If SIDS were a country

Small Island Developing Statessmall island developing States (SIDS) were recognized as a distinct group of developing countries at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.
More information on UNCTAD official page., as the name suggests, are small. Indeed, taken individually, SIDSsmall island developing States (SIDS) were recognized as a distinct group of developing countries at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.
More information on UNCTAD official page. barely register on most common metrics, whether geographic, economic, or social. For the purposes of this analysis however, rather than thinking of SIDS as many disparate states, they are presented as an amalgamation - as ‘one country’. In other words, what if, for the sake of comparison, the SIDS were a single country rather than a set of states? From this perspective, SIDS very often cease to be small or peripheral players from a global perspective. Depending on the metric selected, the country ‘SIDS’ frequently ranks above average compared with other countries. In fact, in some spheres, the country ‘SIDS’ becomes a world leader.

The purpose of this comparison is to help showcase the contribution of the SIDS to our economic, social and environmental worlds, and in doing so put these small but fascinating nations into context. Presenting the SIDS, based on the list of SIDS for analytical purposes (see What makes a SIDS a SIDS), as ‘one country’ is for illustrative purposes only – it should be stressed that individual SIDS do not enjoy the advantages or economies of scale that the synthetic or fabricated ‘SIDS country’ presented in this chapter would enjoy. The following chapters will analyse the SIDS subregions and individual SIDS to review their capacities and challenges as some of the most vulnerable economies in the world.

SIDS’ physical and ocean territory; bigger than you think

Geographically speaking, SIDS are usually considered to be very small countries. Taken individually, this is indeed the case; even the largest SIDS, the Solomon Islands, measures only 27 990 km²Square kilometre (km²). For comparison, this is roughly equivalent to the land area of Albania or Armenia. However, as a group, it quickly becomes apparent that SIDS are not small. In terms of land area, SIDS together measure 117 901 km², which would rank in the 53rd percentile of countries, similar in size to North Korea or Nicaragua.

This area is not evenly distributed across the SIDS. Figure 1 shows the distribution of land area by nation and region. The majority of land area is held by the Pacific SIDS (67 per cent), followed by the Caribbean (25 per cent) and finally the Atlantic and Indian Ocean SIDS (8 per cent).

Figure 1. Distribution of land area in the SIDS

Source: -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

Quite a different perspective emerges when EEZsExclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a concept adopted at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1982), whereby a coastal State assumes jurisdiction over the exploration and exploitation of marine resources in its adjacent section of the continental shelf, taken to be a band extending 200 miles from the shore -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. are compared, rather than just landmass. When land area plus EEZExclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a concept adopted at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1982), whereby a coastal State assumes jurisdiction over the exploration and exploitation of marine resources in its adjacent section of the continental shelf, taken to be a band extending 200 miles from the shore -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. is taken into consideration, the country ‘SIDS’ is the second largest country in the world (21 million km²), just behind the Russian Federation. From this perspective, the SIDS account for 8.7 per cent of global combined EEZ and land area. Distribution within the SIDS regions also changes, with the Pacific SIDS accounting for 71 per cent of SIDS’ total land plus EEZ, Atlantic and Indian Ocean SIDS now accounting for 22 per cent, and Caribbean SIDS just 7 per cent. This is due to the denser nature of Caribbean SIDS’ geography, constraining their EEZs.

Figure 2. Land area plus exclusive economic zoneExclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a concept adopted at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1982), whereby a coastal State assumes jurisdiction over the exploration and exploitation of marine resources in its adjacent section of the continental shelf, taken to be a band extending 200 miles from the shore -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-., 2018

(km², logarithmic scale)

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- and -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

This massive oceanic endowment means that, as is examined throughout this report, the seas and oceans play a central and defining role in SIDS’ economies, cultures and geographies. This role is not always benign, however, as low-lying land and coastal-concentrated populations make SIDS especially vulnerable to natural disasters, including hurricanes, typhoons and flooding, as well as to rising sea-levels associated with climate change. Some nations, such as Kiribati, have gone as far as to purchase land in other countries for food security and potential population transfer -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

Figure 3 shows the share of SIDS’ land lying below 5 meters' elevation from the sea level relative to other development groupings, illustrating their unique vulnerability to rising sea levels. Unfortunately, this is not a problem for the future, as islands have already begun to disappear under rising seas and others face imminent inundation, for example parts of the Abaiang atoll in Kiribati -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

Furthermore, of the land that SIDS do possess, a smaller share of it is arable compared with other LDCsLeast developed countries (LDCs) are low-income countries confronting severe structural impediments to sustainable development. They are highly vulnerable to economic and environmental shocks and have low levels of human assets -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-., LLDCsLandlocked least developed countries (LLDC) , or developing nations, as figure 4 illustrates.

