are in effect in Iceland. The major law governing foreign investment is the 1996 Act on Investment by Non-residents in Business Enterprises, which grants national treatment to non-residents of the EEA. The law dictates that foreign ownership of businesses is generally unrestricted, except for limits in the fishing, energy, and aviation sectors. Icelandic law also restricts the ability of non-EEA citizens to own land, but the Minister of Culture and Business Affairs may waive this. The managers and the majority of the board of directors in an Icelandic enterprise must be domiciled in Iceland or another EEA member state, although exemptions from this provision can be granted by the Minister of Culture and Business Affairs.Iceland has no automatic screening process for investments that trigger national security concerns (similar to the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States), although bidders in privatization sales may have to go through a pre-qualification process to verify that the bidder has the financial strength to participate. Investors that intend to hold more than 10 percent of shares (“active” shareholders) in financial institutions are subject to approval from the Central Bank of Iceland ( http://en.fme.is/ ). Investment screening legislation, led by the Prime Minister, was introduced in Iceland’s parliament in 2022.For information on incentives and doing business in Iceland see Invest in Iceland’s website:  https://www.invest.is/doing-business/incentives-and-support .																																				Competition and Antitrust Laws										Competition Law no. 44/2005 is currently in place to promote competition and to prevent unreasonable barriers on economic operations. Depending on the turnover of the companies in question, the Icelandic Competition Authority is notified of mergers and acquisitions. The Authority may annul mergers or set conditions to prevent monopolies and limitations on competition. For more information see the Competition Authority’s website:  https://en.samkeppni.is/ .																																				Expropriation and Compensation										The Constitution of Iceland stipulates that no one may be obliged to surrender their property unless required by the government to serve a public interest, and that such a measure shall be provided for by law and full compensation be paid. A special committee is appointed every five years to review and proclaim the legality of expropriation cases. If the committee proclaims a case to be legal, it will negotiate an amount of compensation with the appropriate parties. If an amount cannot be agreed upon, the committee determines a fair value after hearing the case of all parties.The Icelandic government has never expropriated a foreign investment. However, some private investors described actions by the Icelandic government before and during the October 2008 financial crisis (related to the takeover of three major banks and offshore krona assets) as a type of indirect expropriation.																																				Dispute Settlement																										ICSID Convention and New York Convention						Iceland has ratified the major international conventions governing arbitration and the settlement of investment disputes.Iceland is a member state to the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (Washington Convention), as well as a signatory to the convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention).						Investor-State Dispute Settlement						Iceland has ratified the major international conventions governing arbitration and the settlement of investment disputes.There was a public dispute in 2016 and 2017 between hedge funds based in the United States and United Kingdom and the Icelandic Government concerning offshore krona owned by these hedge funds and capital controls in effect following the economic collapse in 2008. These hedge funds filed a case against the Government of Iceland at the EFTA courts, but later dropped the case.An Icelandic company that operates airports in Iceland grounded an airplane owned by an American leasing company in April 2019, due to outstanding debt towards the airport operator that an airline had accumulated. The airline had just declared bankruptcy and owed the airport operator around 2 billion ISK (approx. $16 million) in landing fees. The airport operator decided to ground the American plane that had been leased by the airline and insisted that the American company settle the airline’s debt. The American company took the airport operator to court, won the case, and the plane was released.						International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts						Iceland has ratified the major international conventions governing arbitration and the settlement of investment disputes. Iceland accepts binding arbitration of investment disputes.The Icelandic Chamber of Commerce operates an independent arbitration institute, called the Nordic Arbitration Centre. The awards of the Arbitral Tribunals are final and binding for the parties. Furthermore, due to Iceland’s ratification of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, the Tribunal’s awards are enforceable in over 144 countries. For more information see the Iceland Chamber of Commerce’s website:  http://chamber.is/services/NAC .																										Bankruptcy Regulations										The 1991 Act on Bankruptcy states that “the provisions of this Act on the right to obtain a license of financial reorganization or for composition with creditors, and on bankruptcy, shall only apply to a debtor who is a natural person if the debtor&#8217;s legal domicile is in Iceland and the debtor is not exempted from the jurisdiction of the courts of Iceland. The provisions of this Act shall however be applied to Icelandic nationals not having their legal domicile in Iceland if they are exempted from the jurisdiction of the courts of other states. Where the debtor is a company or an institution the provisions of this Act on his right to obtain a license of financial reorganization or for composition with creditors, or on bankruptcy, shall only apply if the following conditions are fulfilled: in the case of a registered company, if its registered venue is in Iceland, and in the case of an unregistered company, if its venue is in Iceland according to its articles or as provided for by law, or in the nature of the matter. The same shall apply, as applicable, to institutions.” For more information, refer to the Act on Bankruptcy:  https://www.government.is/publications/legislation/lex/2018/01/15/Act-on-Bankruptcy-etc.-No.-21-1991/ .																																												4. Industrial Policies						    																																																Investment Incentives										Iceland welcomes foreign direct investment. Iceland has, through the public-private agency Invest in Iceland, identified the following “key sectors” in Iceland: food and natural products, data centers, energy and green solutions, innovation, fisheries, creative industries, and life sciences. Authorities reimburse up to 35 percent of cost incurred during the production of television programs and films in Iceland. For more information visit ( www.invest.is ) and ( www.filminiceland.com ) for information specific to the film industry.The 2015 Act on Incentives for Initial Investments in Iceland was implemented to “promote initial investment in commercial operations, the competitiveness of Iceland and regional development by specifying what incentives are permitted in respect to initial investments in Iceland and how they should be used.” For more information see the English translation of the act:  https://www.government.is/topics/business-and-industry/incentives-and-investment-agreements/ .There is significant debate regarding the appropri8ate types and level of FDI in Iceland, particularly within the energy sector and with regard to job creation and the environmental impact associated with certain projects. Historically, foreign investment has been in energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum smelting, although investments in tourism, life sciences, and information technology have grown as a proportion of total FDI in recent years.Subsidiaries of foreign companies are able to participate in government-subsidized research and development programs, but only to cover R&amp;D costs that are borne in Iceland. For further information see:  http://en.rannis.is .																																				Foreign Trade Zones/Free Ports/Trade Facilitation										For information on importing to Iceland and customs procedures, please visit the Iceland Revenue and Customs website:  https://www.skatturinn.is/english/companies/customs-matters/importing-to-iceland/ .																																				Performance and Data Localization Requirements										Iceland follows the EU General Data Protection Regulation and is a member of the U.S.-EU Privacy Shield arrangement for transatlantic data transfers. The Icelandic Data Protection Authority (DPA) monitors the implementation of Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and of the Act on Data Protection and the Processing of Personal Data no. 90/2018. DPA’s law-enforcement work includes “monitoring data controllers and ensuring that they take appropriate security measures, in accordance with law.” For more information see the Icelandic Data Protection Authority’s website:  https://www.personuvernd.is/information-in-english/ .																																												5. Protection of Property Rights						    																																																Real Property										Only Icelandic citizens and foreign citizens that have permanent residency in Iceland can acquire the right to own or use real property in Iceland, including fishing and hunting rights, water rights, or other real property rights, whether by free assignation or enforcement measures, marriage, inheritance, or deed of transfer. However, special rules apply for citizens of the EEA. The Minister of Justice may grant exemption from these conditions based on application showing the need of ownership for business activities. The Minister’s permission is not necessary if leasing real property for less than three years or when the party involved enjoys rights in Iceland under the rules of the EEA. For more information, please see the Act on the Right of Ownership and Use of Real Property:  https://www.government.is/Publications/Legislation/Lex/?newsid=353f66b8-f153-11e7-9421-005056bc4d74 .Property rights are generally enforced in Iceland. There is good access to mortgages and other financing to purchase real property in Iceland from commercial banks, pension funds and private lenders.																																				Intellectual Property Rights										Iceland is not listed in the USTR’s 2021 Special 301 Report, but the country is listed in the Notorious Markets for Piracy and Counterfeiting 2022 Report, as Iceland allegedly hosts servers for hosting provider FlokiNET.Iceland adheres to key international agreements on property rights. Trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and industrial designs are all protected under Icelandic law. Iceland is a signatory of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and of the European Patent Convention (EPC). For further information see:  https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/running-business/intellectual-property/patents/iceland/index_en.htm . Iceland is also a member of the European Patent Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and a party to most WIPO-administered agreements. For additional information about national laws and points of contact at local IP offices, please see WIPO’s country profiles at:  http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/ .The Icelandic Intellectual Property Office’s (ISIPO) is a government agency under the auspices of the Minister of Higher Education, Science, and Innovation. ISIPO is responsible for “issues relating to patents, trademarks, design protection, municipal emblems, and other comparable rights as provided for by law, regulations, and international agreements on the protection of intellectual property rights in the field of industry.” For more information visit the ISIPO webpage in English:  https://www.isipo.is/ .Illegal downloading and distribution of films and TV shows has decreased in recent years due to widespread access to international streaming services, such as Netflix, Disney Plus, and Icelandic streaming services. Purchasing low-cost, counterfeit consumer goods on Chinese websites, namely AliExpress.com, is popular in Iceland, although that trend has declined somewhat due to increasing fees imposed by Iceland Post on incoming international deliveries. Customs seize counterfeit products if found and contact the owner of the intellectual property who then decides whether to press charges against the importer. If the owner of the intellectual property does not want to take legal actions, customs clears the items and sends them to the importer. Iceland Revenue and Customs has on a few occasions seized counterfeit consumer goods that led to charges being pressed against the importer, including shipments containing counterfeit Nike shoes and Arco designer lamps in 2014. Iceland Revenue and Customs participated in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s campaign against counterfeit products in 2014:  https://www.tollur.is/embaettid/frettir/frett/2014/03/13/Althjodlegt-atak-gegn-eftirlikingum/ .For additional information about national laws and points of contact at local IP offices, please see WIPO’s country profiles at:  http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/. 																																												