Integrating the Climate Change Migration Paradox into the Maritime Jurisdiction of Small Island Developing Countries (SIDs)^†

Several scholars have documented that one of the great concerns in ocean governance has been the failure of the negotiating groups in the 1950s–1970s to define the islands (Coelho, 2022). Though the contextual discussions came to the fore in the 1930 Hague Codification Conference (Hiro, 2014); the definitions lack mechanisms that incorporate spatial and temporal changes emanating from demographic, social, and environmental changes (Colombos, 1973). Initial descriptions related to “An island near the mainland. An island at a distance from the mainland. A group of islands; how near must islands be to one another to cause the whole group to possess a single belt of territorial waters. “According to Quirk and Hanich (2016), this description negated the issues of ecological connectivity and traditional knowledge of SIDS related to the BBNJ around their maritime zones.

The 1956 International Law Commission Report defined under Provision II (Articles concerning the law of the sea), Part I (Territorial Sea), Section II (Limits of the Territorial Sea), and Article 10 (Islands) expounded that; “Every island has its own territorial Sea. An island is an area of land surrounded by water, which in normal circumstances is permanently above the high-water mark” (Colombos, 1973). However, the report was dotted with cynical gaps relating to the future loss of Island territory (Hiro, 2014). For instance, Article 10 contradicts the use of the term “abnormal circumstances” due to climatic or weather conditions in contrast to “normal circumstances” (Yamamoto and Esteban, 2011). Defining islands as “permanently above the high-water mark,” negates the prospect of the island lying below the high-water mark, regardless of the circumstances (Burgess et al., 2021). This can be interpreted as intended to withhold the status of an island from land that is below the high-water mark in other than “normal circumstances” (Hiro, 2014). Based on the current provisions of UNCLOS III, a state or island ceases to be considered so, and does not possess territorial waters; if; technical installations are set up on the seabed for exploitation of the continental shelf, or when it is submerged as elevations must be above the high tide elevations (UNCLOS Article 121). Even if an installation is built on such an elevation and is itself permanently above water--a lighthouse, for example--the elevation is not an island. Paragraph 3 of Article 71 in the draft states: Such installations, though under the jurisdiction of the coastal State, do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea of the coastal State (Burgess et al., 2021). This further means that SIDS maritime jurisdictions negate temporal social and territorial changes as provided for in Article 10 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea (CTS) which states that an Island is; A low tide elevation is a naturally formed area of land which is surrounded by and above water at low tide but submerged at high tide.

The current legal regime and definition of an Island in under the UNCLOS hovers around naturally formed land areas that are wholly surrounded by water (Sea) (Caron, 1990). This implies that an Island in Maritime Law can be a Rock, Atoll, or Reef (Hiro, 2014). In addition, the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) postulates that Islands possess the same maritime zones as other landmasses, including a territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and continental shelf (Russell and Macnab, 2008). Therefore, an Islands does not need to be inhabited to create those maritime zones; rather it should be capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life (UNCLOS, 2016, Part VIII, p. 63). An Island can be an archipelagic state or a part of an archipelagic state (Article 46 (a) (b)). However, UNCLOS Article 121 (3) highlights that if a rock does not have human habitation, or sustain economic activity, it ‘shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.’ Thus, the definition of rock is just a legal term and does not refer to any particular type of coastal geological formation (Yamamoto and Esteban, 2011). For example, a sand spit or sand bar can be considered a rock (Hiro, 2014). Therefore, the core definition of islands is embodied in UNCLOS Article 121, and the CTS Geneva treaty regulates islands in Article 10. Article 121 (1) of the UNCLOS defines an Island as “An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.” p. 66. UNCLOS Article 121 (2) further explains the criteria for determining an Island as; “Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory” (UNCLOS, 2016, Part VIII, p. 63).The UNCLOS definition of an Island shows that artificial islands even in the EEZ of a coastal state hardly qualify as islands; as they are not naturally occurring; which subdues sustainability regulations for SIDS in strengthening scientific and technological needs due to environmental changes (Coelho, 2022). In addition, UNCLOS Article 60 applies mutatis mutandis to artificial islands, installations, and structures on the continental shelf, and EEZ (UNCLOS Part V, p. 41). Article 60 (8) categorically states that, “Artificial islands, installations, and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.” (p. 45).

