Think Change

Is SIDS4 a turning point for small island nations?

June 10, 2024 • ODI

Share episode

Small island developing states (SIDS) suffer disproportionately from external shocks. They face an existential threat from the climate emergency, while global economic uncertainty and geopolitical shifts have derailed recent progress that SIDS have made towards achieving growth and resilience.

That’s why governments of SIDS and their international partners met in Antigua and Barbuda a fortnight ago for the SIDS4 conference, which aimed to formulate a 10-year action plan intended to chart ‘the course toward resilient prosperity’ for small island nations.

In this episode, guests review this seminal conference, setting it in context of the unique challenges that SIDS face. We hear about the strengths of the Antigua and Barbuda Plan (ABAS) that emerged from it and what is missing from this framework. Guests outline reforms that are urgently needed to drive meaningful change for SIDS.

Guests

  • Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive, ODI
  • Ambassador Walton Webson, Permanent Representative of Antigua and Barbuda to the UN
  • Emily Wilkinson, Senior Research Fellow, ODI
  • Jean-Paul Adam, Director for Technology, Climate Change and Natural Resources Management in the UN Economic Commission for Africa

Related resources

Welcome to Think Change. I'm Sara Pantuliano.  The last week of May saw Antigua and Barbuda host the 4th UN Conference on Small Island Developing States, or SIDS4 as it is known.  We've spoken before on Think Change about the unique vulnerabilities of small island nations and the existential threat that the climate emergency poses to them. 

Global economic uncertainty and the geopolitical shifts we are all experiencing also threatened to unravel all the positive progress that SIDS have made to achieve resilience and growth.  The SIDS4 conference was attended by 5, 000 participants. It included 22 heads of state and government, and it resulted in a new 10-year plan of action that It's meant to deliver meaningful change to this group of vulnerable countries. 

But what does this look like in reality? And what's needed to ensure that these commitments are truly translated into action?  So joining me today to address and explore these questions, I'm delighted to welcome Jean-Paul Adam. Jean-Paul is the Director in the Office of the UN Special Advisor on Africa.

And a former minister of finance of the Seychelles, Ambassador of Walton Webson, permanent representative of Antigua and Barbuda to the UN. And our very own Emily Wilkinson, Principal Research Fellow at ODI, and also Director of the Resilient and Sustainable Islands Initiative, or RESI.  

So, to you all. Can you help set this recent conference in context for our listeners? What are some of the unique challenges that SIDS face and, and why was this conference such an important moment? Ambassador Webson, Antigua hosted, let's start with you. 

Thank you. Thank you.  I guess the answer to why the conference is fairly simple, and that is That it falls within an arranged agreed period of time that the United Nations has set out over the last 30 years to hold these types of conferences for since every 10 years.

However, it's much more meaningful than that, particularly at this time, the climate crisis has increased exponentially.  Since these conferences started in 1994, we are now at. A breaking point, some may even say at the tipping point, we are on the crust of going over crossing over the 1. 5. If you recall, nine years ago, we said 1.

5 is the limit for us small islands to stay alive, where we are at that step, that tipping point, and we believe the next 10 years is critical. So this conference is at a time, was held at a time when the most. Critical period in the history of small island developing states, not only because of the, the climate crisis, but certainly particularly so, but the crisis of finance and social development, which was thrown into a major tailspin.

As a result of the COVID 19 pandemic. So I would say the timing is critical.  And on the positive side, this is a time when there is some momentum globally in understanding what we face as small islands. But more importantly, it is critical because of the crisis that we as small island face, both economically, because of the financial and external shocks we face, and more so because of the climate crisis and environmental crisis that we face at this time. 

Jean-Paul, what do you think?  

Well, firstly, I have to congratulate Ambassador Webson and the government of Antigua and Barbuda for hosting I think a very effective conference and particularly where We saw islands leading. We saw islands putting forward the aspects which not only speak to their priorities, but which was about models of development.

And I think we have to look at the conference in through that lens. We currently have models of development, which are not very effective at actually addressing existential issues. Now for islands, climate change is immediate. In Antigua and Bermuda, we were hearing of Precise examples of how the climate is affecting tourism.