6. Financial Sector						    																																																Capital Markets and Portfolio Investment										Capital controls were lifted in March 2017 after more than eight years of restricting the free movement of capital. New foreign currency inflows fall under the Rules on Special Reserve Requirements for new Currency Inflows, no. 223/2019 which took effect on March 6, 2019, and replaced the older Rules no. 490/2016 on the same subject. The rules contain provisions on the implementation of special reserve requirements for new foreign currency inflows, including the special reserve base, holding period, special reserve ratio, settlement currency, and interest rates on deposit institutions’ capital flow accounts with the Central Bank of Iceland and Central Bank certificates of deposit. For more information see the Central Bank of Iceland’s website:  cb.is. Foreign portfolio investment has increased significantly over the past few years in Iceland after being dormant in the years following the 2007 economic crash. U.S. investment funds have been particularly active on the Icelandic stock exchange. The Icelandic stock exchange operates under the name Nasdaq Iceland. Companies listed on Nasdaq Iceland are reported on its website:  http://www.nasdaqomxnordic.com/hlutabref/Skrad-fyrirtaeki/iceland . The private sector has access to financing through the commercial banks and pensions funds.The IMF 2019 Article IV Consultation report states that “the de jure exchange rate arrangement is free floating, and the de facto exchange rate arrangement under the IMF classification system is floating. In the period from November 2018 to October 31, 2019, the Central Bank of Iceland (CBI) intervened in the foreign exchange market on 14 of the 248 working days. The CBI publishes daily data on its foreign exchange intervention with a lag. Iceland has accepted the obligations under Article VIII, Sections 2(a), 3, and 4 and maintains no exchange restrictions subject to Fund jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 2(a). Iceland continues to maintain certain measures that constitute exchange restrictions imposed for security reasons based on UN Security Council Resolutions.” (Source:  https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2019/12/19/Iceland-2019-Article-IV-Consultation-Press-Release-and-Staff-Report-48891) )																																												Money and Banking System						    																						The Central Bank of Iceland is an independent institution owned by the State and operates under the auspices of the Prime Minister. Its objective is to promote price stability, financial stability, and sound and secure financial activities. The bank also maintains international reserves and promotes a safe, effective financial system, including domestic and cross-border payment intermediation.The Icelandic banking sector is generally healthy. The Central Bank of Iceland maintains stringent measures to ensure that the financial system remains “safe, stable, and effective.” For more information see the Central Bank webpage:  https://www.cb.is/financial-stability/ . There are three commercial banks in Iceland: Landsbankinn, Islandsbanki, and Arion Bank. The Government of Iceland took over operations of the banks during the financial collapse in September and October 2008. Landsbankinn (formerly known as Landsbanki Islands) is still government-owned, while the Government of Iceland is in the process of privatizing Islandsbanki (formerly known as Glitnir). Arion Bank (formerly known as Kaupthing Bank) has been privatized and is listed on the Icelandic stock exchange Nasdaq Iceland. There is one investment bank in Iceland, Kvika, which is listed on Nasdaq Iceland. Icelandic pension funds offer loans and mortgages and are active investors in Icelandic companies. There are no foreign banks operating in Iceland.All companies have access to regular commercial banking services in Iceland. Establishing a bank account in Iceland requires a local personal identification number known as a “kennitala.” Foreign nationals should contact Registers Iceland for more information on how to register in Iceland ( https://www.skra.is/english/ ).																										Foreign Exchange and Remittances																										Foreign Exchange						The Act on Investment by Non-residents in Business Enterprises no. 34/1991 and no. 46/1996 states that &#8220;non-residents who invest in Icelandic enterprises shall have the right to convert into any currency for which the Central Bank of Iceland maintains a regular exchange rate any dividends received or other profits and proceeds from sales of investments.&#8221; ( https://www.government.is/publications/legislation/lex/2018/02/14/Act-No-34-1991-on-Investment-by-Non-residents-in-Business-Enterprices-/ ). The Central Bank temporarily imposed capital controls following the collapse of the financial sector in 2008; those restrictions were largely lifted in 2017. Transactions involving imports and exports of goods and services, travel, interest payments, contractual installment payments, and salaries were still permitted under the capital controls.The Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions 2018, published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), states that “Iceland fully eliminated exchange restrictions on conversions and transfers related to current international transactions with bonds.” “Iceland progressively relaxed and finally eliminated restrictions on withdrawing foreign currency cash from resident’s domestic foreign exchange accounts and eased rules governing transfers abroad for some financial transactions. It also gradually eased and eventually removed the requirement that residents repatriate foreign currency acquired abroad.” The report is available through this link:  https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Annual-Report-on-Exchange-Arrangements-and-Exchange-Restrictions/Issues/2019/04/24/Annual-Report-on-Exchange-Arrangements-and-Exchange-Restrictions-2018-46162 .The Central Bank of Iceland publishes the official exchange rate on its website:  https://www.cb.is/statistics/official-exchange-rate/ . According to the Central Bank of Iceland, the exchange rate of the Icelandic krona is determined in the foreign exchange market. Once a day, the Central Bank of Iceland fixes the official exchange rate of the krona against foreign currencies, for use as a reference in official agreements, court cases, and other contracts between parties that do not specify another reference exchange rate; cf. Article 19 of the Act on the Central Bank of Iceland and fixes the official exchange rate index at the same time. Under extraordinary circumstances, the Central Bank may temporarily suspend its quotation of the exchange rate of the krona. The exchange rate of the Icelandic krona (ISK) to the U.S. dollar was 138.62 ISK = $1.00 as of April 3, 2023.						Remittance Policies						Most restrictions on foreign exchange transactions and cross-border movement of domestic and foreign currency were lifted on March 14, 2017, when capital controls were lifted. New foreign currency inflows fall under the Rules on Special Reserve Requirements for new Currency Inflows, no. 223/2019 which took effect on March 6, 2019, and replaced the older rules no. 490/2016 on the same subject. The rules contain provisions on the implementation of special reserve requirements for new foreign currency inflows, including the special reserve base, holding period, special reserve ratio, settlement currency, and interest rates on deposit institutions’ capital flow accounts with the Central Bank of Iceland and Central Bank certificates of deposit. The rules set the interest rate on capital flow accounts with the Central Bank of Iceland and Central Bank certificates of deposits at 0 percent and specify the Icelandic krona as the settlement currency. The Foreign Exchange Act no. 87/1992 and the Act no. 42/2016 Amending the Foreign Exchange Act state that the holding period may range up to five years and that the special reserve ratio may range up to 75 percent; however, the aforementioned rules set the holding period at one year and the special reserve ratio at 0 percent. For more information see the Central Bank of Iceland’s website:  www.cb.is .																										Sovereign Wealth Funds																										Iceland does not have a sovereign wealth fund.																																								7. State-Owned Enterprises						    																						The Icelandic Government owns wholly or has majority shares in 40 companies, including system important companies such as energy companies, the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service (RUV), and Iceland Post. Other notable SOEs are Landsbankinn (one of three commercial banks in Iceland), Isavia (public company that operates Keflavik International Airport), and ATVR. A full list of SOEs is available through this link:  https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/rekstur-og-eignir-rikisins/felog-i-eigu-rikisins/ . Total assets of SOEs in 2021 amounted to 4,074 billion ISK (approx. $33.1 billion) and SOEs employed around 5,014 people that same year. In terms of assets and equity, Landsbankinn is the largest SOE in Iceland, and Isavia employs the most people.State-owned enterprises (SOEs) generally compete under the same terms and conditions as private enterprises, except in the energy production and distribution sector. Private enterprises have similar access to financing as SOEs through the banking system.As an OECD member, Iceland adheres to the OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance. The Iceland Chamber of Commerce in Iceland, NASDAQ OMX Iceland and the Confederation of Icelandic Employers have issued guidelines that mirror the OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance. Iceland is party to the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) within the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO).For SOEs operating within the private sector in a competitive environment, the general guideline from the Icelandic government is that all decisions of the board of the SOE should ensure a level playing field and spur competition in the market.In the midst of the banking crisis, the state, through the Financial Supervisory Authority (FME), took over Iceland&#8217;s three largest commercial banks, which collapsed in October 2008, and subsequently took over several savings banks to allow for uninterrupted banking services in the country. The government has started the privatization process of Islandsbanki, having gone through two rounds of selling government owned shares, and currently owns 42.5 percent shares in the bank.The government of Iceland has acquired stakes in many companies through its ownership of shares in the banks; however, it is the policy of the government not to interfere with internal or day-to-day management decisions of these companies. Instead, in 2009, the state established the Bank Shares Management Company to manage the state-owned shares in financial companies. The board of this entity, consisting of individuals appointed by the Minister of Finance, appoints a selection committee, which in turn chooses the State representative to sit on the boards of the various companies.While most energy producers are either owned by the state or municipalities, there is free competition in the energy market. That said, potential foreign investment in critical sectors like energy is likely to be met by demands for Icelandic ownership, either formally or from the public. For example, a Canadian company, Magma Energy (today Alterra Power Corp), acquired a 95 percent stake in the energy production company HS Orka in 2010, but later sold a 33.4 percent stake to the Icelandic pension funds in the face of intense public pressure.Iceland’s universal healthcare system is mainly state operated. However, few legal restrictions to private medical practice exist; private clinics are required to maintain an agreement regarding payment for services with the Icelandic state, a foreign state, or an insurance company.																										Privatization Program										Icelandic authorities are more than halfway through the process of privatizing Islandsbanki, one of Iceland’s three commercial banks. Authorities sold 35 percent shares in Islandsbanki in 2021, and 22.5 percent in 2022. The government currently owns 42.5 percent of the bank. The government of Iceland currently owns 99.8 percent in Landsbankinn and has no immediate plans to privatize it. The government took ownership of the banks when the Icelandic banking system collapsed in 2008. Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs Bjarni Benediktsson has publicly declared his intentions to sell all government shares in Islandsbanki but wants the government to remain a large shareholder in Landsbankinn, with around 40 percent of shares.																																												8. Responsible Business Conduct						    																						As an OECD member, Iceland adheres to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The Ministry for Culture and Business Affairs houses Iceland’s National Contact Point for the Guidelines, charged with promoting the due diligence approach of the Guidelines to the business community and to facilitate the resolution of any disputes arising in the context of the Guidelines ( https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/atvinnuvegir/vidskipti/almenn-vidskiptamal/ ).Business Iceland (formerly Promote Iceland), a public-private agency responsible for promoting Iceland’s export sectors abroad, has signed the United Nations’ Global Compact (GC) and raises awareness of corporate social responsibility in Iceland. Festa, a non-profit organization which promotes sustainable development and corporate social responsibility, has over 120 associated members, including some of Iceland’s largest companies, public organizations, universities, and municipalities ( www.samfelagsabyrgd.is/festa ). Gagnsaei, an NGO affiliated with Transparency International, is active in Iceland ( www.transparency.is ). There is a general awareness of corporate social responsibility among producers, companies, and consumers.As an OECD member state, Iceland adheres to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance recommendations to help companies respect human rights and avoid contributing to conflict through their mineral purchasing decisions and practices. The Icelandic economy does not have a mining industry, other than extracting rocks and gravel for construction purposes. In 2013, the then-Prime Minister issued a joint statement with the other Nordic Prime Ministers to reaffirm their support to the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI).Department of StateCountry Reports on Human Rights Practices ( https://www.state.gov/reports-bureau-of-democracy-human-rights-and-labor/country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/);Trafficking in Persons Report ( https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/).Guidance on Implementing the &#8220;UN Guiding Principles&#8221; for Transactions Linked to Foreign Government End-Users for Products or Services with Surveillance Capabilities ( https://www.state.gov/key-topics-bureau-of-democracy-human-rights-and-labor/due-diligence-guidance/);U.S. National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ( https://www.state.gov/u-s-national-contact-point-for-the-oecd-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises/); andXinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory ( https://www.state.gov/xinjiang-supply-chain-business-advisory/).Department of the TreasuryOFAC Recent Actions ( https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/recent-actions ).Department of LaborFindings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor Report ( https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/findings ).List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor ( https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods ).Sweat &amp; Toil: Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking Around the World ( https://www.dol.gov/general/apps/ilab ).Comply Chain ( https://www.dol.gov/ilab/complychain/ ).																										