Figure 3. Share of land below 5 meters' elevation, 2010

(Percentage of total land area)

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.
Notes: Developing and LDCLeast developed countries (LDCs) are low-income countries confronting severe structural impediments to sustainable development. They are highly vulnerable to economic and environmental shocks and have low levels of human assets -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. groups exclude any SIDS.

Figure 4. Arable land as a share of total land area, 2016

(Percentage of total land area)

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.
Notes: Developing and LDC groups exclude any SIDS.

This limited arable land is further threatened by encroaching salt water in otherwise productive coastal soil -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, all but guaranteeing a decline in this metric in the years to come. The situation has implications for SIDS’ food security, particularly in the low-lying atoll nations of the Pacific SIDS -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. In these nations, deteriorating agricultural conditions has rendered domestic production of traditional food stuffs, valuable sources of foreign exchange as well as calories for the local population, more difficult. High transportation costs make it more expensive for them to replace domestic production with imports, further highlighting the importance of preserving and developing their current agricultural assets.

Economic importance and population

Given the constrained land area of SIDS, it is no surprise that their populations are commensurately small. The largest SIDS in terms of population, Jamaica, counted a population of only 2.9 million in 2020 -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. Of the remaining 28 SIDS, only three (Trinidad and Tobago, Timor-Leste and Mauritius) have a population above one million. However, taken together, the combined SIDS population of 13 million accounts for 0.2 per cent of the global total and places them in the 66th percentile of nations in terms of population in 2019, larger than Rwanda or Belgium, but smaller than Zimbabwe or Somalia.

Figure 5. Total population, 2019

(Persons, logarithmic scale)

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

The SIDS’ population density of 110 people per km² puts them well above LDC and LLDCLandlocked least developed countries (LLDC) averages, as shown in figure 6.

Effective density may be even higher, as their populations tend to be clustered in coastal zones with sparsely populated interiors -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, a fact that further increases their vulnerability to climate-related stresses.

While they account for 0.17 per cent of global population, they account for only 0.1 per cent of global GDPGross domestic product (GDP) -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. As figure 7 illustrates, this makes SIDS by far the smallest group of economies as categorized by UN-OHRLLSUnited Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS).

Figure 6. Population density, 2019

(Number of persons per km²)

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- and -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.
Notes: Developing and LDC groups exclude any SIDS.

Figure 7. Comparison of GDP across groups of economies, 2019

(Percentage of world GDP)

Source: -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.
Notes: Developing and LDC groups exclude any SIDS.

However, if SIDS are reconfigured as a single country, rather than as a development group, their combined GDP of US$103.4 billion in 2019 would make it one of the largest LDCs or LLDCs , ranking second on both lists, behind Bangladesh and Kazakhstan, respectively. SIDS’ combined GDP would be greater than either Kenya’s or Ethiopia’s, and only slightly behind Slovakia’s.

SIDS as a country’s GDP per capita of US$7 985 in 2019 was higher than any of the LDCs’Least developed countries (LDCs) are low-income countries confronting severe structural impediments to sustainable development. They are highly vulnerable to economic and environmental shocks and have low levels of human assets -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. and all but two of the LLDCs (Botswana and Kazakhstan). The composite figure would rank in the 54th percentile globally, higher than Thailand’s GDP per capita, but lower than Brazil’s.

Though there are many differences between SIDS when it comes to the composition of their economies, in general they tend to be heavily dependent on services when compared with other development groups, as shown in figure 9.

Figure 8 GDP per capita, 2019

(Current US$)

Source: -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.
Notes: Developing and LDC groups exclude any SIDS.

Figure 9 GDP composition by sector, 2018

(Percentage)

Source: -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.
Notes: Developing and LDC groups exclude any SIDS.

SIDS produce the smallest share of their GDP from agriculture and industry and commensurately the largest share via services. This is not surprising, as scarce land endowments coupled with often greater distances to markets constrain both agricultural potential and industrial capacity. Given SIDS’ physical circumstances, it should come as no surprise that they tend to concentrate economically in areas where they are least disadvantaged, such as services related to tourismTourism refers to the activity of visitors -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. International tourism expenditure is often approximated by the sum of travel services and transport of passengers, reported under balance of payments statistics (see Trade in services). Transport of passengers not considered, tourism represents a subset of travel, as some travelers, such as border-workers, travel for regular work, as they are holding employment contracts outside their usual residential environment. Activities of border-workers and similar travelers do not belong under tourism. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- and hospitality or finance. For comparison, Bulgaria and Estonia have very similar economic profiles to SIDS as a whole.