It's affecting, uh, real impacts, you know, in terms of the frequency of hurricanes.  And essentially in the current models of development being promoted, we generally tend to push these decisions far into the future rather than addressing them today, whereas island states have no choice but to deal with them in the immediate.

So I think the timeliness of this conference and the, the aspects that it is a try to address is really about how we channel resources into the most urgent issues of today. Islands are at the forefront of those, uh, questions and the policy decisions that islands take will have a global bearing in terms of the developed models that will either make us or break us as, as a planet and the progress that has been made because I think the Antigua and Barbuda roadmap, which has emerged the Abbas, uh, plan does improve certain aspects in terms of laying out how to address particularly issues around vulnerability.

But we still have a lot to do in terms of the deployment of resources at a global level to, uh, to the, those priority areas. 

Yeah, I agree. I mean, I think it's, it's what was really nice to see at the conference and it was a great conference with so many issues being raised that are of importance to SIDS, but they're of broader importance to, uh, other developing countries.

And of course the planet as well. And there were a huge amount of sessions. I went to quite a few side events that were about oceans and biodiversity and protecting coastal ecosystems and the really important role that SIDS play in all of that, because they have these really large exclusive economic zones that contain a lot of the planet's biodiversity.

So I think the sort of reframing of some of these big. Global development agendas around protection of these global public goods. I'm thinking more in terms of resilience to external shocks because these shocks are becoming more prevalent and more problematic for, for many countries. I think shows real leadership from the SIDS.

And that was a really great thing to see at the conference.  

Jean Paul, which agenda items do you think were new or are particularly important for SIDS?  

Well, I have to say, you know, I've been involved in these issues for quite a number of years when working in the Seychelles government and now working in the United Nations.

It's unfortunate that a lot of these issues are not new. They've been on the agenda a long time, uh, but progress that has been made. So for example, uh, we are now explicitly referring to a multidimensional vulnerability index, which is very important because it's a better measure of development. We're moving beyond GDP per capita. 

Uh, the UN secretary general has been very clear that, uh, GDP per capita Per capita is measuring the wrong thing,  measuring the overall wealth of the world doesn't actually take the world to where it needs to go, which is to build resilience because you can have the highest GDP per capita in the world.

It won't help you fight climate change necessarily particularly in the context of violent states. They have a small population. So the GDP per capita might seem high, but when it comes to the vulnerability for climate change, uh, their ability to deploy that GDP per capita into climate resilience is limited.

And that's because of economies of scale. In terms of infrastructure, you can't make your seawall smaller just because your population is less. So the cost of that seawall is much, going to be much higher. Or a smaller population, and those issues are played out globally. So again, you know, that same seawall that you might need in a small island state is also needed in a coastal town in a more developed country.

But I think this move towards Recognizing that vulnerability is a key issue for development. That's one of the big steps, uh, forward. Unfortunately, we will only see, I think, afterwards to what degree will institutions start allocating resources on the basis of vulnerability. I think that's the next, uh, big step, but it's a move in the, in the right direction.

Other big issues, debt, small island developing states, 83 percent of them are spending more in debt servicing. than they are in climate finance. And that includes the aid that they receive for fighting climate change. So there's a huge mismatch in terms of the resources being allocated to planetary emergencies such as climate change and, uh, emerging issues for small island states such as debt servicing challenges, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID 19 crisis.

And this speaks to the broader issue of access to resources to be invested, uh, in resilience and the tools that are used to address those, those matters.  

Thanks Jean Paul. Emily, Ambassador Webson, do you agree? I mean, there's a lot of discussion, quite heated discussion about the vulnerability index because, you know, some of the, uh, least developed countries or countries that have, you know, challenges in terms of their overall income feel that this would, you know, Take resources away from them.

What's your perspective?  

I think I agree fully with Jean Paul's perspective as he describes it, the multi-vulnerability index  is though not new, it's time has come for implementation where we cannot use this as a standalone tool, but use it as a tool to work alongside existing measurement tools that I use. 