Climate Issues										Iceland’s 2018 Climate Action Plan (CAP), which was updated in 2020, is designed to achieve national climate goals of making the country carbon neutral by 2040 and cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030 under the Paris Agreement. The MIT Technology Review’s Green Future Index ranked Iceland first out of 76 economies in 2022. The MIT report stated that Iceland has been “a global leader in geothermal energy for decades” and has constructed the world’s largest direct air capture CO2 capture and storage plant.Focus from the Government of Iceland on electric vehicles has been ongoing in recent years, with tax incentives for buying electric cars extended through 2023. This approach has been successful in increasing the total number of electric cars, and electric charging stations. The CAP prohibits new registration of diesel and gasoline vehicles after 2030.  In 2022, 30 percent of all new registrations were electric or hybrid vehicles, according to the Federation of Automotive Companies in Iceland, up from 24 percent in 2021.The rise in sea traffic has convinced port authorities to develop a new docking system, especially targeted at cruise ships and expedition ships. This docking system will be fitted with the environmental port index, ranking ships that dock from zero points to 100 points. The more points a ship receives, the less they must pay. Older, more polluting ships will have to pay more, and will eventually be excluded from docking. The Icelandic government also has discussed mandating that cruise ships and other vessels use electricity while at port to eliminate emissions from the vessels.Private companies have made progress themselves without direct influence from the authorities, as larger companies like Dominos have completely revamped their car fleet, using only electric cars.																																												9. Corruption						    																						Isolated cases of corruption have been known to occur but are not an obstacle to foreign investment in Iceland or a recognized issue of concern in the government. In 2021, Iceland ranked 13 out of 180 economies on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Iceland has signed the UN Convention against Corruption. Iceland is a member of the OECD Convention on Combatting Bribery.The Council of Europe body Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO) published its fifth evaluation report on Iceland on April 12, 2018. GRECO found that Iceland had no dedicated government-wide policy plan on anti-corruption and that its agency and institution-specific codes of conduct were not sufficiently detailed and were often implemented in an ad hoc manner. For more information, see the GRECO report:  https://rm.coe.int/fifth-evaluation-round-preventing-corruption-and-promoting-integrity-i/16807b8218 . The Icelandic Parliament introduced a new law in 2020 on measures against conflict of interests for senior government officials.A Code of Conduct for Staff in the Government Offices of Iceland was established in 2012, “with the purpose of promoting professional methods and of confidence in public administration.” The code of conduct addresses workplace relations and procedures; behavior and conduct; conflicts of interest and shared interests; communication with the media, public and surveillance bodies; and responsibility and monitoring for Government Offices staff. For more information see the Government of Iceland’s website:  https://www.government.is/ministries/prime-ministers-office/code-of-conduct-for-staff/ . The code does not extend to family members of officials or political parties.																										Resources to Report Corruption										Contact at the government agency or agencies are responsible for combating corruption:																																												10. Political and Security Environment						    																						Politically motivated violence in Iceland is rare, and Iceland consistently ranks among the world’s safest countries. The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicator on Political Stability and Absence of Violence placed Iceland in the top 96 percentile rank of all countries worldwide in 2021 ( http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Reports ). In early 2014, frustration among voters regarding the government’s withdrawal of Iceland’s accession bid to the European Union led to the largest protests since the financial collapse; these protests did not include violence. Non-violent protests led to a governmental reorganization and early elections following the 2016 “Panama Papers” scandal. Downtown Reykjavik experienced a large, peaceful demonstration condemning Russia’s illegal and unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.																																		11. Labor Policies and Practices						    																						The labor force in Iceland is highly skilled and educated. The labor force consisted of 227,600 people aged between 16 and 74 years old at the end of 2022 according to Statistics Iceland. Of them, 209,400 people were employed and around 8,100 unemployed at the end of 2022. According to Statistics Iceland, the unemployment rate was 3.3 percent in December 2022, while the Directorate of Labor reported 3.4 percent unemployment for the same month. Foreign labor plays a large role in unskilled and semi-skilled sectors such as tourism and construction. In 2022, 43,136 immigrants were employed in Iceland, according to Statistics Iceland. Women in Iceland are almost on par with men when it comes to labor participation, with 74.7 percent of women being active on the job market, compared to 79 percent of men, according to Statistics Iceland for 2022. The Icelandic population is highly educated, with 39.7 percent of the population aged 16 to 74 having at least a university education.Icelandic Labor Laws are taken seriously in Iceland, and there are no waivers to attract or retain investment. The labor unions and the Directorate of Labor conduct spot inspections on worksites to monitor legal compliance. The labor market is highly unionized, and 92.1 percent of the workforce were members of trade unions in 2021, according to Statistics Iceland.Icelandic labor unions are decentralized and not politically affiliated. Collective bargaining power, in both the public and the private sectors, rests with individual labor unions. The law does not establish a minimum wage, but the minimum wages negotiated in collective bargaining agreements apply automatically to all employees in those occupations, including foreign workers, regardless of union membership. While the agreements can be either industry-wide, sector-wide, or in some cases firm-specific, the type of position defines the negotiated wage levels. The government has sometimes imposed mandatory mediation to avert or end strikes in key economic sectors such as healthcare or fisheries.According to collective bargaining agreements, the standard work week is 37.5 hours, or 7.5 hours a day. Employees have the right to take a 15-minute paid break within the standard workday. Lunch, either 30 or 60 minutes, is then added to the standard workday. The law requires that employers compensate work exceeding eight hours per day as overtime. Collective bargaining agreements determine the terms of overtime pay, but they do not vary significantly across unions. The law limits the total hours a worker may work, including overtime, to 48 hours a week on average during each four-month period. Typical holiday and shift-work rates are 40 percent above the standard shift rate and may be up to 45 percent more if total work hours exceed full-time employment. The law entitles workers to 11 hours of rest in each 24-hour period and one full day off each week. Under specially defined circumstances, employers may reduce the 11-hour rest period to no fewer than eight hours, but they must then compensate workers with corresponding rest time later. They may also postpone a worker’s day off, but the worker must receive the corresponding rest time within 14 days.Outside terminating an employee, employers are by law prohibited from making unilateral amendments to hiring contracts. Companies are mandated to report mass layoffs to the Directorate of Labor. Terminated employees retain the same rights to severance benefits regardless of whether they were part of a mass layoff or fired. For further information, see the Directorate of Labor website:  https://vinnumalastofnun.is/en .																																		12. U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and Other Investment Insurance or Development Finance Programs						    																						There are no current International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) or Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) operations in Iceland. Political risk insurance and project financing have traditionally been available on the local and international markets. Iceland is a member of the World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.																																		13. Foreign Direct Investment Statistics						    																						&nbsp;Table 2: Key Macroeconomic Data, U.S. FDI in Host Country/EconomyHost Country Statistical source*USG or international statistical sourceUSG or International Source of Data:  BEA; IMF; Eurostat; UNCTAD, OtherEconomic DataYearAmountYearAmountHost Country Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ($M USD)2022$26,1082021$25,600www.worldbank.org/en/country Foreign Direct InvestmentHost Country Statistical source**USG or international statistical sourceUSG or international Source of data:  BEA; IMF; Eurostat; UNCTAD, OtherU.S. FDI in partner country ($M USD, stock positions)2021$582021$876BEA data available at https://apps.bea.gov/international/factsheet/Host country’s FDI in the United States ($M USD, stock positions)2021$3512021$407BEA data available at https://www.bea.gov/international/direct-investment-and-multinational-enterprises-comprehensive-dataTotal inbound stock of FDI as % host GDP2021$7,072202127%UNCTAD data available athttps://unctad.org/topic/investment/world-investment-report   * Source for Host Country Data: Statistics Iceland, data updated on March 9, 2023. ** Source for Host Country Data: The Central Bank of Iceland, Foreign Direct Investment Stocks in Iceland/Foreign Direct Investment Position Abroad, data updated in 2022.&nbsp;Table 3: Sources and Destination of FDIDirect Investment from/in Counterpart Economy DataFrom Top Five Sources/To Top Five Destinations (US Dollars, Millions)Inward Direct InvestmentOutward Direct InvestmentTotal Inward (2021)8,092100%Total Outward (2021)5,421100%Luxembourg1,99125%The Netherlands2,90853.6%The Netherlands1,45718%United Kingdom4929%Switzerland1,12714%United States4077.5%Denmark6067,5%British Virgin Islands2274.1%Norway5286,5%Faroe Islands2214%&#8220;0&#8221; reflects amounts rounded to +/- USD 500,000. 																																		14. Contact for More Information						    																						Elias HafthorssonEconomic and Commercial SpecialistU.S. EmbassyEngjateigur 7105 ReykjavikIceland+354 595-2220hafthorssoneg@state.gov																										    							View report by:																				Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											The Bahamas											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Chile											China											Colombia											Costa Rica											Côte d’Ivoire											Croatia											Cyprus											Czechia											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France and Monaco											The Gambia											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hong Kong											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iraq											Ireland											Israel											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kosovo											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Macau											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nepal											Netherlands											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Philippines											Peru											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											Timor-Leste											Togo											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Türkiye											United Arab Emirates											Uganda											Ukraine											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vietnam											West Bank and Gaza											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment																																							Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment																																																						Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment																																																						Other Investment Policy Reviews																																																						Business Facilitation																																																						Outward Investment																																																			2. Bilateral Investment and Taxation Treaties																3. Legal Regime																																							Transparency of the Regulatory System																																																						International Regulatory Considerations																																																						Legal System and Judicial Independence																																																						Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment																																																						Competition and Antitrust Laws																																																						Expropriation and Compensation																																																						Dispute Settlement																																																				ICSID Convention and New York Convention																																												Investor-State Dispute Settlement																																												International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts																																																																																				Bankruptcy Regulations																																																			4. Industrial Policies																																							Investment Incentives																																																						Foreign Trade Zones/Free Ports/Trade Facilitation																																																						Performance and Data Localization Requirements																																																			5. Protection of Property Rights																																							Real Property																																																						Intellectual Property Rights																																																			6. Financial Sector																																							Capital Markets and Portfolio Investment																																																			Money and Banking System																																							Foreign Exchange and Remittances																																																				Foreign Exchange																																												Remittance Policies																																																																																				Sovereign Wealth Funds																																																				Iceland does not have a sovereign wealth fund.																																																																																	7. State-Owned Enterprises																																							Privatization Program																																																			8. Responsible Business Conduct																																							Climate Issues																																																			9. Corruption																																							Resources to Report Corruption																																																			10. Political and Security Environment																11. Labor Policies and Practices																12. U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and Other Investment Insurance or Development Finance Programs																13. Foreign Direct Investment Statistics																14. Contact for More Information																						Tags																					Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Iceland