The description of an Island is precisely problematic due to a lack of a consensus among parties on which mechanism to classify an Island; especially for coastal states and also the fear by major coastal states to forfeit colonial science gains from the privileges of Article 5 (8) of the CSC related to the freedom of seas; especially in conducting MSR in the BBNJ and around the EEZ of SIDS with less capacity in technology, finance, and human capital (Tanaka, 2013). According to Gorina-Ysern (2003), UNCLOS III provisions on Islands preclude the need to revise the long-standing principle for sustainable development developed during the Rio Summit of 1992 and Agenda 2030 on ocean and CC vulnerabilities facing SIDS (World Ocean Assessment II, 2021).

Since 1992, SIDS have been championing equity in maritime governance and the sustainable use of marine resources (UNCTAD, 2014a). The conceptual meaning of SIDS is documented in international policy frameworks focusing on the Blue Economy (BE) which shows that SIDS are scattered across the Caribbean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea area and the Pacific Ocean (UN-OHRLLS, 2018). Crucial commonalities of SIDS are they share a history of colonialism, consider the ocean as sacred, and the source of their livelihood (Coelho, 2022). The United Nations International Development Organization (UNIDO) defines SIDS as relating to the magnitude of environmental vulnerabilities and risks, geographical location in the Maritime Areas, small geographical size, and high dependence on limited natural resources (UNIDO, 2019). SIDS are marine island nations experiencing high levels of socioeconomic, and environmental vulnerabilities mainly due to changing CC and declining marine ecosystem resources (World Bank, 2020). The maritime location and disadvantaged geography of SIDS increasingly make them vulnerable to environmental shocks as they have a small resource base, are highly dependent on imports, face high energy costs, have infrastructure and transportation problems, fragile natural environments, and very less resilience to natural disasters (ECLAC, 2010; The Commonwealth, 2014). The increased vulnerabilities of SIDS have created special case scenarios to develop pathways for sustainable development of SIDS in line with the United Nations BE Framework and Agenda that was birthed at the Rio Earth Summit (CBD, 2013; Conservation International, 2013; UNCTAD, 2014b).

Geographically, SIDS are located in a typology of maritime geographical regions: (i) Caribbean, (ii) Pacific, and (iii) the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and South China Sea (AIMS) (UNHCR, 2021). According to the United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and Small Island Developing States (OHRLLS), currently, there are 38 SIDS are UN member states (Table 1) and 20 SIDS are either Non-UN member states or Associate members of Regional Commissions (Table 2, 3) (UN-OHRLLS, 2018).

Historically, SIDS have been the least global polluter. SIDS generates about 0.02% of greenhouse gas emissions (UNDRR, 2017). The ratio of waste generation in SIDS is low compared to OECD countries at 1.2: 1.35 kg/capita/day respectively (Mohee et al., 2015). But SIDS are among those who stand to experience the most risks and challenges emanating from terrestrial and marine pollution (UNDRR, 2017). SIDS are located in the paths of marine plastic gyres, have a small land area for setting up landfills, and the poor waste management attitudes (Polidoro et al., 2022; UNEP, 1999). This could have dire effects on the revenues emanating from services such as tourism owing to health warnings about infectious and vector-borne diseases, and the poor aesthetics of litter in the streets (UNIDO, 2019). The health concerns relating to waste management in SIDS have affected local food markets and the exportation of seafood emanating from SID to OECD (ADB, 2015). The cost of internally and externally generated waste and its management is increasing in SIDS (UNCTAD, 2021). In Tonga, for instance, the cumulative annual economic cost of improper waste management and disposal has skyrocketed to about 5.6 million USD! (Agamuthu and Herat, 2014). In addition, the application of the Basel and Waigani Conventions has been subjectively applied in SIDS; especially in the South Pacific Zone as ballast and other hazardous waste is spilled over by long-liners and vessels in their EEZs (Mohee et al., 2015; UNEP, 1999). Globally, Maldives has the highest level of microplastic pollution affecting pristine marine life and food sources that sustain the local economy (Phys.org, 2020).