To measure and define development, particularly to those countries when they have a crisis and to include in that measurement, the capacity or the resilience capacity of these countries, and we have to work to understand that with colleagues that this is not about taking monies or further splitting the development pie.

It is about being realistic. in responding to the challenges that many of these island nations face. I also wanted to add, based on what John Paul was saying, and to the question of what is new in the, from this event, this conference, think a couple of things.  A lot of the discussions have been there, but the time seemed to have come for these discussions to once again, take centre stage.

The question is, what do we do and how do, what do we do in applying the promises and the strategies outlining ABAS, and we can come to that. But specifically the debt initiative program is a new idea for. The SIDS agenda, how we deal with it. We know that most SIDS, as just noted by John Paul, are drowning in debt, 83%, drowning in debt, but we now have a program driven by SIDS that can help any SIDS to begin to look at ways of addressing the debt crisis.

Centres of Excellence is not new as a concept, but as a physical outcome from a SIDS conference, that's new. Having something that's a physical outcome that is tied to the 10-year strategy, that's new. The measurement pillars we use in that will be very useful in helping SIDS To respond quicker. We can't wait 10 years to respond to our design and next approach.

We, we cannot do that. That's an old model. It has to be done every two years and what the centre of excellence concept will do. And we heard it from a number of leaders is that we must institute meetings, the measurements. and define our practices, not every 10 years, not every five years, but every two years.

So we can better understand and better head off.  Crisis that countries may be facing in the effort on development.  

Yeah. I mean, I think the question of the MVI is obviously is, is a tricky one. There are technical and political issues sort of wrapped up in this, and maybe I don't want to get into the technical ones, but there's never going to be a perfect index, right?

So we can probably keep arguing about which indicators to include and which ones to take out, indefinitely. There's certainly a need to. So I'm going to start using it to see how useful it can be. And one of the areas where I think it could be most useful is to, to apply it when countries are getting close to graduation.

So what, you know, when they're about to become ineligible for official development assistance, and we know that a number of SIDS, when that's happened, really. That the levels of debt have skyrocketed. So this is not an efficient or effective graduation process. If they're then in that situation where they've, you know, facing very high levels of debt, very very expensive debt because they can no longer actually access concessional finance, but are clearly not in a position to generate the domestic revenues that are needed to pay for basic services.

John Paul said investment in adaptation and resilience. So, you know, that's, that's a real issue. So I think using it as a sort of control in conjunction with the GNI per capita kind of threshold would be a really useful application of it. And I think, you know, it's, it can also be used as a way of, an additional criteria for the MDBs to.

To use when, when thinking about levels of concessionality, because that to me is the big problem. We're seeing very, very high levels of debt and a number of SIDS, higher levels of debt in some that, you know, 10 years ago, didn't really have an issue with debt. Some of that is to do with the COVID 19 crisis, but it's to do with shocks more broadly.

You know, this debt in SIDS is related to shocks and frequent shocks. It's not related to poor debt management. And you know, we've done some research on this recently, looking at this, at this issue from the perspective of SIDS. And that clearly seems to be the case. So they're stuck in this sort of vicious circle, if you like, of under investment in climate resilience, which means that they're, you know, more affected by these shocks, which means that they have higher levels of debt and are less able to invest in resilience.

So I think, you know, we need to break that cycle of debt. And one way of doing it is by using. Some kind of vulnerability indicator or index or criteria by which to assess countries’ eligibility for, for ODA, but also concessionality of, of finance, which they are able to receive. So I think that's going to be really important.

And so that, that was a big topic. I mean, you know, we saw quite, there were quite a few sessions, a lot of discussions around debt and it's, it's of concern, I think, even to countries that don't currently have high levels of debt, because, you know, because we understand this about SIDS that the economy, the opportunities to diversify economies and to generate domestic and tax domestic revenues are really so slim, that this could potentially be a problem for us in the future. 

Thanks, Emily. I mean, go ahead.  

Can I just sort of react very quickly? And I do think that we have, we do have a problem of development frameworks, because, and this, this, this, sometimes this tension that maybe is created, which is artificial, between groups. Firstly, it's unfair to developing countries to create the idea that you may get more resources or less resources just because of, for example, GDP per capita, and it creates, that's the wrong purpose of development assistance.