- Iceland National Day Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateOn behalf of the United States of America, I congratulate the people of Iceland in celebration of your National Day.The United States and Iceland share a strong and enduring friendship, based on commitments to democratic principles, freedom, and our collective security as NATO Allies. We are working together to address the shared challenges in the region and globally across a wide range of economic, human rights, security, and climate issues, as well as through cooperation in the Arctic Council. The close coordination between the United States and Iceland is all the more important as we work together to support the people of Ukraine as they defend their country against Russia’s unprovoked war. Together we will hold Russia to account for its brutal actions.I look forward to jointly creating a bright future for our peoples in the years to come and send best wishes for peace, health, and prosperity to all people in Iceland on this special day.
- Iceland HomeReportsOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons2023 Trafficking in Persons Report&#8230;Iceland				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Iceland																																					Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons																																																																																																				 In this section										/																							ICELAND (Tier 1)																																													ICELAND (Tier 1)																															PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																																																		PROSECUTION																																																																																		PROTECTION																																																																																		PREVENTION																																																																																		TRAFFICKING PROFILE:																																																																																																								ICELAND (Tier 1)				The Government of Iceland fully meets the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. The government continued to demonstrate serious and sustained efforts during the reporting period, considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, if any, on its anti-trafficking capacity; therefore Iceland remained on Tier 1. These efforts included investigating more trafficking cases, identifying more victims, and preparing and distributing guidelines for identifying child trafficking victims. In addition, the government allocated significantly more funds to the NRM and for service agreements with various shelters providing victim assistance. The government also established the foundation for two working groups comprising stakeholders from across the Nordic countries to foster collaboration and engage on investigations, best practices, challenges, and trends. The government amended the law permitting compensation claims at the appeal stage of court proceedings despite acquittals of convicted criminals, including traffickers, and ensuring legal aid at every stage of court proceedings, including if a trafficking case returns to the courts as a civil case. In response to the arriving refugees fleeing Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, authorities created and distributed flyers on the dangers of trafficking, in English, Russian, and Ukrainian, to refugees from Ukraine and all applicants under international protection in Iceland. Although the government meets the minimum standards, it did not prosecute or convict any traffickers and continued to charge suspected traffickers under non-trafficking statutes, such as smuggling, that carried more lenient penalties and were easier to convict. Furthermore, the government reported incarcerating a potential trafficking victim for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked.																																					PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:						    																																															Vigorously increase efforts to prosecute and convict suspected traffickers and sentence them to significant prison terms.Ensure trafficking victims are not inappropriately penalized solely for unlawful acts committed as a direct result being trafficked.Enhance training for investigating cases, including online cases, and collecting evidence against suspected traffickers.Proactively identify trafficking victims and refer them to care facilities for assistance.Screen all vulnerable individuals for trafficking indicators.Increase training for police, prosecutors, judges, and other officials on all aspects of trafficking, particularly on identification of victims among migrant workers, asylum-seekers, and children.																																												PROSECUTION						    																																															The government maintained law enforcement efforts. Article 227a of the criminal code criminalized sex trafficking and labor trafficking and prescribed penalties of up to 12 years’ imprisonment. These penalties were sufficiently stringent and, with respect to sex trafficking, commensurate with those prescribed for other serious crimes, such as rape. In 2022, authorities investigated seven new trafficking cases (one labor trafficking and six unspecified forms of trafficking), compared with five in 2021. The government did not prosecute or convict any traffickers, compared with one prosecution and conviction in 2021. Shortcomings, such as lengthy investigations and inadequate evidence collection, led prosecutors to charge suspects under non-trafficking statutes, such as smuggling, that carried more lenient penalties and were easier to convict; this practice weakened deterrence, did not adequately reflect the nature of the crime, and undercut broader efforts to fight trafficking. The government did not report any investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of government officials complicit in trafficking crimes. The North Iceland Police maintained a team focused on commercial sex and labor violations, and the Southwestern District Police, which covered the border police at Keflavik International Airport, operated a unit specializing in major crime investigations, including trafficking. The Reykjavik Metropolitan Police maintained a unit for combating trafficking and commercial sex supported by a cyber-crime unit that monitored the internet for trafficking activity. With the rise in online exploitation, including trafficking, experts noted the need to build expertise investigating such cases.In recent years, reports indicated a rise of organized crime and associated violence; the government reported trafficking was often one component of larger prosecutions linked to organized crime. In 2022, the government allocated 19.9 billion Icelandic krona (ISK) ($140.5 million) to law enforcement for programs and activities countrywide and an additional 50 million ISK ($353,080) specifically to combat organized crime and facilitate increased interagency cooperation preventing trafficking and other related crimes. In 2022, the National Commissioner of Icelandic Police (NCIP) released a report on organized crime, revealing strong indicators that individuals located abroad controlled elements of organized crime in Iceland. While the crimes were diverse, several instances indicated exploitation of vulnerable populations related to human trafficking. As a result, the government enhanced cooperation among district police, prosecutors, and customs through joint investigations into organized crime, including trafficking, and bolstered cooperation with foreign counterparts. NCIP maintained responsibility for international law enforcement cooperation, and, in 2022, along with regional police departments, cooperated with foreign counterparts on international investigations, including a labor trafficking investigation with EUROPOL involving a man with disabilities forced into criminal activity. In addition, in 2022, officials from Finland, Iceland, and Norway established the foundation for a Nordic anti-trafficking working group, comprising stakeholders from across the Nordic region, to foster collaboration and engage on trends, best practices, challenges, and activities in their respective countries. Officials also established a law enforcement sub-group composed of Nordic police officers cooperating on investigations and trainings. Separately, NCIP and Iceland’s EUROPOL liaison participated in the Nordic Police and Customs Cooperation – a Nordic law enforcement platform where domestic law enforcement agencies assign police and customs officials as liaisons to other countries. Furthermore, a Ministry of Justice (MOJ) task force maintained a law enforcement advisory panel that worked with foreign law enforcement agencies and anti-trafficking organizations and collected data and information regarding trafficking trends and responses from international organizations. The panel relayed information to Icelandic police districts and assisted those districts in determining whether a case should be considered as trafficking and how it should be investigated. During the reporting period, the government provided a range of trafficking-related trainings for prosecutors, police, government employees, and professionals on various topics, such as trafficking indicators, and victim identification and resources.																																												PROTECTION						    																																															The government slightly increased victim protection efforts. The government identified seven trafficking victims (one labor trafficking and six unspecified forms of trafficking), compared with five in 2021. All victims were foreign nationals; three were children. The Bjarkarhlid Family Justice Center maintained responsibility for the NRM and continued to serve as a “one stop shop” for victims of violence, including trafficking. The government allocated 35 million ($247,160) toward Bjarkarhlid for the NRM, a significant increase from 18 million ISK ($127,110) in 2021. Through the NRM, the center coordinated social services and law enforcement involvement; provided victims with assistance; and compiled victim information and case history into a centralized database. Furthermore, the center utilized a standardized questionnaire for victims to better quantify and identify vulnerable groups. The center also distributed guidelines for identifying victims in locations where victims received assistance, such as health clinics. The police maintained identification and referral procedures requiring them to contact welfare services in the municipality and the Ministry of Social Affairs to coordinate victim care and placement. The Directorate of Immigration (DOI) provided staff with comprehensive SOPs for screening asylum-seekers for potential trafficking; SOPs also dictated referral paths for and processes applying to potential unaccompanied child trafficking victims. A team of experts referred victims to relevant NGOs or institutions providing short- or long-term care.Overall, the government maintained a well-managed social welfare system with robust protections. All victims had access to free legal, medical, psychological, and financial assistance, whether or not they stayed at a shelter or cooperated with authorities. In 2022, 12 trafficking victims received assistance from social services, compared with six victims in 2021. Municipal social service agencies provided services and financial assistance to victims, and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor (MOSL) reimbursed the municipalities for all associated expenses. The MOSL’s action plan on preventing violence and its consequences, which included action items to combat trafficking and provide services for victims, called for the creation of standardized guidance for all anti-trafficking service providers and allocated 15 million ISK ($105,900) annually until 2023 to ensure the implementation of the guidance as well as all action items. Moreover, the government allotted 292 million ISK ($2.06 million) for service agreements with various shelters that provided assistance to victims, a significant increase from 234 million ISK ($1.65 million) in 2021. The government in partnership with an NGO maintained two shelters in Akureyri and Reykjavik for women and children; the shelters provided free counseling services for women. In southern Iceland, the government maintained a counseling and support center for victims of GBV, including trafficking victims. Male victims could access general municipal social services and receive referrals to NGOs providing food, shelter, legal advice, and health care. Under the Child Protection Act, all children dwelling in Iceland had the same right to protection and services from child welfare. Municipal and national child protection services were responsible for assisting unaccompanied children, including child trafficking victims. Pursuant to the NAP, child protection authorities prepared and provided guidelines for identifying potential