In addition, SIDS especially in the Caribbean such as Barbados, and Jamaica are stifled by the legal and technical obstacles preventing the efficient implementation of MARPOL 73/78, and application of Special Area statutes for the Wider Caribbean area under Annex V of MARPOL such as the development of robust systems for port waste reception facilities and public awareness campaigns (UNIDO, 2019).

The paucity of human and financial resources limits the range of possible options for the sound development of sustainable investments and solutions for disaster risk financing and recruitment of technical expertise for the development of inclusive solutions for SIDS (Russell and Macnab, 2008). Geospatial isolation of SIDS shots up travel costs for potential economic sectors and investments in marine sectors such as tourism (UNWTO, 2012). The World Trade Organization (WTO) financing criteria are rocket science for most poor SIDS such as Tuvalu due to stringent financing conditionalites (Mohee et al., 2015; The Commonwealth, 2014). 37 percent of SIDS are Non-UN Member states thus deprived of the international fora on financing and global trade regulating organizations-International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and WTO respectively (Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2020). Jamaica has experienced annual average losses between 1991 and 2011 equivalent to 2.6 percent of its average annual investment leading to impeded and sluggish national growth (UN-OHRLLS, 2018). In addition, Official Development Assistance (ODA) to SIDS is low. In 2011, Anguilla received a paltry 0.42 million USD in ODA (OECD, 2011)! During the COVID-19 induced lockdowns the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of SIDS was projected to decline further by 9 percent (UNCTAD, 2021). The 2006 UNESCO report from the 3^rd Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands categorically lays bare this conundrum that; “Despite the fact that SIDS have large ocean areas rich in resources (fisheries, oil and gas, minerals, renewable energy), many island States are unable to benefit from the existence of these resources within their EEZ as a result of inadequate technical, financial, and management capacity.” (Russell and Macnab, 2008).

Because of their geographical location, small population, and high investment costs (UNIDO, 2019). SIDS have been vulnerable to accessibility and connection problems which have increased transnational crime, laundering, and trafficking. SIDS are increasingly experiencing varied, complex and many marine transport challenges with a great external threat stemming from globalization (UN, 2015). The vast EEZs are increasingly leading to ocean added security vulnerability of the islands emanating from Non-Flagged vessels, as did the growth in transnational organized crime, which tests the ill-equipped law enforcement agencies (The Commonwealth, 2014).

For the last 50 years, over 650 hydro-meteorological disasters have impacted SIDS, affecting more than 35 million people and causing approximately US$ 34 billion in damages (WMO, 2022). Since 2001, the magnitude and frequency of natural hazards of meteorological, hydrological, and climatological nature have exponentially increased (Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disaster, 2020). Extreme weather events such as floods, geophysical hazards such as tsunamis and earthquakes and CC are affecting SIDS populations and increasing the cost of mitigation and adaptation (UNDRR, 2022). The 2016 Hurricane Matthew in Haiti decimated over 600 people and led to losses equivalent to 32 percent of Haiti’s Gross Domestic Product (Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017). The small geographical sizes and small populations of SIDS accelerate disaster risk as to the recurrence of natural disasters such as storms surges, hurricanes, and floods delays short-term and long-term socioeconomic recovery mechanisms (Huang et al., 2021). In fact, SIDS are prone to the most catastrophic form of floods worldwide that emanate from catastrophic events such as quakes (WMO, 2018).

One of the covert risks facing SIDS is over-dependence on finite marine natural resources (IORA, 2019). 90 percent of SIDS either directly or indirectly rely on marine goods, resources, or services for their socio-economic development (The Commonwealth, 2014). SIDS such as Guinea Bissau, Tuvalu, and New Caledonia basically rely on natural biodiversity resources for socioeconomic survival (UNDRR, 2022). Increased Illegal, unreported, and unregulated marine resource exploitation practices such as IUU fishing in the EEZs of SIDS have ruined socio-economic survival and led to expulsion from marine fishing cooperation (UNCTAD, 2021). The issuance of a ‘yellow card’ to Kiribati over unregulated fisheries governance by the European Union from 2016-to 2020 threatened local revenue sources secured through the selling and issuance of access permits to distant marine fishing nations such as Japan and China (Holland, 2020).

Overfishing by local fish communities in SIDS and increasing IUU fishing have drastically reduced valuable marine species such as sea turtles, some shark species, and corals in contravention of Appendix 1 and 2 of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (The Commonwealth, 2014; UNCTAD, 2014b). The intricacies of dependence have stymied the GDP of SIDS. The average GDP of SIDS is estimated at 13.7 billion USD though states such as Singapore fetch in excess of 222.7 billion USD (World Bank, 2011).

One of the wicked challenges engulfing SIDS is the increasing sea-level rise mainly emanating from CC (IPCC, 2022). The ripple effects of CC such as an increase in coastal flooding, and storm surges are more pronounced across the globe; especially in the Pacific Ocean dotted with Atoll states such as Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands (World Bank, 2020). Studies postulate that in the West Pacific Ocean, the sea level has been rising at a rate of 2–3 times higher than the global average (World Bank, 2021). By 2100, it is estimated that the sea levels will rise between 0.5 to 1.1 meters (IPCC, 2021). An increase in sea level is increasingly jeopardizing the historical maritime regime in relation to entitlement to marine resource zones, survival of marine resources such as coral reefs, and increase in ‘climate change and environmental refugee populations’ that the global and maritime regime has not addressed (The Commonwealth, 2014). The core maritime challenges resulting from sea-level rise include:

The meaning of Islands and their rights-especially in relation to the concept of habituation is an incentive for legal debate (AOSIS, 2021). Though some provisions on Islands under Part VIII Article 121 on the regime of Islands provide candid jurisdictional focus on the rights of coastal states-SIDS creating an incentive for States to obtain island status for their deep ocean features; Article 121 (3) paradoxically creates a critical debate on the sovereignty of SIDS affected by CC effects (Chand and Sloan, 2021). In addition, jurisdictional control of Islands in their Territorial Sea and EEZ over rocks and low-water elevations creates futuristic puzzles on the jurisdiction of CC affected SIDS (Kench et al., 2015). This scenario is prominent in those areas rich in marine resources such as in the case of Spratly Islands in the South China Sea where debate on whether some small features such as rocks (that might not fully constitute) islands deserve full control over their EEZ and in the case of the Okinotorishima which some States such as China dispute its claim for the EEZ as it is claimed that it is an artificial Island (Yamamoto and Esteban, 2011).

The guidelines for conducting marine research provide a basis for the determination of maritime jurisdictional rights for coastal states (Creel, 2003; Russell and Macnab, 2008). Article 76 of the UNCLOS provides for Coastal states collection, assembly, and analysis of a body of relevant hydrographic, geological and geophysical data in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Scientific and Technical Guidelines (Chand and Sloan, 2021). The technical guidelines aid in the collection of data that aids in the provision of inter alia; datasets for the Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) delineation, lodging of a claim, preparation, presentation, and defense of a submission on the Commission for the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) (Geloso, 2007; Russell and Macnab, 2008; Yamamoto and Esteban, 2011).

The 2008 Island Business Report for the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) concluded that the potential ECA entitlement of the 8 participating SIDS in the region could extend their maritime jurisdiction to a gross 1.5 million square kilometers of seabed and subsoil-a 10 percent increase in their EEZs and a potential for increased collection of data and utilization of maritime resources for sustainable development, resilience and adaptation to technological and logistical gaps in preserving their maritime rights and jurisdiction in the face of the increasing CC impacts (Russell and Macnab, 2008; Yamamoto and Esteban, 2011). Under Article 76, the EEZ delimitation Constraints affects mechanisms to extend the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (Kench et al., 2015).

The hesitancy to conclude boundary agreements in EEZs of SIDS endowed with huge sums of valuable marine resources constraining SIDS from directing resource utilization and seeking partnership for sustainable mapping of their zones (Burgess et al., 2021). Most SIDS are constrained to signing passive and exploitative licenses for research and natural resource exploitation (The Commonwealth, 2014). The complexity and deliberate conservative regulations affect SIDS from securing financial resources for exploration, fair partnerships in research and reduce the net benefit they gain from the presence of resources in their EEZs (3^rd Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, 2006). The bureaucracy in delineation has scaled up conflicts among SIDS such as in the case of Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago over fishing rights (AOSIS, 2021).

Most SIDS are bulldozed by neighboring stronger coastal powers due to imbalances in expertise for negotiations, and resources in securing technical experts in negotiations (Webb, 2005). By 2005, 39 highly potential maritime boundary delimitation claims were unresolved (CARICOM, 2005). The 2008 SPLOS report observed that the complexity, scale, and cost involved in conducted maritime research as stipulated under Article 76 to compile a credible submission are rocket science to SIDS and increase their vulnerability to maritime jurisdictional conflicting issues (Russell and Macnab, 2008; SPLOS, 2008). Furthermore, the UNCLOS jargon relating to claims for the ECS are ambiguous and disadvantage SIDS implying that SIDS will lose more jurisdictional rights due to their increased vulnerabilities emanating from CC (Russell and Macnab, 2008).

The 2022 IPCC Report categorically concluded that SIDS are one of the most vulnerable due to the impacts of CC (IPCC, 2022). Climate induced disasters such as typhoons, storm surges, and sea level rise has led to the loss of territory of SIDS (Rayfuse, 2009). In fact, about 26 percent of SIDS have their terrestrial land surface at less than 5 meters above sea level (UNISDR, 2013). Countries such as Maldives and Tuvalu have all their land area at 5 meters or less above sea level (ADB, 2015). Studies in Kiribati have documented a loss of Island zones in Kiribati due to sea-level rise (Chand and Sloan, 2021). Moreover, legislation on protection of the maritime zones of lost territory is lacking (Yamamoto and Esteban, 2011). In addition, increased sea level rise has led to coastal flooding and environmentally threatened refugees (AOSIS, 2021). Reports have documented that SIDS in the Pacific Ocean zone such as Kiribati, Tuvalu and Marshal Islands are more likely to lose more territory and thus require urgent action through financing and legislation (UN-OHRLLS, 2018). In 2021, through the Pacific Island Forum (PIF), 12 Pacific Ocean SIDS have a declaration to maintain the jurisdictional rights of SIDS (World Bank, 2021). Through the program, the PIF aims at addressing gaps in UNCLOS Article 76 on maritime delimitation and research (Turkas, 2022).

The declaration will help in clarifying how territorial and maritime entitlements including resources of SIDS can be preserved in the face of rising sea levels (World Bank, 2021). To address the funding gaps in promoting maritime research, promoting sustainable projects, claims, and submission, the PIF has secured and attracting financing through the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) to launch livelihood projects (UNIDO, 2019). A 2 billion USD partnership among 12 Pacific Ocean SIDS is supporting 87 projects at a for sustainable livelihood projects including climate resilience (World Bank, 2021). Increasing partnership among small atoll states such as Kiribati has led to the launch of the Building Resilience in Pacific Atoll Island Countries (UNIDO, 2019).

Since the beginning of the 21^st century CC anomalies and vulnerabilities have been increasing (ADB, 2015). The disproportional effects, and vulnerabilities imply that poor communities, and countries are projected to bear more brunt of the effects of climate change (IPCC, 2021). SIDS and Member Island Territories have inadequate systems to strengthen weather and climate monitoring, mitigation and adaptation strategies (UNIDO, 2019). The Third International Conference on SIDS in Apia in Samoa endorsed the SIDS Action Platform leading to the birth of the Accelerated Modality Action (S.A.M.O.A) Pathway to boost climate resilience and adaptation to protect SIDS (The Commonwealth, 2014; World Bank, 2020).

The pathway has laid a platform for designing of targeted and feasible action programs to build capacity in weather monitoring, national meteorological and hydrological services and application of science-based climate knowledge and information in decision making on resources, livelihoods, and protection and conservation of marine resources (UNDRR, 2017). In 2015, through the Seventeenth World Meteorological Congress (Cg-17) the adoption of Resolution 54 targeting SIDS has increased capacity development and research of SIDS National Meteorological and Hydrological departments (WMO, 2022).

Further funding of SIDS’ National Meteorological and Hydrological Services avails new early warning systems for environmental and marine use related risks to aid the sustainable socio-economic development of Small Island Developing States and Member Island Territories (UNIDO, 2019). The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) supports its Members in developing adequate structures and building capacity to ensure is boosting the development of structures and systems for proactive disaster risk management relating to CC, sea-level rise, environmental degradation, agriculture, fishing and mariculture, freshwater resources, coastal zone management, transport by sea and air, energy and tourism (WMO, 2022). The SAMOA Pathway has birthed the development of the 2019–2025 SIDS Strategy to create enabling pillars for strengthening knowledge and institutions in inclusive and shared prosperity, socioeconomic development and sustainable environmental management (UNIDO, 2019).

The maritime economy of the SIDS is one of the most lucrative globally (UNCTAD, 2014a). Most SIDS; especially in the Pacific Ocean poses massive EEZs that are habitats to vast amounts of living and non-living marine resources (The Commonwealth, 2014). Though SIDS cover only about 3 percent of the earth’s surface, it is estimated that about 20 percent of marine plants, birds, and reptile species habituate in the Marine EEZs belonging to SIDS (UN-OHRLLS, 2018). 10 out of the 34 global biodiversity hotspots are located in SIDS zones (Conservation International, 2013). However, SIDS have not reaped from the potential of maritime resources (World Bank, 2020). Overexploitation by powerful neighbors, CC, and unfavorable maritime jurisdictions on marine species have made most of the species endemic (World Bank, 2011). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) reported that 90 percent of the global reptile extinctions have occurred in zones near SIDS (CBD, 2013). In the Caribbean Island, for instance, 93.4 percent of the 502 reptile species have experienced endemism (Conservation International, 2013).

To promote sustainable development and inclusive gaining of benefits from the marine economy, the SIDS at the ‘Rio +20’ United Nations on Sustainable Development advocated for the refinement of the global agenda and framework on the sustainable development of oceans leading to the birth of the BE (IORA, 2019; UNCTAD, 2014b). The BE endorses the principles of socioeconomic inclusiveness through initiatives of low carbon, resource efficiency, and social inclusion, grounded in a developing world context and fashioned to reflect the circumstances and needs of countries whose future resource base is marine (United Nations Blue Economy Concept Paper, 2014). The BE is not only envisioned to reduce the energy costs and levels of energy vulnerability facing SIDS but also to aid in sustainable practices in marine resource use that SIDS rely on (World Bank, 2014; World Bank, 2020).

Crucially, the BE is viewed as a paradigm shift in the maritime jurisdictional rights of SIDS due to calls to consider SIDS as ‘large ocean states’ with equal marine powers and rights to terrestrial coastal states (Turkas, 2022). This will give SIDS more jurisdictional rights on the utilization of maritime resources, management of their maritime zones, and claims on maritime research and resource protection that are ambiguous under UNCLOS Provisions, especially Article 76 (Russell and Macnab, 2008).

The MSI was born out of a review of the Barbados Programme Of Action (BPOA) for the Sustainable Development of SIDS (Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform, 2022) (UNIDO, 2019). The comprehensive review of the gaps in the 14 thematic areas under the BPOA set forth the identification of 19 priority areas for the SIDS (United Nations, 2005). Under the mandate of the United Nations Resolution (A/57/262), the MSI hinges on the need to graduate SIDS from least developed country status, trade, sustainable production and consumption (as called for by the JPOI), health, knowledge management, build resilience to CC, maritime challenges and culture – all of which are intended to support SIDS in achieving internationally agreed targets and goals under Agenda 2030 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (The Commonwealth, 2014; World Bank, 2020).

The MSI has acted as a conduit for the initiation of a Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) of SIDS to address the future environmental vulnerabilities of SIDS (United Nations, 2005). The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) recommended in subsequent MSI conferences has led to increased financing in telecommunication for SIDS, adoption of strategies for renewable energy generation in SIDS, and adoption of the 2005 Hyogo Framework for the monitoring of disaster risk progress among SIDS (World Bank, 2011). The ‘SIDS DOCK’ initiative for the harnessing of Blue Energy technologies in SIDS is increasing linkages between SIDS and the global financial market in energy trading (UNIDO, 2019).