SIDS’ island nature has a large impact on the structure of their economies, virtually guaranteeing that they will be larger players in global trade than their size may suggest. SIDS accounted for 0.1 per cent of global merchandise exports and 0.2 per cent of global merchandise imports in 2019. For services the figures were 0.3 per cent for imports and 0.4 per cent for exports. The particularly high merchandise import share should come as no surprise, considering SIDS’ constrained terrestrial endowments, which necessitate the import of many food stuffs, manufactured goods and energy, among other goods. Similarly, their large services exports share highlights the reliance on services, particularly travel related services, in their economies. Figure 10 illustrates the SIDS’ trade openness, or the sum of imports and exports as a percentage of GDP, compared with other developing economies, transition economies, LDCs, and LLDCs, further underscoring the importance of trade to them relative to other developing economies, as well as their vulnerability to external shocks and international events.

Figure 10. Trade openness, 2019

(Percentage)

Source: -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.
Notes: Trade openness is calculated as exports plus imports of goods and services as a percentage of GDP. Developing and LDC groups exclude any SIDS.

In conjunction with trade, it is interesting to examine SIDS’ connectivity through the lens of its merchant fleet and container port throughputContainer port throughput presents the estimated total number of containers handled, per country, expressed in TEUs.. In 2020, SIDS accounted for an astounding 17.5 per cent of the global merchant fleet capacity by flag of registration. However, comparing this figure to their capacity by beneficial ownership, which sits at 0.1 per cent, the reality of many nations flying SIDS’ flags on their vessels as ‘flags of convenience’ becomes apparent. The 0.1 per cent figure is more in line with the SIDS’ population and GDP.

Figure 11, however, illustrates a metric where the SIDS do indeed excel - container port throughput.

Figure 11. Container port throughput, 2019

(TEUsTwenty-foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) represent the volume of standard 20-feet long intermodal container units., logarithmic scale)

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

Sitting at the 81st percentile in container port throughput, SIDS exhibit a high degree of maritime connectivity. This is largely due their dependence on maritime transport for travel, trade and the import of consumption goods -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. The relatively well-connected Caribbean ports account for a disproportionate share of this throughput, 70 per cent, compared with 18 per cent for Atlantic and Indian Ocean SIDS, and 12 per cent for Pacific SIDS.

The SIDS also have a relatively high stock and flow of FDIForeign Direct Investment (FDI) is an investment involving a long-term relationship and reflecting a lasting interest and control by a resident entity in one economy (foreign direct investor or parent enterprise) in an enterprise resident in an economy other than that of the foreign direct investor (FDI enterprise or affiliate enterprise or foreign affiliate) -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. relative to the size of their economies, further increasing their vulnerability to international events.

Figure 12. FDI inflows as a percentage of GDP, 2019

(Percentage)

Source: -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.
Notes: Developing and LDC groups exclude any SIDS.

Figure 13. FDI stock as a percentage of GDP

(Percentage)

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

The Caribbean SIDS tend to attract the bulk of FDI in the SIDS. This is due in part to their geographic and linguistic proximity to the North American market, as well as interest in Trinidad and Tobago’s energy sector. Other than energy, tourism is another sector that attracts a large share of FDI in the Caribbean SIDS. In the Atlantic and Indian Ocean SIDS, offshore financing and real estate tend to dominate FDI, while FDI in the Pacific SIDS tends to focus on natural resource extraction -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

ODAOfficial Development Assistance (ODA) are resource flows to countries and territories which are: (a) undertaken by the official sector; (b) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; (c) at concessional financial terms (implying a minimum grant element depending on the recipient country and the type of loan). In addition to financial flows, technical co-operation is also included -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. makes up a smaller percentage of the SIDS’ economies than FDI, accounting for just 4.75 per cent of GDP in 2018.

Figure 14. ODA as a proportion of GDP

(Percentage)

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- and -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.
Notes: Developing and LDC groups exclude any SIDS.

As some of the countries harbouring the most vulnerable populations to climate change, it is worth noting the SIDS’ contribution to that phenomenon. While the SIDS’ per capita emissions as a group would place it in the upper half of emitters (72nd percentile of nations in 2016 ), this still only amounted to a paltry 0.2 per cent of global CO₂Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a colourless, odourless and non-poisonous gas formed by combustion of carbon and in the respiration of living organisms -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. emissions in 2016 . Despite the disproportionate impact climate change will have on these nations, they themselves contribute little to the problem and thus are largely powerless to introduce measures to mitigate it.

Figure 15. Economic groups’ share of global CO₂ emissions, 2016

(Percentage)

Source: UNCTAD calculations based on -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.
Notes: Developing and LDC groups exclude any SIDS.

The purpose of this chapter was to provide context to the SIDS’ weight as a group across different indicators. This statistical exercise is very different from the reality on the ground, however, where individual SIDS do not enjoy the economies of scale the aggregate numbers may suggest. Each one faces their own unique circumstances and challenges and SIDS as a group should not be overlooked by the international community.