child trafficking victims for professionals working with children. In addition, an MOJ-led task force and the National Agency for Children and Families produced information on identifying trafficking indicators among children. If authorities came across a case involving a potential child trafficking victim, they contacted local child protection authorities who were responsible for ensuring accommodation and other services. Child trafficking victims received support, including interviews and medical examinations, at Barnahus – a multidisciplinary and interagency center offering a coordinated, child-sensitive approach to preventing re-traumatization during investigations and court proceedings. All three child trafficking victims identified received services from the municipality and from Barnahus.Icelandic law allowed victims to receive support services, regardless of their participation in investigations and prosecutions, and foreign trafficking victims to obtain either a nine-month residence permit or a one-year renewable residence permit, which was available to victims who faced retribution or hardship in their home countries or cooperated with law enforcement. Officials noted, in most instances of suspected trafficking, foreign victims opted to leave the country instead of cooperating with investigations. Police took official reports for all victims, except in cases involving children, in which a specialized psychologist took their statements. In accordance with the NRM, victims could receive a state-appointed and state-funded attorney, as well as social workers and psychiatric services. While there was no specific restitution program for trafficking victims, such a program existed for victims of violence and could be applicable for trafficking victims. Under the Icelandic judicial system, if a legal proceeding yielded a conviction, the court could order restitution as part of sentencing. In 2022, the government amended the law permitting compensation claims at the appeal stage of court proceedings despite acquittals of convicted criminals, including traffickers; ensuring legal aid at every stage of court proceedings, including if a case, such as a trafficking case, returns to the courts as a civil case; and providing better information disclosure on a case’s progress and access to documentation by the victim’s legal representative. In 2022, authorities reported incarcerating a potential trafficking victim for transporting illegal drugs as a direct result of being trafficked; as of the end of the reporting period, the investigation remained ongoing.																																												PREVENTION						    																																															The government maintained prevention efforts. The government continued to implement the MOSL’s 2019-2022 NAP on preventing violence and its consequences and allocated 15 million ISK ($105,930), compared with 10 million ISK ($70,620) in 2021, for implementation of action items, including anti-trafficking activities. Separately, the government continued to implement its anti-trafficking NAP that included action items focused on bolstering public awareness, education, and institutional knowledge. Funding from the national budget financed relevant ministries and government agencies for implementation of NAP programs and activities. In 2022, the government and OSCE hosted a workshop on modernizing and strengthening the NAP with a focus on thematic priorities and improving operability for all those responsible for implementing the current NAP. The MOJ-led national steering group coordinated interagency anti-trafficking efforts through three task forces. The task forces focused on prosecution, protection, and prevention, respectively; incorporated a range of government and non-government stakeholders, including a survivor; and developed specific policy proposals to implement the NAP. The protection task force maintained an online emergency services portal for trafficking victims with information – available in English, Icelandic, and Polish – on trafficking indicators and assistance and provided a quick response code directing the public to the portal. The task force also provided SOPs for emergency hotline operators responding to suspected trafficking cases outside of the law enforcement process. The prevention task force worked on a project focused on corporate social responsibility and chain of responsibility revolving around public procurement. The task force met with government parties responsible for implementation of directives relating to public procurement in the NAP to conceptualize user-friendly materials explaining how to apply legal provisions and including a summary on chain of responsibility. Supply chain responsibility in the Public Procurement Act stipulated the liability of principal contractors to ensure all sub-contractors were paid in accordance with collective bargaining agreements. According to the tender conditions in Reykjavik, representatives from the municipality could inspect worksites and demand proof that contractors and subcontractors were following the proper legal conditions. The Act also stipulated if a bidder or a participant was a convicted trafficker, they were barred from procurement bids for a minimum of three years. In cooperation with EU countries, the Directorate of Labor (DOL) continued to participate in a two-year project aimed at reducing labor violations and labor trafficking, by combating unregulated employment and “social dumping,” whereby workers were given pay or living or working conditions that were sub-standard compared to the law. The DOL maintained a website providing information on the rights of foreign workers in Iceland and the resources available to them. In 2022, the government hosted a symposium on human trafficking in the labor market with a focus on the construction industry and discussed workers’ rights and trafficking risks. While the government did not require recruitment agencies to be licensed or registered in Iceland, the DOL required all companies contracting workers in Iceland to register with the DOL and provide information on business activities and workers; breaches of these requirements would result in fines. Icelandic law prohibited companies, including recruitment agencies, from charging recruitment or hiring fees.Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Icelandic authorities have taken steps to mitigate the potential for trafficking among refugees by providing trafficking guidelines for border control and informational brochures on common trafficking indicators and local anti-trafficking resources for law enforcement, airport authorities, and other professionals in contact with potential victims. Authorities created and distributed flyers on the dangers of trafficking, in English, Russian, and Ukrainian, to refugees from Ukraine and all individuals under international protection in Iceland, regardless of their nationality. In addition, the MOJ lowered barriers for Ukrainians to seek asylum or refugee status in Iceland, and the government processed more than 25,000 Ukrainians for humanitarian protection in 2022. In January 2023, the Ministry of Education and Children’s Affairs allocated 140 million ISK ($988,630) to Icelandic municipalities to support Ukrainian resettlement. While the government did not operate a trafficking-specific hotline, the country’s general emergency telephone number provided information to victims on services and directed callers to appropriate responders. The government did not make efforts to reduce the demand for commercial sex acts. The government did not report providing anti-trafficking training to its diplomatic personnel but noted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintained a code of conduct for diplomats.																																												TRAFFICKING PROFILE:						    																																															As reported over the past five years, human traffickers exploit domestic and foreign victims in Iceland and, to a lesser extent, traffickers exploit victims from Iceland abroad. Traffickers exploit women from Africa, Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and South America in sex trafficking and men and women from Asia, the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and West Africa in forced labor. Traffickers increasingly use the internet and social media to recruit victims. Most trafficking cases involve small business owners or individual traffickers, who are foreign nationals living legally in Iceland and engaging in other criminal activities. Reports indicate a recent increase in organized crime and its association with organized trafficking. A 2021 police report on organized crime raised concern about trafficking in Iceland and implicates nationals from the Middle East and southeastern Europe operating criminal organizations in sex trafficking. A separate police report notes a nascent nexus between asylum abuse and organized crime through which traffickers seek to manipulate the asylum system. Labor trafficking continues to be the largest concern in Iceland with migrant workers particularly vulnerable in the construction, tourism, and restaurant industries as well as domestic service. Foreign “posted workers” are at particular risk of forced labor as the traffickers pay them in their home countries and contract them to work for up to 183 days in Iceland to avoid taxes and union fees, limiting tax authorities’ and union officials’ ability to monitor their work conditions and pay. Asylum-seekers and foreign students are especially vulnerable to trafficking. Traffickers reportedly exploit the visa-free regime in the Schengen Zone and the European Economic Area to bring victims to Iceland for up to three months and move them out of the country before they must register with local authorities. Refugees fleeing Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and seeking sanctuary in Iceland are highly vulnerable to trafficking; Icelandic authorities confirm supporting approximately 2,500 refugees in Iceland since the war began.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Aruba											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											The Bahamas											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Cote d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Curaçao											Cyprus											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Czech Republic											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											The Gambia											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hong Kong											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyzstan											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Macau											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia, Federated States of											Moldova											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nepal											Netherlands											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Sint Maarten											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											Timor-Leste											Togo											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey											Turkmenistan											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											United States											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe																										On This Page				search													>																										ICELAND (Tier 1)																PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																	PROSECUTION																																																	PROTECTION																																																	PREVENTION																																																	TRAFFICKING PROFILE:																																																							Tags																					Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																																Human Trafficking																															Iceland																								Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
- Ireland HomeReportsOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons2023 Trafficking in Persons Report&#8230;Ireland				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Ireland																																					Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons																																																																																																				 In this section										/																							IRELAND (Tier 2)																																													IRELAND (Tier 2)																															PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																																																		PROSECUTION																																																																																		PROTECTION																																																																																		PREVENTION																																																																																		TRAFFICKING PROFILE:																																																																																																								IRELAND (Tier 2)				The Government of Ireland does not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking but is making significant efforts to do so. The government demonstrated overall increasing efforts compared with the previous reporting period, considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its anti-trafficking capacity, if any; therefore Ireland remained on Tier 2. These efforts included increasing funding for victim care and awareness raising efforts. The government also terminated the Atypical Working Scheme (AWS) for non-European Economic Area (EEA) sea fishers, which inadvertently increased worker vulnerabilities to trafficking. The government also assisted slightly more victims and rectified a gap in victim identification by identifying several child victims. However, the government did not meet the minimum standards in several key areas. The government did not convict any traffickers – a decrease compared with the prior year – and has never convicted a trafficker for labor trafficking under its anti-trafficking law. Chronic and systemic deficiencies in victim identification, referral, and assistance persisted; and services for victims remained inadequate. The government did not adopt an updated NAP, amend its NRM, or overhaul its accommodation framework for trafficking victims, which continued to leave victims with inadequate and unsuitable accommodations. Additionally, the government identified fewer trafficking victims among vulnerable groups, specifically sea fishers, and decreased investigations of trafficking crimes. The government did not report providing trafficking-specific training to any judges and has never awarded restitution or compensation to any victims.																																					PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:						    																																															Increase efforts to proactively identify and protect all victims, especially Irish citizens, victims of labor trafficking and forced criminality, and vulnerable populations like children, sea fishers, and asylum-seekers.Improve victim identification and referral by issuing a revised NRM in coordination with NGOs; providing victim identification training for all front-line officials, including for labor inspectors; and offering formal identification, a recovery and reflection period, and services to all victims.Allow formal victim identification by entities other than the police, including civil society, labor inspectors, social workers, and health care professionals.Systematically assign a family liaison officer to all trafficking victims cooperating with law enforcement.Vigorously investigate and prosecute suspects and convict traffickers of both sex and labor trafficking as trafficking offenses and seek adequate penalties for convicted traffickers, which should involve significant prison terms.Consider additional measures of protection for sea fishers to reduce their risk of labor trafficking.Offer specialized accommodations to trafficking victims that are safe, appropriate, and trauma-informed.Continue to systematically train law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges on a victim-centered, trauma-informed approach to law enforcement efforts and trials and sensitize judges to the severity of trafficking crimes.Allow all victims to access the NRM without requiring cooperation with law enforcement.Ensure victims are not inappropriately penalized solely for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked.Update and adopt a NAP that includes a clear timeline for implementation, responsible ministries, and resources for implementation.Increase efforts to use corroborating evidence in addition to victim testimony.Increase resources for legal assistance to victims as well as the legal services provided, including assistance to victims through investigations and court proceedings, which can be accessed at the earliest opportunity and prior to engaging with police.Establish a national hotline to report for all forms of trafficking crimes, including labor trafficking.Increase awareness of, and trafficking survivor access, to damages and increase efforts to systematically request restitution for survivors during criminal trials, particularly for undocumented workers or victims of sex trafficking.Continue regular liaison between investigators and prosecutors on evidentiary standards and legal matters that arise during investigations in trafficking cases.Prioritize investigating fraudulent labor recruitment and ensure cases found to be labor trafficking are prosecuted as trafficking rather than labor code violations.Expand government authorities to ensure the effective regulation and monitoring of agencies that recruit domestic workers and au pairs.																																												PROSECUTION						    																																															The government slightly decreased law enforcement efforts. The 2008 Human Trafficking Act, amended in 2013, criminalized sex trafficking and labor trafficking and prescribed penalties up to life imprisonment, which were sufficiently stringent and, with respect to sex trafficking, commensurate with punishments prescribed for other serious crimes, such as rape. The law broadly defined sexual exploitation to include the sexual abuse of children. The Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Act of 2017 criminalized the purchase of sexual services and prescribed more severe penalties for the purchase of sex from a person subjected to trafficking. In such cases, the burden of proof shifted to the accused, who had to prove they were unaware the victim was exploited in trafficking.The Garda Síochána Human Trafficking Investigation and Coordination Unit (HTICU), a national specialized police unit responsible for investigating human trafficking, reported investigating 39 new cases of trafficking in 2022: 24 for sex trafficking and 15 for labor trafficking (including two cases of forced criminality); this was a slight decrease compared with 44 investigations in 2021, but similar to 38 in 2020. Police continued investigating 29 trafficking cases initiated in prior years – 17 for sex trafficking and 12 for labor trafficking. Although courts remained open in 2022, pandemic-related court closures in 2020 continued to cause trial delays. In 2022, prosecutors indicted three suspects for sex trafficking; this compared with one in 2021, three in 2020, and five in 2019. Prosecutors continued to pursue two sex trafficking prosecutions initiated in prior years. GRETA raised concerns regarding the historic lack of prosecutions for labor trafficking and suggested labor trafficking cases may have been viewed as exploitation or lesser crimes instead. Courts did not convict any traffickers in 2022, a decrease compared with the conviction of three traffickers in 2021 and one trafficker in 2020. Prior to the June 2021 convictions, the government had not convicted any traffickers under the anti-trafficking law for at least seven years, despite formally identifying more than 500 trafficking victims during that time. The government has never convicted a trafficker for labor trafficking. In January 2023, courts increased the sentences of two traffickers convicted in 2021 to seven and a half years’ imprisonment after prosecutors filed an appeal arguing the original sentences were unduly lenient. The government did not report any investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of government officials complicit in trafficking crimes.In its 2017 and 2022 reports, GRETA expressed concern regarding the inadequate criminal justice response in Ireland, noting the failure to convict traffickers and the absence of effective sentences could contribute to impunity and undermine efforts to support victims to testify. GRETA reported police did not use data intercepted from cellular phones as evidence in court to prove trafficking crimes, which may have diminished the strength of their cases. In its 2022 report, GRETA urged the government to make use of special investigation techniques in order to gather material, documentary, financial, and digital evidence, as opposed to relying exclusively on testimony by victims or witnesses. In 2022, the national rapporteur, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), encouraged the government to improve victim interactions with police with an additional focus on victim-centered and trauma-informed approaches. Police noted language interpretation was often a challenge when conducting victim interviews.The government had another specialized police unit, the Organized Prostitution Investigation Unit (OPIU), which focused primarily on vulnerable populations within the commercial sex industry, including trafficking victims, and its links to organized crime. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) had a specialized team responsible for prosecuting trafficking, smuggling, and organized commercial sex. In its 2022 report, GRETA scrutinized the historically low number of prosecutions – largely attributing low prosecution numbers to the nature of the criminal justice system in Ireland and the high burden of proof required by courts – primarily the need for prosecutors to assess whether prosecution was in the public’s interest and would meet prima facie. While prosecutors had no investigative authority, they could confer with police and advise on what evidence would be required to proceed with a prosecution; GRETA encouraged increased collaboration between prosecutors and police in the gathering of evidence required to sustain a prosecution. However, prosecutors were prohibited from meeting or interacting with victims ahead of trial, could not discuss evidence, and were restricted to only providing an explanation of the process during the trial. Experts noted this obstacle may have hindered prosecutions and urged the government to assign a family liaison officer to every trafficking victim cooperating with law enforcement to advocate for the victim and help prosecutors.Judges often had little understanding of trafficking crimes or familiarity with the effects of trauma on trafficking victims. Civil society continued to communicate concerns regarding the lack of judicial training, and the government did not report providing any such training during the reporting period. NGOs and GRETA recommended training for law enforcement, prosecutors, and the judiciary regarding the complexities of commercial sex and sex trafficking to ensure victims were not inappropriately penalized solely for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked. Lengthy court proceedings may have deterred victims from cooperating with law enforcement.HTICU did not deliver any specialized training events to personnel within Ireland&#8217;s law enforcement agencies in 2022, a decrease compared with the prior year. However, trafficking training continued to be part of the curriculum at the Garda training academy and training seminars were provided by the national rapporteur and government-funded NGOs. International law enforcement cooperation with the United Kingdom (UK) continued and resulted in the arrest of one suspect. In June 2022, in conjunction with 21 other countries and INTERPOL, the government participated in a Europe-wide action day, focused on child trafficking, which resulted in identification of 130 potential trafficking victims and the arrest of 130 suspects across all participating countries.																																												PROTECTION						    																																															The government maintained victim protection efforts. GRETA, the national rapporteur, and civil society continued to raise concerns regarding the government’s ongoing, chronic deficiencies in proactive victim identification and provision of assistance to trafficking victims. The government reported the influx of refugees fleeing Russian’s war against Ukraine strained government services available to those in need. Police formally identified 39 victims; however, approximately half of the victims were initially identified by other government departments or government-funded NGOs who referred them to police for formal identification. This was similar to 44 victims identified in 2021, 38 in 2020, and 42 in 2019, but significantly less than 64 in 2018, 103 in 2017, and 95 in 2016 – indicating a long-term downward trend. The 39 victims included 24 exploited in sex trafficking and 15 in labor trafficking (including two for forced criminality). Of the victims identified, all were foreign nationals except two Irish sex trafficking victims; 15 victims were asylum-seekers; four were children; and two were forced labor victims in the fishing sector. Although the government reported identifying two Irish nationals and four children in 2022, proactive identification of these types of victims remained rare.The government reported referring every formally identified trafficking victim to the NRM, resulting in all identified trafficking victims receiving at least some form of assistance and care through the NRM. Of these victims, 27 were referred to legal aid; however, the government did not report how many victims accessed other available services under the NRM, including shelter. The government provided €1.13 million ($1.21 million) to NGOs for victim assistance and legal services, including both sex and labor trafficking, a significant increase compared with €689,938 ($737,110) in 2021. Some experts, including the 2022 GRETA report, raised concerns the number of victims formally identified by police did not represent the true scale of trafficking in Ireland and many unidentified victims faced penalization or deportation. In 2021, the government funded a study that concluded the probable number of trafficking victims was likely 38 percent higher than the official national statistics from 2014-2019. In its 2022 report, GRETA stated child trafficking, labor trafficking, and forced criminality remained under-recognized and under-reported.Experts continued to criticize the government’s ability to identify trafficking victims due to shortcomings in its NRM and limiting victim identification solely to police. The NRM was valid only for victims lacking legal residency in Ireland – namely foreign nationals from outside the EEA who were not asylum-seekers. The formal identification scheme excluded EEA-nationals, including Irish nationals, and asylum-seekers with pending applications. GRETA reported in 2017 that as a result, the government did not formally identify such persons as suspected trafficking victims, which had negative implications for their access to social welfare and other specialized victim services. In 2022, the International Protection Office identified 15 asylum-seekers in the process of claiming asylum, halted the process, and referred them to police for entry into the NRM as trafficking victims. The government reported, in practice, Irish and foreign victims had equal access to all state services. GRETA and NGOs, however, asserted EEA-national victims could be excluded from accessing general social welfare, housing support payments, and other state support until they satisfied or were granted an exemption from the Habitual Residence Condition, which some victims may not have been able to satisfy because of an inability to prove a documented work history. The government maintained it assessed suspected victims on a “reasonable grounds” basis to allow them access to support and services. However, NGOs, lawyers, and a 2021 academic study asserted the national police lacked consistent standards and a specific criteria for “reasonable grounds” when assessing victims; anti-trafficking efforts varied widely from urban to rural areas; and there was no consistently used formal referral mechanism for all police units for sex trafficking victims. NGOs and other front-line responders did not have a formal role in the identification of victims, although police could receive victim referrals from any source. In its 2017 and 2022 reports, GRETA asserted the exclusive police authority to identify victims created a potential conflict of priorities between law enforcement efforts and victim assistance. In 2017, the government reported plans to institute a new and revised NRM, which reportedly included proposals to expand formal victim identification by and referral from entities other than the police and allowed all victims to access the NRM without requiring cooperation with law enforcement. However, the government reported that the adoption of a revised NRM would require a legislative change and the revision remained