Development assistance should be to help countries reach a point where they can develop themselves, they can invest themselves. Rather than creating a race to the bottom and a conflict over resources with GDP per capita, we measure the wrong thing. And the ambassador Webson, and I think very rightly said, the vulnerability index is an idea or whose time has come because the reality is, is that not only SIDS are affected by this.

I work on the office of the special advisor on Africa. We have a large number of African countries that are now middle income that actually have large groups of people who are below the poverty line within those countries. But because, uh, access to resources are determined by GDP per capita, they've already progressed on, uh, into a certain threshold. 

And the point of using a vulnerability index is that it allows for a better allocation of resources relative to need. Because in fact, in small island developing states, the issue is not just the overall amount of resources available. It's being able to use those resources for the right thing. One of the statistics that came out very strongly from this conference was there was an analysis that was done that showed that to ensure all small island developing countries against losses from natural disasters.

Would cost only 427 million per year. That, now that obviously is a lot of money, but that is in terms of development assistance, often these are the budgets that are used for one country.  So it's about using development finance in the right way. If you identify vulnerability. Your cost of development will be less, and you will more likely address the true issues that are preventing development from happening.

And I think that's one of the breakthroughs from this conference is having that conversation. What is development for? How do we help countries better? And it's not just about SIDS. It's about all developing countries.  

I want to agree with Jean Paul, Sarah. The question of development of how we redefine development is, is the matter that SIDS would have put on the table during this conference, and many of the side events. 

Because the question of, uh, of rethinking development through its multidimensionalities is far more useful than the using a GDP assessment. And because SIDS can, SIDS are vulnerable to the kind of external shocks that their economies depend on. I think Emily was making reference earlier about the economic.

Models that are used in development, some seeds that can use the blue economy to develop much better that. But again, that requires significant funding, the question of the vulnerability of economies such that are dependent on tourism, that they may very well one year be extremely healthy. The next year be extremely down because of external shocks. 

So we, we have to rethink development and SIDS have given us that chance to do that and out coming out of this conference, we as SIDS will continue to redefine development with the global community. I mean, the concept of graduation, I think is outmoded and we are going to have to find a better. We, in, in how we define development growth, I would say in SIDS, but in fact, it's within the context of all countries. 

Ambassador, you talked about the importance of the outcome document and how much is new in the outcome document. What was missing from the outcome document?  

As I said earlier, we can't measure in 10-year spurts.  We have to have clear indicators that are measurable over shorter periods of time that will head off crisis or respond to sudden external shocks.

So what was missing there is, and I think we are going to be doing some work on indicators, but we can't just do the indicators. We have to put in a mechanism that will provide an assessment Every, every two years rather than every five or 10 years so that we can, we, we know where things are and those are measurable for me that that's a major piece.

We have crisis around youth and losing youth, youth in migration, we didn't, we could come up with some innovative ways of how we could address the response from diasporas. In terms of their support to, to back to their capitals, because we now can do that through using technology. And of course, using the technological strength of the centre of excellence.

We hope we could address some of those, those things.  

Well, it's very clear that it was a seminal conference, but what needs to happen now to ensure that the agenda is implemented, and that SIDS really can look back at SIDS 4 at the conference in 10 years’ time and say that it really marked a clear turning point? 

For me, it's measure, measure, measure to what with implementation, we have to have. So we have the UN system that will be working with us in the implementation. But I think the idea of the using centres of excellence in different sub regions around the world to help the UN system outside of the present customs and patterns of the UN, and you can use. 

Civil society style engagement so that you can have much more, much more impact and quicker, much quicker, if not more, but much quicker impact on the changes that needs to take place to help society. So what needs to happen is putting the data points in place so that we can begin the process of measuring where we are.

And the steps that we're going forward, putting the centre of excellence fully in use as a multilateral institution so that that can become very effective in terms of working with, with the UN system, as well as more so working with the member states and developing other centres throughout the subregion and bringing academia into, into it like universities. 

So it is for me all about. Data all about the capacity to make sure we are able to help countries in the implementation measure their growth and development path and respond to challenges that they may be facing. Sometimes they may not be seeing it, sometimes they may, but helping them to respond to those.