pending at the close of the reporting period. Experts had long criticized the slow pace of the NRM, and in its June 2022 report the national rapporteur echoed these concerns, as well as the level of involvement of NGOs and survivors; the rapporteur recommended the establishment of a Survivor Council and adoption of a child-specific identification procedure. In its 2022 report, GRETA urged the government to finalize the revised NRM and ensure it covered all trafficking victims, including Irish and EEA citizens, children, and asylum-seekers; included multi-agency involvement and partner NGOs in victim identification; and that victim cooperation with law enforcement was not a requirement for formal identification.The government continued screening children for trafficking indicators with a child sexual exploitation victim identification tool, which included referral protocols. The government reported identifying four children in 2022. The ODPP’s 2018 decision to reclassify child trafficking victims as victims of &#8220;sexual exploitation” instead typically excluded children from trafficking statistics. The national rapporteur expressed concern the government’s decision to reclassify child trafficking victims obscured the true extent of child trafficking in Ireland. In its September 2022 report, GRETA expressed concern regarding the near absence of child trafficking victims due to the lack of reporting on children at risk and proactive identification of presumed victims; GRETA urged the government to establish a robust child protection system and provide further training and tools to stakeholders. The national rapporteur noted publicly the lack of identified children could also be a result of insufficient expertise among social workers regarding the identification of child trafficking victims. In 2022, the national rapporteur stated the government must disaggregate child trafficking data by type of exploitation in all future annual reports and was concerned by the lack of attention to and identification of child trafficking victims. Experts and NGOs noted little attention was paid to Irish, EEA-national, or Romani children, or children recruited online, with most focus on asylum-seeking children. The national rapporteur also criticized that failure to identify child victims of forced begging or forced criminality as such could result in the inappropriate punishment of those children for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked. Because there were no dedicated services or accommodations for child trafficking victims, they were usually placed in children’s residential centers or in approved foster care and had access to social workers and one psychologist from the anti-trafficking team at the Health Services Executive (HSE). In its 2022 report, the national rapporteur recommended TUSLA – the Child and Family Agency, which is responsible for providing services and support to child trafficking victims – amend their policies and procedures to specifically and purposefully include child trafficking and that staff receive trafficking-specific training, as the national rapporteur found a general lack of knowledge and understanding of child trafficking among officials.Only two of the 41 identified victims in 2022 were sea fishers, a decrease from the prior year. Identification of trafficking victims in the fishing sector has been uneven, with seven trafficking victims formally identified in 2021, zero in 2020 and 2019, and 20 in 2018. Despite the government formally identifying 33 sea fisher victims since the establishment of the AWS in 2016 and police finding sufficient evidence of trafficking to refer at least nine cases to the ODPP, there have been no prosecutions of trafficking in the fishing sector. Officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued to deny the existence of trafficking within the industry. Furthermore, of the formally recognized trafficking victims, 18 participated in the AWS, which has had 455 participants from 2016 to 2021, resulting in approximately four percent of participants exploited in trafficking. A civil society organization expressed concern it had become more difficult for sea fisher trafficking victims to obtain admittance into the NRM.The government’s lack of consistent screening for trafficking indicators before referring foreign nationals to immigration authorities for deportation and further failure to identify victims persisted, even when presented with indications of trafficking. Government officials had previously raised concerns the Workplace Relations committee (WRC) did not sufficiently understand its role in identifying trafficking victims or have adequate trafficking training, and the separation between immigration, labor, and trafficking enforcement was unclear to all officials.The government required a formal victim statement to police and a law enforcement referral for potential victims to access the NRM; victims unwilling to go to the police could access emergency accommodation, counseling, medical care, and legal services from NGOs that received government funding, but not through the NRM. Victims who did not cooperate with law enforcement did not have access to sexual health screenings available to victims that did cooperate. The NRM, which was administered at government-run assistance centers (“direct provision centers”), provided victims with voluntary access to legal aid service, direct provision accommodation (government-funded accommodation), welfare and rent allowance, police assistance, repatriation, translation and interpretation assistance, education for dependent children, a recovery and reflection period, temporary residence permits, and medical care, including individual care plans by HSE’s Anti-Human Trafficking Team (AHTT) within three days of referral. In the only successful trafficking conviction under the anti-trafficking law, victims were fully supported throughout criminal proceedings, including the assignment of a family liaison officer, who accompanied the victim to court and police interviews, and referral to a dedicated specialized psychologist at AHTT. Experts urged the government to consider assigning a family liaison officer as a standard practice to all victims cooperating with law enforcement to ensure victim protection and increase the likelihood of successful prosecutions. In its 2022 report, GRETA urged the increased and uniform use of professional interpreters, who were familiar with human trafficking, in all stages of victim identification and criminal proceedings.There was no legally mandated psychological assistance for victims, and NGOs continued to report a lack of specialized services to address the physical and mental health needs of victims. In 2022, GRETA urged the government to address the shortage of psychological support services and ensure trafficking victims were provided with long-term psychological assistance. According to experts, the lack of clear rights and legal protections for victims often required NGOs to use the legal system to ensure victims’ rights were protected, which only benefited a limited number of victims. Access to legal services was limited, as resources were insufficient for demand and delays in application processing resulted in some victims becoming undocumented, thereby reducing their access to care and assistance; in its 2022 report, the national rapporteur expressed concern regarding these gaps. NGOs reported services available from the government’s Legal Aid Board were inadequate for victims’ needs, as the board only provided information to potential victims referred by police but did not provide legal assistance or support to victims during investigations or trials. Two government-funded NGOs continued to provide legal representation for labor trafficking victims, including at least 22 trafficking victims in 2022. GRETA, in its 2017 and 2022 reports, the national rapporteur in its 2022 report, and NGOs urged the government to ensure trafficking victims had systematic early access to legal practitioners with specialized knowledge of trafficking who could represent them.The government did not offer trafficking-specific shelter or services for trafficking victims. However, the government provided accommodation arrangements for victims and potential victims through the government-funded direct provision system, which housed asylum-seekers, refugees, and trafficking victims in centers and temporary accommodation facilities across the country. Victims were not required to stay in direct provision accommodation, originally established for asylum-seekers, although the government did not otherwise offer dedicated shelters for victims of trafficking. NGOs stated the mixed-gender housing in the direct provision system had inadequate privacy, was unsuitable and potentially unsafe for traumatized victims, could expose them to greater exploitation, and undermined victim recovery. Experts also noted a lack of specialized services in the centers for all victims, but especially for female victims who had been traumatized due to psychological, physical, or sexual violence. Experts noted accommodation in direct provision was inappropriate and unacceptable for emergency or long-term stays. NGOs raised concerns the placement of victims in direct provision accommodation isolated victims from other available services and exposed them to re-trafficking and re-traumatization. In its 2017 and 2022 reports, GRETA continued to express concern regarding the lack of appropriate accommodation for trafficking victims and continued to urge the government to establish specialized, gender-sensitive, appropriate, and safe accommodation facilities for victims. In February 2021, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth published a white paper with plans to overhaul and phase out the direct provision system by 2024 and replace it with a victim-centered accommodation and social support system called the International Protection System. In its 2022 report, the national rapporteur urged the government to establish single-gender accommodations, in proximity to specialized services, as an interim solution while the government overhauled and phased out the direct provision system. While the government, including a parliamentary committee, an Advisory Group, and Ireland’s Ombudsman long acknowledged the lack of adequate accommodation, the government did not report taking any further actions to effectively address inadequate shelter and the original direct provision accommodation framework remained in place.The government could give potential foreign trafficking victims temporary relief from deportation by issuing temporary residence permits, contingent upon cooperation with an ongoing investigation; permits could be extended by police request to the DOJ. In its 2022 report, GRETA encouraged the government to consider granting residence permits on the basis of the victim’s personal situation as well. The government also provided legal alternatives to removal to countries in which victims would face retribution or hardship. Immigration permissions were granted through a 60-day recovery and reflection period, a six-month temporary residence permission, or a two-year residence permission that allowed the holder to engage in legal employment. The government issued some form of immigration permission, including renewals, to five trafficking victims in 2022, a significant decrease compared with 57 in 2021. However, trafficking victims could not work for the first 60 days during their recovery and reflection period. NGOs reported the six-month work permits acted as a barrier to work because of the government’s slow renewal rate and the recovery and reflection period was not uniformly granted to victims. The temporary residence permission could evolve into permanent residency and residence benefits were not linked to a conviction.The government did not award restitution or compensation to victims for the crime of human trafficking – only for lost wages. Although courts could award restitution during criminal proceedings, prosecutors were not allowed to request restitution on behalf of victims; courts have never awarded restitution to a trafficking victim. To date, any assets seized from traffickers were awarded to the government, as opposed to victims. The government did not provide state compensation to trafficking victims for pain and suffering, as there was no mechanism to do so. Victims could obtain compensation for lost wages through a criminal trial, a civil suit, state bodies dealing specifically with work-related rights, and the criminal injuries compensation tribunal. In its 2022 report, GRETA noted no trafficking victim had ever received compensation from the government or restitution from the trafficker and that victims were treated as witnesses in criminal proceedings as opposed to injured parties entitled to compensation. In its 2022 report, GRETA urged the government to prioritize the collection of evidence regarding the harm the victim suffered as part of the criminal investigation; offer free legal assistance; increase training of relevant stakeholders; ensure eligibility for restitution and compensation was not affected by a failure to inform the authorities of the crime or to cooperate with them; ensure victim eligibility for non-pecuniary losses; and establish a special compensation fund for trafficking victims funded by the assets confiscated from perpetrators. In 2022, the national rapporteur recommended assets seized from traffickers be placed in a fund for victim restitution. The Minister of Justice could decide to order restitution for unpaid labor of foreign trafficking victims, but the Minister never utilized this authority. NGOs criticized the lack of viable avenues for victim restitution, particularly of cases that involved sex trafficking and undocumented workers. Victims of sex trafficking had no verifiable expenses or employment losses, and the Labour Relations Committee was unavailable to undocumented workers, who could only pursue civil suits if they could prove they took all reasonable steps to rectify their irregular working status. However, NGOs stated no case like this had previously been brought before the courts and that high legal costs were a deterrent to victims. Officials also noted because there was no viable avenue for undocumented workers to recover wages, this could have incentivized employers to exploit workers and may have increased their vulnerability to trafficking, which GRETA encouraged the government to review. The national rapporteur echoed the concerns of GRETA and civil society regarding the inaccessibility of compensation for victims and the ineligibility of undocumented workers to obtain compensation; the national rapporteur recommended the urgent reform of legal aid to include advice on compensation.The