Yeah, I'd like to compliment that by saying that, you know, it was fantastic how much the voices of non-state actors were engaged in the development of, The outcome document in the design and implementation of the conference that needs to carry on, and I think it needs to be institutionalized even further] so that these partnerships and other research centres, I should say, including ODI can continue to, to contribute to implementation because only if you have that kind of engagement from across society, can you really keep people's attention focused on this agenda.

Some of the things that. We'd like to do in partnership with, uh, the UN and with Alliance of Small Island States AOSIS, which is the negotiating group for, for SIDS. We want to deliver a SIDS future forum every two years, which will bring fresh analytical insights to bear on SIDS challenges. We would also like to do an independent sort of evidence gathering, stock taking, uh, process that culminates in a SIDS forum.

State of SIDS report so that we can really reflect on how things are going and where course correction might be needed, but to continue to engage other actors. And I think making really much better use of the sort of, uh, university network and education and training, that universities can provide to, to build capacity within the, the, the Alliance of Small Island States, particularly for the sustainable development negotiators in the same way as AOS is Received significant support on the climate track.

So there's a lot of things you can do to kind of really institutionalize this and create what we're referring to as a new knowledge architecture for SIDS. 

No, And I think that where there is progress is also where there's most to do. And this is linked to the international financial architecture.

So there's been big progress because in the outcome document from Antigua and We have talked explicitly about more resources being made available through international financing institutions for small island developing states and for development more generally.  But also, as Ambassador Webson had said, there's a lot of very Innovative ideas coming from islands.

So what we're looking to see in terms of this conversation that's happening, and in some ways aligned with also what is being asked for in the Bridgetown agenda through Prime Minister Mia Motley, of this broader reform of international financing institutions. So a few things. Firstly, how debt is dealt with because we have an emerging debt crisis that is affecting the developing world.

And this is something which everyone should be concerned about because if the developing world has a debt problem, it's actually a global problem, but it's easy to say that this problem is not happening. And currently the onus lies on the developing countries that are facing these debt pressures to bring creditors to the table.

In, in what is called the common framework, which is the right, the agreed scenario for this to happen. And it's been inadequate for countries that have faced these issues. And we need to have a proper debt restructuring mechanism that allows countries that face debt challenges to be able to deal with them in a very predictable manner.

In addition, the scope for applying, for example, insurance mechanisms in a similar way that they have been done in the developed world, applying them in the developing world and in Africa and in smaller and developing states will unlock other forms of financing which are not just aid dependent.  There is also the need to reinforce institutions within developing world, such as the development banks of these regions.

I speak from an African perspective, increasing the lending capacity of the African Development Bank would dramatically help a lot of these countries to be able to access the resources that they need reliably, and I think a lot of those elements are within the outcome document of Antigua and Barbuda, the Abbas, and what we look forward to In terms of the practicalities will be the actual steps being taken by the IMF by the World Bank to operationalize what these countries need, which is development finance, which is predictable, which addresses climate risk.

So, for example, systematically applying climate risk clauses and loans, a simple measure doesn't cost a lot will dramatically improve resilience, not only of violence of all countries. So these kinds of actions, we need the. financing architecture to evolve. I think there is momentum, and we hope to build on it. 

Thank you so much, Jean-Paul, Emily and Ambassador Webson. That's all we have time for today.  It's very clear from what you've all said that seeds for Mark important progress for small island nations. Uh, and I think more broadly in terms of the challenge to the traditional development paradigm that is centred in GDP levels per capita.

The need to address the seeds agenda urgently is unquestionable, including the unfairness of the debt burden, that is generated by the increased frequency of shocks. And, you know, related to that, the importance of rethinking the financial architecture, as Jaipur was just saying, Emily often says, seeds, uh, the canary in the coal mine when it comes to the impact of the climate emergency.

So focusing on their agenda will help us think of how we can build stronger resilience to the climate crisis more widely. If you've enjoyed the episode, please do like, subscribe and rate it. And I hope you will join us again next time.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Sara Pantuliano

Host