law protected the privacy and identity of victims in court proceedings, allowed for the assignment of a family liaison officer, and permitted victims to testify via video link at the discretion of the judge; however, this was not always uniformly granted and NGOs expressed doubt victims were always informed of these protections. The law provided specific child-sensitive protocols, including the use of video recording for testimony; the assignment of a specially trained social worker, if needed; and child-sensitive training for officials interacting with child victims.The government remained without a specific legal provision to ensure victims were not inappropriately penalized solely for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked; GRETA urged adoption of such a provision in its 2013, 2017, and 2022 reports. Furthermore, in 2015, the Irish High Court found a need for protocols or legislation to dictate what happens when a victim is suspected of criminal activity; but the government took no action to rectify this gap. In practice, however, prosecutors sought to avoid victim prosecution and utilized internal guidelines that instructed prosecutors to consider the public interest and mitigating factors, such as coercion, when deciding whether to charge an individual with a crime. The decision to prosecute a trafficking victim rested entirely with the ODPP and was not subject to scrutiny. NGOs noted the process for victims to seek immunity from punishment for criminal activity as a result of trafficking was complex and required early legal representation. If authorities prosecuted an individual before they were formally identified as a trafficking victim, their criminal record could not be expunged. While law enforcement did identify some trafficking victims found in cannabis production facilities, including at least one victim in 2022, there continued to be other instances reported by GRETA and NGOs where victims of forced criminality were not recognized as such. NGOs urged the government to complete the identification process for victims in cannabis production facilities prior to arresting and processing these individuals. In its 2022 report, the national rapporteur expressed concern that victims continued to be imprisoned and charged for criminal offences associated with trafficking.																																												PREVENTION						    																																															The government minimally increased prevention efforts. The DOJ’s criminal justice policy unit functioned as the national coordinating body and was responsible for coordinating interagency efforts, raising awareness, providing funding to anti-trafficking civil society organizations, collecting data, and publishing an annual trafficking report. The DOJ’s national anti-trafficking stakeholders forum comprised interagency and civil society stakeholders; however, the forum did not meet in 2022 or 2021. The forum’s subgroups met six times in 2022 to review the anti-trafficking NAP. However, in 2022, GRETA noted the status of DOJ’s forum was unclear and urged the government to take steps to strengthen the work of the stakeholders’ forum, clarify its status, and ensure the subgroups were enabled to make progress. The national rapporteur, IHREC, was responsible for monitoring human trafficking policy and publishing reports. In its 2022 report, GRETA urged the government to include data collection in the national rapporteur’s mandate. It was unclear whether the government followed its 2016 NAP; the plan had no end date, timeframe, budget allocation, or indication of agencies responsible for its implementation. NGOs described the 2016 NAP as outdated. The anti-trafficking stakeholders forum submitted a draft NAP in October 2022, but the government did not adopt a new NAP by the close of the reporting period. In 2022, the national rapporteur recommended any revised NAP should include clear timelines and progress indicators. In partnership with a government-funded international organization, the government maintained efforts to raise awareness of trafficking by continuing a previous national anti-trafficking public awareness campaign. The government also maintained a website that provided information on human trafficking and encouraged the public to report possible cases of trafficking to authorities. In 2022, the government provided €550,807 ($588,470) to NGOs for anti-trafficking public awareness campaigns and victim assistance training, a significant increase compared with €280,000 ($299,150) in 2021.Fraudulent recruitment by labor recruitment and employment agencies remained a concern; however, the government did not report effective law enforcement measures taken to deter traffickers. Employment agencies were required to have a license and passport withholding was illegal. The WRC did not have the authority to regulate agencies that recruited au pairs, who were allowed to work up to 20 hours per week without the need for a work permit. NGOs reported employers regularly paid au pairs less than minimum wage and forced them to work more than the maximum of 20 hours per week, creating vulnerability to labor trafficking; however, the government did not report any steps taken to address this during the reporting period. Furthermore, an NGO also raised concerns regarding the lack of jurisdiction for WRC inspectors to address violations regarding the number of hours worked on fishing vessels. Although no trafficking-related law enforcement efforts were undertaken as a result of inspections and none of the victims were determined to be trafficking victims, WRC labor inspectors did refer six potential trafficking victims to the police in 2022. Some experts and GRETA raised concerns inspectors viewed possible cases of labor trafficking as administrative employment law violations and did not pursue them as trafficking crimes. In its 2022 report, GRETA criticized the limited number of labor inspectors, which did not allow for the proactive identification of labor trafficking victims.The AWS was initially established in 2016 in response to reports of labor exploitation of sea fishers outside the EEA; however, subsequent consistent reports from civil society and media have concluded the AWS failed to address worker vulnerabilities and exploitation, and instead often exacerbated them. The AWS was established outside of the normal regulatory framework for the recruitment of non-EEA nationals and was therefore not subject to the same salary requirements, labor market tests, and other provisions. Furthermore, unlike other industry sectors, the AWS did not qualify non-EEA sea fishers to receive a stamp 4 visa after five years, the receipt of which would allow non-EEA sea fishers to work in Ireland without being tied to a specific employer. Non-EEA sea fishers that left their employer due to exploitative conditions or trafficking often found themselves undocumented because their work permits were tied to their employer. The AWS did not include undocumented migrant sea fishers under its scheme, which could increase their vulnerability to trafficking and labor exploitation. Furthermore, in 2021, a university published a report, which featured in-depth interviews with 24 male non-EEA sea fishers in the Irish fishing industry; the report concluded labor exploitation, and in some cases trafficking, was still prevalent in the Irish fishing industry and the overall conditions in the sector had worsened since the implementation of the AWS, echoing the conclusions of another NGO report published in 2017. Victims often did not engage with inspectors due to fear of reprisal and permit revocation as well as language barriers. The report made a number of recommendations, including de-coupling work permits from individual employers to eliminate the use of permits to control the labor of sea fishers and increasing the use of professional interpreters for private interviews with sea fishers separated from their employers. In its 2022 report, GRETA expressed concern that despite the high number of vessel inspections by WRC, law enforcement authorities were investigating cases as employment-related violations instead of labor trafficking and the current conditions of the AWS did not appear to be sufficient to prevent abuse of sea fishers – a sentiment also echoed in the national rapporteur’s 2022 report. GRETA and the national rapporteur recommended sector-wide work permits rather than having permits linked to one employer. In 2022, a review group, consisting of senior government officials, published a comprehensive review of the AWS and recommended it be discontinued. Officials instead recommended non-EEA sea fishers be required to apply for work permits under the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (DETE) employment permit scheme. Following the recommendation from the review group, the DOJ closed the permission system for fishers for new online applications on December 31, 2022, to transition from the AWS system to the Employment Permit system. While the government had not begun issuing work permits to non-EEA sea fishers under the DETE permit scheme by the close of the reporting period, it did issue stamp four visas to all sea fishers with valid permission under the AWS at its closure.In October 2022, the media reported a human rights group requested the government impose a supply chain ban on imports of cotton goods made with forced labor from the People’s Republic of China, but the government did not report further information or whether any decisions had been made. The government prohibited convicted traffickers from being selected for public contracts. The government continued to make efforts to reduce the demand for commercial sex by arresting and prosecuting alleged procurers of commercial sex; however, unlike the prior year, the government did not report providing any funding for demand reduction, a decrease compared with €106,050 ($113,300) in 2021 and €96,050 ($102,620) in 2019 and 2020. The government did not fund the operation of a dedicated national trafficking hotline assisting all trafficking victims but did operate a hotline for sex trafficking victims and individuals in commercial sex. The government also promoted a general crime hotline for anonymously notifying police about various crimes; police staffed the hotline, which was available for 12 hours daily. The government did not report the number of calls received for trafficking-related cases during the reporting period. HTICU also had a dedicated email address for reports of trafficking and a website dedicated to human trafficking; one of the emails HTICU received in 2022 resulted in an ongoing trafficking case.																																												TRAFFICKING PROFILE:						    																																															As reported over the past five years, human traffickers exploit Irish and foreign victims in Ireland, and traffickers exploit victims from Ireland abroad. The prevalence of human trafficking in Ireland is likely higher than official statistics report. A comprehensive 2021 study found that from 2014 to 2019, the true number of trafficking victims was likely 38 percent higher than official national statistics. Foreign trafficking victims identified in Ireland are from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America. In recent years, authorities and media have reported an increase in suspected victims from Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Romania. Brazilian women are vulnerable to fraudulent recruitment and promises of employment in cafes and massage parlors, or as au pairs only to be forced into commercial sex upon arrival in Ireland. Traffickers exploit victims of forced labor in domestic work, the restaurant industry, cannabis cultivation, nail salons, food processing, waste management, fishing, seasonal agriculture, hospitality, and car washing services. Since 2022, refugees from Ukraine, predominantly women and children, fleeing Russia’s war in Ukraine, are vulnerable to trafficking. Undocumented workers in the fishing industry and domestic workers, particularly au pairs, are vulnerable to trafficking. Among other trafficking indicators, sea fishers experienced the use of fraudulent recruitment and non-violent psychological coercion via threats of immigration permit revocation and subsequent deportation, as well as several instances of forced criminal activity by coercing sea fishers to conceal fish. Migrant workers from Ghana, Egypt, and the Philippines are vulnerable to forced labor on fishing vessels. In December 2022, the media reported instances of sea fishers paying significant fees to recruitment companies in the Philippines prior to arrival in Ireland, which increases their vulnerability to debt bondage and exploitation. Women from Eastern Europe forced into marriage in Ireland are at risk for sex trafficking and forced labor.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Aruba											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											The Bahamas											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Cote d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Curaçao											Cyprus											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Czech Republic											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											The Gambia											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hong Kong											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyzstan											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Macau											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia, Federated States of											Moldova											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nepal											Netherlands											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Sint Maarten											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											Timor-Leste											Togo											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey											Turkmenistan											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											United States											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe																										On This Page				search													>																										IRELAND (Tier 2)																PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																	PROSECUTION																																																	PROTECTION																																																	PREVENTION																																																	TRAFFICKING PROFILE:																																																							Tags																					Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																																Human Trafficking																															Iceland																								Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons