What makes a SIDS a SIDS

'Everyone knew that all islands were worlds unto themselves, that to come to an island was to come to another world'

― Guy Gavriel Kay, Tigana

Introduction

There are countless islands dotted all around the world’s oceans, lakes, and rivers. They vary enormously in size, climate, and in flora and fauna. Some islands, such as the beautifully wooded Bled Island in Slovenia, or the remote and barren Skellig Michael off the coast of Ireland, now famous as a Star Wars location, are small. Others, such as Greenland or New Guinea, are massive. Some islands, such as Manhattan in New York or the tiny Santa Cruz del Islote off the coast of Colombia are crowded and densely populated. In contrast, the northern islands of Greenland, Baffin or Victoria barely support human life and are very sparsely populated. Yet others, such as the Pitcairns, best known as the haven to the mutineers of the HMS Bounty, or Easter island, home to the enigmatic moai are some of the most remote islands in the world. Singapore, on the other hand, lies less than 2 km south of Malaysia and is well connected by bridges and causeways. Manhattan and Long Island too are close to the mainland and very well connected. Some islands, like the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, are frozen all year round, whereas the Seychelles or Fiji are tropical. Spanning the oceans of the world, islands hold a rich variety of linguistic and cultural history. For example, across the Caribbean islands, cultural influences from indigenous groups, Africa, Asia, North America and Europe can all be found.

But what makes an island a 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.? What are the unique features or characteristics that single out these islands from the thousands of others? Broadly speaking SIDS are typically characterized as remote, with high vulnerability to economic and environmental shocks, and with an inability to capitalize on economies of scale. Yet there is no universally agreed upon definition for SIDS -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. One might assume the answer lies in their description – they must be small, they must be islands, they must be developing and they must be states. But depending on the criteria used to define SIDS by different United Nations and international and regional organisations, the number of qualifying states or economies ranges from 58 countries (using UN-OHRLLSUnited Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS) criteria) to only 18 (using as reference the number of World Bank IDAInternational Development Association (IDA) countries that can borrow on small economy terms). (See table 1.)

The range in membership can largely be accounted for by the inclusion or exclusion of large islands, developed islands, coastal rather than islands countries and non-independent territories. Thus, even within the United Nations itself, there is considerable variety as to what constitutes a SIDS, depending on whether they give priority to the political or analytical dimensions. An analysis of the concordance of the composition between the seven SIDS groups is presented in table 2. Using Kendall’s tau, a rank correlation coefficient, the weak correlation between the different classifications being employed currently is clearly illustrated¹.

In spite of some common characteristics, there is a large degree of differentiation amongst the SIDS -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. The challenges facing remote islands in the Pacific Ocean are not necessarily the same as those facing islands in the Indian Ocean or in the Caribbean Sea. Some extremes, and some surprising inclusions, illustrate the point. For example, some SIDS, such as Guinea-Bissau, Guyana or Suriname are not even islands (see section - Islands and islandness); some, such as Papua New Guinea, Cuba, Dominican Republic or Singapore, are not small (see section – Smallness). SIDS’ economic and environmental vulnerability indices range between highly vulnerable (Kiribati: 66.1 index score) to not very vulnerable (Bahrain: 16.5 score) – see section: Development and vulnerability; their Human Development ranges between very high (Seychelles or Singapore) to low (Comoros or Tonga); and their income, as measured by GNIGross national income (GNI) is equal to GDP less primary incomes payable to non-resident units plus primary incomes receivable from non-resident units. In other words, GNI is equal to GDP less taxes (less subsidies) on production and imports, compensation of employees and property income payable to the rest of the world, plus the corresponding items receivable from the rest of the world. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- per capita, ranges from high (Bahamas or Bermuda) to low (Haiti or Guinea-Bissau) (see SIDS country profiles). The lack of a clear SIDS definition or qualification criteria facilitates, and arguably exacerbates, the heterogeneity of the group -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. As yet, there has been insufficient ”political support across the UN member States for the creation of a criteria-defined category” -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

In this chapter, SIDS are examined from a statistical perspective. The decision or the justification for a SIDS group is not examined but taken as read. Instead, the focus is on what the abbreviation SIDS means and what might be appropriate statistical criteria for SIDS qualification.

SIDS – A brief history

The SIDS, that set of countries recognized as being particularly vulnerable to economic and environmental shocks, was first formally recognized at the UNCEDUnited Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. But the international community had recognized that developing island countries were a special category from a developmental perspective long before that. The plight of island nations has been an issue of analyses and concern going back to the 1960’s. From a UN perspective, this recognition was first formalized during the 3rd UNCTAD quadrennial conference in Santiago, Chile in May, 1972, where the particular geographic and socioeconomic problems facing IDCsIsland Developing Countries (IDCs), such as insularity and remoteness, were discussed -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. Resolution 65 (III) of that conference asked that a panel be established to study the particular problems of developing island countries -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

Among other things, the resulting report highlighted the challenges of classification, noting the ‘classification of these countries is not without its problems in view of their heterogeneity’ -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. The challenging issue of size was especially highlighted. The authors concluded that size matters, as small countries tend to be more dependent on foreign trade and are typically price takers, they tend to have a limited range of resources available, they are often reliant on one external company that may monopolize trade and resources, they normally have a narrower range of institutions and may be dependent for certain services on other countries to provide services, they are likely to have a narrow range of skilled manpower, often suffer from diseconomies of small scale in the provision of infrastructure or administrative services, and will typically have a narrow local market, and will struggle to replace imports. In turn, ‘smallness’ would impact on countries in relation to problems of specialization and dependence, manpower and migration and could impact on their overall viability.

Between 1972 and 1992, work and discussions on ‘island developing countries’ has been characterized as largely diagnostic -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. In 1976, UNCTAD IV recommended special assistance for all island developing countries and in 1977, the United Nations General Assembly requested that United Nations agencies incorporate these recommendations into their programs -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. The World Bank adopted the ‘small island exception’ in 1985 for differentiating development finance where middle-income countries would continue to enjoy low-income country treatment as SIDS, an unofficial status that was synonymous with fragility and justified special treatment irrespective of other criteria.

The United Nations formally replaced the notion of ‘island developing countries’ with the more focused denomination ‘SIDS’ in 1994 -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, at the first Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of 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. held in Barbados, in 1994. This was a landmark conference, as it was the first time a United Nations conference was entirely devoted to SIDS. The conference declaration -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, set out what has become known as the Barbados Programme of Action, covering 14 themes targeted on sustainable development, half of them ecological².

This programme has been reviewed and renewed on a number of occasions since then. In 1999, at a special session of the United Nations General Assembly -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, and in 2005 by the Mauritius Strategy for Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of SIDS -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. In 2010, an important event was the request from the United Nations General Assembly to ‘put forward concrete recommendations’ and ‘consider what improved and additional measures might be needed to more effectively address the unique and particular vulnerabilities and development needs of small island developing States’ -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. The third international conference on SIDS in 2014, the outcome of which was the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action PathwaySIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway is an international framework that was developed as the outcome of the Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States (SIDS Conference) held on 1-4 September 2014 in Apia, Samoa -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-., commonly known as the SAMOA PathwaySIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway is an international framework that was developed as the outcome of the Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States (SIDS Conference) held on 1-4 September 2014 in Apia, Samoa -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, reaffirmed the international commitments made in the Barbados Programme of Action and the Mauritius Strategy and pledged to take urgent and concrete action to address the vulnerability of SIDS and help them achieve sustainable development. In recognition, 2014 was also designated ‘The International Year of Small Island Developing States’ with the then -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- Secretary General Ban Ki-moon saying this was an opportunity ‘to appreciate the extraordinary resiliency and rich cultural heritage of the people of small island developing States’. In 2015, 10 of the SDGSustainable Development Goals (SDG) targets of the 2030 Agenda mentioned SIDS explicitly -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.³

Typical characteristics of a SIDS

A common feature of SIDS is their vulnerability or exposure to physical, environmental and economic events, including natural disasters, and their relatively poor ability to respond to those catastrophic events owing to their physical, demographic, social, economic and environmental characteristics.

As outlined earlier, the special case of SIDS was first formally recognized by the international community at UNCED or the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, where their environmental and ecological vulnerabilities were recognized. The Agenda 21 or the Rio Declaration stated that ‘Small island developing States, and islands supporting small communities are a special case both for environment and development. They are ecologically fragile and vulnerable. Their small size, limited resources, geographic dispersion and isolation from markets, place them at a disadvantage economically and prevent economies of scale.’ -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

Two years later, the Barbados Programme of Action -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- broadened their recognition of the issues facing SIDS, identifying several disadvantages that derive from small size, including a narrow range of resources, which forces undue specialization; excessive dependence on international trade and hence vulnerability to global developments; high population density, which increases the pressure on already limited resources; overuse of resources and premature depletion thereof; relatively small watersheds and threatened supplies of fresh water; costly public administration and infrastructure, including transportation and communication; and limited institutional capacities and domestic markets, which are too small to provide significant scale economies, while their limited export volumes, sometimes from remote locations, lead to high freight costs and reduced competitiveness. Small islands also tend to have high degrees of biodiversity, but the relatively small numbers of the various species impose high risks of extinction and create a need for protection.

The characterizing disadvantages of SIDS articulated in the Barbados Programme of Action were generally representative of the reflections and analyses offered by the academic literature. A selection is presented here: -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- argues that most SIDS face special disadvantages owing to their small size, insularity, remoteness and their proneness to natural disasters. These factors make the economies of SIDS vulnerable to forces outside their control, threatening their economic viability – a reality often concealed by their GDPGross domestic product (GDP) or GNPGross national product (GNP) per capita. He identifies five key disadvantages of SIDS: (1) small size – which results in limitations in natural resource endowments and high import content, import-substitution possibilities, small domestic market and dependence on export markets, dependence on a narrow range of products, a limited ability to influence domestic prices, to exploit economies of scale, to create domestic competition and problems of public administration; (2) insularity and remoteness – which causes high per-unit transport costs, uncertainties of supply and a need to keep large stocks; (3) proneness to natural disasters – cyclones, earthquakes, landslides and volcanic eruptions tend to have a relatively larger impact on SIDS in terms of damage and costs, sometimes threatening the very survival of some small islands; (4) environmental factors – pressures arising from economic development and the environmental characteristics of SIDS which often comprise fragile ecosystems; and (5) other characteristics – dependence on foreign sources of finance and demographic factors.

-—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, looking at the characteristics of small Pacific islands, identified their small size as a defining feature. All other issues, such as what he termed the ‘tyranny of distance’, high transport and communication costs, barriers to market access, fragile environments, dis-economies of scale and scope, limited division of labor (monoculture), segmented market, remoteness or insularity, high-cost economy, over-blown public sector and a high dependency on 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. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, stem from this.

-—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- identified the following critical challenges confronting SIDS: small population and geographic size; isolation; climate change and rising sea-levels; natural and environmental disasters; outward migration or the ‘brain drain’ of scarce human resources; and dependence on public sector employment, agriculture, fishing and tourism. These challenges are accentuated by a high dependence on aid and donor funding; limited freshwater resources; often rapid population growth which, combined with limited natural resources, often results in environmental degradation and poor waste management; and vulnerable biodiversity resources. He further notes that these constraints limit SIDS’ ability to capitalize on trade liberalisation and globalisation. The same year, -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- identified five main vulnerabilities: smallness; isolation and fragmentation; a narrow resource and export base; exposure to environmental and natural shocks, including climate change and natural disasters; and exposure to external economic shocks.

-—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- has summarized the key characteristics of SIDS as: heterogeneity; small country size and remotely located from markets; lower economies of scale and higher costs for provision of state services; economic vulnerabilities; economic openness; lack of economic diversification; slow and volatile economic growth; climate vulnerabilities; and perhaps lags in human development.

Thus, in large measure there is a high degree on unanimity across the white and grey literature regarding the main characteristics of SIDS. A notable feature is that their characteristics are largely synonymous with the disadvantages or challenges confronting those island states. This is reflected in the most recent intergovernmental plan, The Samoa Pathway, which notes ‘the ability of the small island developing States to sustain high levels of economic growth and job creation has been affected by the ongoing adverse impacts of the global economic crisis, declining foreign direct investmentForeign 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) -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-., trade imbalances, increased indebtedness, the lack of adequate transportation, energy and information and communications technology infrastructure networks, limited human and institutional capacity and the inability to integrate effectively into the global economy. The growth prospects of the small island developing States have also been hindered by other factors, including climate change, the impact of natural disasters, the high cost of imported energy and the degradation of coastal and marine ecosystems and sea-level rise’ -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. The pathway identifies the key issues to be addressed: mitigating climate change; shifting to more sustainable energy; build resilience to reduce vulnerability to disaster risk; improve the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans and seas; improve food security and nutrition; reduce the overexploitation of surface, ground and coastal waters, reduce saline intrusion; improve infrastructure for safe drinking water, sanitation, hygiene and waste management systems; develop viable sustainable transportation, consumption and production; better the management of chemicals and waste, including hazardous waste; improve health, and reduce the high prevalence of debilitating communicable and non-communicable diseasesNon-communicable diseases, also known as chronic diseases, tend to be of long duration and are the result of a combination of genetic, physiological, environmental and behaviours factors -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.; promote genderGender refers to the roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society at a given time considers appropriate for women and men. In addition to the social attributes and opportunities associated with being male and female and the relationships between women and men and girls and boys, gender also refers to the relations between women and those between men. These attributes, opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned through socialization processes. They are context/ time-specific and changeable. Gender determines what is expected, allowed and valued in a woman or a man in a given context. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- equality and women’s empowerment; foster social development, including culture, sport, education, peaceful societies and safe communities; protect biodiversity against desertification, land degradation, drought and reverse deforestation and forest degradation; and control against invasive alien species. The plan also highlights the importance of sustainable tourism. It is also reflected in the 2015 Sendai Disaster Risk Reduction Framework which highlights the disproportionate effects of disasters to SIDS -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

The importance of coherent classification

There is no universally agreed upon definition of SIDS. This has arguably exacerbated the heterogeneity of the larger SIDS groups -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- and has been the source of considerable confusion -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. This problem can be traced to the beginning of the concept of IDCs when a list of disadvantaged island nations was never clearly defined -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. As a result, today SIDS is both a technical and political term where membership is largely by self appointment -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. This has created ‘an inconsistency between the definition of the SIDS and its acronym’ where ‘non-islands economies as Belize, Suriname and Guyana, are awkwardly classified under the SIDS’ -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

The heterogeneity in the definition of SIDS can to a large extent be explained by the different contexts and the different purposes for which they were set up. The classification into SIDS and non-SIDS may be the basis for differential treatment, e.g. which islands get MFNMost Favoured Nation (MFN) and which do not -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, or for the targeting of development aid.

For statistical analysis, however, it is important that classification schemes are unambiguous and allow a clear assignment of objects into distinguishable categories. Exhaustively defined and mutually exclusive and well described categories that reflect the realities of the field are key properties of good classification systems in statistics -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- argues that a classificationA classification scheme can be understood as the descriptive information about the way observation units are arranged into groups, based on common characteristics. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- should pass the plausibility test of ‘face validity’, meaning it should seem valid or sensible to people who use it. Concepts, the simplifying ideas formed in people's mind to bundle information and to facilitate that way the understanding of the world, play an important role for face validity. The higher the congruence between the categories defined in the classification system with people's ideas of those categories, the more will the classification make sense to users and the more easily it will be understood by them -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

But classification schemes also shape people's understanding of categories. This is the reason why high incongruence between SIDS hampers productive discourse and scientific progress -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. The ‘match between classifications applied in statistics and concepts formed in people's minds constitutes an important determinant of the clarity, interpretability and relevance of aggregated or grouped data’ -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

Many of the SIDS classifications listed earlier fail the guidelines for what constitutes a good classification based on the criteria set out above. Furthermore, their proliferation also represents a failure of international coordination and governance. ‘Instead of creating predictability, order, rationality and transparency in terms of rules, principles and approaches, this multiple classification results in the uneven treatment of individual countries’ -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. Not surprisingly, this has led to some skepticism and a lack of concrete action regarding SIDS – ‘no programme can be meaningful, operational and monitorable if it is not clear what specific countries are being considered’ -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

So, how might this situation be improved? While every classification comprises technical, political and ideological considerations -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- it should not be impossible to develop either an improved broad all-purpose SIDS classification or a more targeted issues-based categorisation. Either way, the objective should be to increase homogeneity. Classification system should be based on a transparent, data-driven methodology rather than on subjective judgment or ad hoc rules -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. ‘No category of countries will enjoy credibility, as a platform for advocacy, unless it is systematically defined’ -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

For the purposes of this exercise, sets of criteria are examined, with the aim of reducing or eliminating the inconsistency between the definition and the description of SIDS. In other words, taking a literal interpretation of SIDS, the meanings of Small, Island, Developing, States are investigated to assess whether useful criteria can be determined to provide a functional definition for SIDS.

Smallness

The name suggests that ‘smallness’ is a core characteristic of SIDS, but what does small mean? The issue of size, and how to define ‘small’ was identified in the -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- report as a central question and remains an unresolved conceptual challenge. A challenge complicated by the fact that smallness is a relative and not an absolute concept -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. Although the subject has been analysed for several years -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- no consensus has emerged. The end result, as -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- notes, is a ‘debate bogged down due to persistent differences on how small should be defined’.

Various variables and thresholds for defining size have been proposed. Should size be thought of in geographic terms, demographic terms or economic terms? The most frequently suggested candidates for representative characteristics of ‘smallness’ are physical size (land area), population and GDP, or a combination of all three -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- identifies six ‘basic indicators of developing island countries’: Total population; land territory (in square meters); inhabitants per square meter; GNP; GNP per capita; and GNP growth over a ten year period. While 13 islands were singled out as having a population in excess of 1 million persons, no thresholds were suggested or used for land area or GNP. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- argues in favour of also including share of world merchandise trade ⁴. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- proposes that any definition of smallness should take into account a variety of factors including population, per capita income and income distribution. However, both -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- and -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- note that any of these indicators are arbitrary and there is no clear variable or cut-off point to designate size. Shand, also argues that GNP was probably the best indicator of smallness in terms of productive capacityProductive capacity, is a concept developed by UNCTAD based on three dimensions: the productive resources, the entrepreneurial capabilities and production linkages which together determine the capacity of a country to produce goods and services and enable it to grow and develop -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-., a view roundly rejected by -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- ⁵.

Despite all the choices available, the criterion that has been most widely used in the literature and in practice as a measure of country size is population -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. In fact, -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- claims this is the most meaningful way to determine the size of a country ⁶. The Commonwealth Secretariat proposed a threshold of 1.5 million persons -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. Others argue in favour of a five million threshold -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- . In 2004, in the lead up to the 2005 United Nations Mauritius Conference on SIDS, UNCTAD formally defined ‘smallness’ as having a population less than five million persons ⁷.

As population has been adopted by both UNCTAD and the Commonwealth Secretariat as the relevant criterion, albeit with different thresholds, it is interesting to test how representative that choice is. Using a single variable (population) simplifies matters, and as the data are easily available and updated regularly, the choice certainly qualifies as ‘pragmatic’. But it is clear from the literature that other variables have also been proposed, often in combination. For the purposes of analysis, a simple composite ‘smallness’ index has been constructed (see table 3) to assess whether population is a robust basis for assessing whether a state qualifies as small or not. For the purposes of this analysis, only the 38 United Nations member states found on UN-OHRLLS SIDS list have been included (see appendix 1) as data availability is problematic for the non-member territories.

As noted above, land area, population and GDP are the variables most frequently cited as suitable criteria for defining smallness. Consequently, these are the three variables (area measured in km²Square kilometre (km²); GDP in constant prices of 2015; and population) used to construct the smallness index presented in table 3. Other suggested criteria, such as GDP per capita and share of global trade were not included, as they are not independent of the three core criteria already selected. The methodology used to compile the aggregate smallness index and to select a reasonable threshold is described in -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

Based on the composite smallness index and applying a threshold of 35.6 as the cut-off line between small and big -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, then five of the 38 UN-OHRLLS SIDS are excluded for analytical purposes – Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Cuba, Dominican Republic and Haiti. This gives a similar result to applying a population threshold of five million persons.

Islands and islandness

What makes an island an island? The Cambridge Dictionary defines an island as ‘a piece of land completely surrounded by water’ ⁸. Application of this definition would seem straightforward and uncontroversial and easy to apply. So much so, that -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- argued that ‘islandness’ or ‘insularity’ was sufficiently straightforward a criterion, but in the case of SIDS, even the definition of an island is contested. As -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- reminds us, ‘one is always troubled as to the definition and measurement of “island”’ when discussing the development of small island economies.

In fact, many argue that a key characteristic of islands is rather their vulnerability; environmentally, socially and economically -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. While it is undeniable that islands are vulnerable and typically have less resources available than mainland countries, and are more prone to shortages, these features are not unique to islands and do not really help with their identification. Thus, from a statistical perspective, the simple dictionary definition, that an island is a piece of land completely surrounded by water, seems to be the most clear and useful for the purposes of definition and classification.

In classifying islands, the question is then whether a geographic definition of an island is sufficient or whether the more ambiguous concept of islandness should also be taken into consideration. This question becomes important, as do their inherent ambiguities, when several curiosities in the SIDS classification of islands are examined. Three special cases require some discussion: (1) mainland islands; (2) shared islands; and (3) connected islands.

1. Mainland islands

   The first and most obviously controversial issue is the classification of Guinea-Bissau in West Africa and Guyana and Suriname in South America as islands. From a geographical perspective, these states are quite obviously not islands. They are part of their respective continental landmasses and not surrounded by water.

   It is not clear why these three states are classified as island States, nor is it clear how that categorization is seen as useful as it seems to undermine the logic and integrity of any SIDS classification. The argument is made that Guinea-Bissau, Guyana and Suriname are considered SIDS as they have low lying coastlines and are highly dependent on a few sources of income -—
   – ‒
   - –
   —--—
   – ‒
   - –
   —--—
   – ‒
   - –
   —--—
   – ‒
   - –
   —-. From a vulnerability and developmental perspective, these are serious and important issues. Nevertheless, this does not make them islands, and it is hard to justify, however ambiguous the concept, that islandness is a feature of these countries.

2. Shared islands

   Timor-Leste, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Papua New Guinea all share an island. Timor-Leste shares the island of Timor with Indonesia; Haiti and the Dominican Republic share the island of Hispaniola; Papua New Guinea shares the island of New Guinea with Indonesia. Thus, the states in question are not completely surrounded by water. In the case of Timor-Leste, 26 per cent of its land boundary is a shared border with Indonesia; Haiti and Dominican Republic share a 376 km border, accounting for 18 and 23 per cent of their respective land boundaries. Fourteen per cent of Papua New Guinea’s frontier is shared land. Does sharing an island eliminate or even diminish the sensation or characteristics of islandness? The states in question remain dependent on shipping, and the vagaries of weather to trade, so perhaps not.

3. Connected islands

   Singapore and Bahrain straddle another fault line of the islandness concept -—
   – ‒
   - –
   —--—
   – ‒
   - –
   —--—
   – ‒
   - –
   —--—
   – ‒
   - –
   —-. Both states are geographically islands and are classified as such by the Dahl Island Directory -—
   – ‒
   - –
   —--—
   – ‒
   - –
   —--—
   – ‒
   - –
   —--—
   – ‒
   - –
   —-, but both are connected to their continental mainlands, to Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, via causeways. Arguably these physical connections to their respective continental mainland must at least diminish, if not eliminate, their islandness. From a pragmatic point of view, the physical connections mean these islands are no longer reliant on maritime transport – this fact alone should surely reduce their islandness. From an economic perspective, it allows both territories to integrate their markets with their continental neighbours in a way that unconnected islands cannot. The causeways reduce the sense of remoteness and isolation. Thus, contrary to the assessment made for shared islands, in the case of connected islands, it is hard to conclude that islandness has not been diminished, if not eliminated altogether.

Using the dictionary definition of an island – that it should be surrounded by water – a literal geographic assessment can be made (see table 4). In this approach ‘mainland islands’, the first special case, are automatically disqualified as SIDS as they are not surrounded by water and are connected via land with several countries. The second special case, the case of ‘shared islands’, is less clear cut, even from a simple geographic perspective. The countries are located on territories surrounded by water, but they are not themselves entirely surrounded by water. However, from a practical point of view they could be considered islands. To base the decision on an objective criterion, below a crude threshold is arbitrarily selected, where a minimum of 70 per cent of their frontier must be shoreline ⁹. ‘Connected islands’, the third special case, while located offshore, have connected to their respective continental mainland and are therefore disqualified. On this basis, Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, Guyana and Suriname in South America, and Belize in Central America are disqualified as SIDS. They could actually be considered as ‘mainland islands’. While Bahrain and Singapore in Asia are surrounded by water, they are disqualified as SIDS on the grounds that they are ‘connected islands’ and therefore do not experience islandness.

The geographic approach does not, however, take into account the more nuanced perspective that islandness is a function of remoteness or isolation arising from being on an island. Remoteness or isolation is also an important dimension of vulnerability but is not always necessarily negative -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. A standard dictionary definition of remoteness is typically comprised of two parts. The first focuses on physical distance (the geographic dimension). The second focuses on a lack of connection.

Consequently, there appear to be three important dimensions required for islandness: (1) the country must be an island - islandness can only be experienced on an island; (2) the island must be physically remote or isolated ; and (3) the country must be poorly connected. Thus, it seems reasonable that some measure of remoteness could be used as a proxy for islandness. Given the wide interpretation that could be given to remoteness, the ‘remoteness and landlockedness’ sub-index used by the CDPCommittee for Development Policy (CDP), until 1998 the Committee for Development Planning -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. secretariat as part of the EVIEconomic vulnerability index (EVI): Economic vulnerability can be defined as the probability that a country's economic development may be hampered by unforeseen exogenous shocks -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- which is one of the three criteria for the identification of the Least Developed Countries. It was also proposed as a criterion for the allocation of official development assistance. to assess 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 -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. graduation, seems too narrow in scope ¹² when applied in the context of SIDS. Therefore, a broader measure of remoteness has been constructed for the purposes of this analyses. The remoteness index presented in table 4 is comprised of five sub-indices: distance to markets; distance to trading partners; maritime connectivity; air connectivity; and digital connectivity. The methodology used to compile the remoteness index and select a statistically appropriate threshold are detailed in -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. The higher the index value, the lower the remoteness of the island.

Unlike for smallness, however, the statistical tests cannot provide a clear break in the distribution that would indicate a definitive threshold. There is a weak break at 62.8, which if used as a threshold, would mean that three islands are not considered remote: Bahrain, Bahamas and Singapore. However, as this threshold is not robust, only the physical-geographic criterion of islandness is used. Consequently, only the two connected islands are removed from the analytical list on the basis of islandness.

Based on this analysis, combining measures of island and islandness, Bahrain, Belize, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Suriname and Singapore are removed from the analytical list of SIDS. No doubt more refined indices of remoteness could be developed, but it is unlikely they would materially alter the conclusion.

Development and vulnerability

Many of the disagreements on which countries are SIDS centre on whether they are small, whether they are islands and whether they are states. The one area that is little discussed or contested in the literature is whether they are developing – here, there seems to be a high degree of consensus. This is perhaps not surprising however, as the United Nations M49 Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- categorizes 183 countries or territories of the total 249 as developing. All prospective SIDS are classified as developing according to M49, with the exceptions of Cyprus, Iceland and Malta.

As a criterion for identifying characteristics that are unique to SIDS this makes the M49 classificationM49 classification provides Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (Series M, No. 49). It is a standard used by the United Nations for statistical purposes, developed and maintained by UNSD. somewhat ineffective. A further weakness is that the M49 classification itself is not criterion based – there are no universally agreed concepts or definitions to determine if a state is developing or not. Rather, each international organisation classifies countries by development status on a different basis – but often simply by country self-selection. So, although widely in use, the myriad classifications of development status suffer from a lack clarity with regard to their underlying rationale -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, as well as ambiguities and uncertainties regarding their actual significance and meaning -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. This calls into question the meaning of development and the purpose of development classifications. Some have argued that the developing/developed country taxonomy is just a mechanism to easily categorize countries to assist with relocation of resources from richer to poorer countries -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

But there are other perspectives. For example, the World Bank uses a criteria-based classification based on income - GNI per capita -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- ^{13 14}, where the low and middle income countries can be interpreted as developing and the high income countries as developed -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. On those grounds, the World Bank provides a classification for 55 of the 63 possible SIDS. ¹⁵ However, the World Bank themselves stopped using the ‘development’ classification in 2016 to avoid having to make such a distinction -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. The IMFInternational Monetary Fund employs a broader measure of economic development that also includes export diversification and the degree of integration into the global financial system -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- ¹⁶ (see appendix 2).

Others argue that development means something more than having high income, such as freedom, as reflected in the capabilities that people achieve, as proposed by -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. The HDIHuman development index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement of human development in three dimensions: health, education and standards of living. The health dimension is assessed by life expectancy at birth, the education dimension by mean of years of schooling for adults aged 25 years and more, and expected years of schooling for children of school entering age. The standard of living dimension is measured by GNI per capita. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions. The cut off points are: HDI of less than 0.550 for low human development, 0.550–0.699 for medium human development, 0.700–0.799 for high human development and 0.800 or greater for very high human development. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, that is based on Sen's ‘capabilities approach’ -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, enables classifying countries by development status taking into account three dimensions of human development: health, education and income (see Social development challenges). However, only 39 SIDS have a HDI ¹⁷. Others have argued that development is a function of history, diversity, culture and politics -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. In 1987, the WCEDWorld Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) report ‘Our common future’, which became known as the Brundtland Report, first introduced the concept of sustainable development -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

This eventually led to the introduction of the 2030 Agenda, which arguably refers to a much broader concept of development that encompasses not just ending extreme poverty and eradicating hunger, but also fostering global prosperity in an economically and environmentally sustainable and equitable way -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. The -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- could be used as it captures all dimensions of this broad concept of development. Unfortunately, only 21 of the prospective SIDS have sufficient data to allow an index value to be calculated ¹⁸. Thus, for pragmatic reasons, the HDI or SDSNSustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) approaches cannot, for the time being, be used (see appendix 2). -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- to date, has defined ‘development’ from a SIDS perspective by combining GNI per capita (as it is the most widely accepted indicator of living standards, as well as the first criterion for identifying 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 -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.) with the degree of economic vulnerability as measured by the EVI (see below). This allows for the ‘island paradox’, where an island may be both simultaneously prosperous and highly vulnerable.

An examination of the literature suggests that development is not the key issue for SIDS, but rather vulnerability - both economic and environmental. As earlier noted, the Barbados Programme of Action identified SIDS as being particularly vulnerable to the climate crisis, noting they will be among the first and most impacted countries -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. Thus, from an analytical, and perhaps also a political perspective, the focus could perhaps be on small island vulnerable states (SIVSSmall island vulnerable states (SIVS)) or small island developing and vulnerable states (SIDVSSmall island developing and vulnerable states (SIDVS)).

Some of the most commonly identified characteristics of SIDS are their high vulnerabilities to external environmental and economic shocks -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. But vulnerability is a complex, amorphous and multidimensional concept with different scientific communities and stakeholder groups defining it differently. In fact, -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- identified twenty-five commonly accepted definitions. But in broad terms, vulnerability refers to any condition or situation where people or communities, or their assets and livelihoods are susceptible to injury, loss, or disruption -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. This loss or disruption could be the result of biophysical, socio-economic, political and environmental risks and hazards -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

In the context of small islands, -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- argues there is no universally agreed definition, nor a clear conception of what vulnerability means. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- notes however, that from a SIDS perspective, vulnerability is often associated with climate, where vulnerability is viewed as the threats to ‘human ecological systems and large-scale spatial collectivities’. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- proposes that economic vulnerability is defined by ‘the risk of a (poor) country seeing its development hampered by the natural or external shocks it faces’. He goes on to argue that two types of exogenous shock are relevant to vulnerability: (1) environmental or ‘natural’ shocks; and (2) external or economic shocks. He also proposes that vulnerability is measured by three components: (1) the size and frequency of the exogenous shock; (2) exposure to the shock; and (3) capacity or resilience to deal with the shock. Despite the lack of a robust theoretical grounding, -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- proposes 12 economic, geographic and socio-political casual factors of vulnerability¹⁹ assembled from her trawl of the literature.

From a UN perspective, in the context of LDCs, vulnerability is defined as the risk of being harmed by exogenous shocks. Furthermore, vulnerabilities will depend on the magnitude and frequency of shocks, on the structural characteristics of a country and a country’s resilience, i.e. its capacity to deal with shocks -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. Today, the CDP compiles an EVI measuring both economic and environmental vulnerabilities²⁰ as part of the assessment for LDC qualification and graduation, as high vulnerability is seen a major impediment to sustainable development. A version of the EVI (weighted to focus slightly more on the instability of exports) is discussed in Trade vulnerabilities with additional country coverage.

According to -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- the idea for this EVI dates back to 1985, originally to help explain the ‘Singapore Paradox’, where islands enjoying relatively high GDP per capita can be simultaneously economically vulnerable. The index was first constructed in the run-up to the 1994 Barbados Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of SIDS to highlight the repeated concerns expressed by SIDS about their high levels of vulnerability²¹. The subsequent Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of SIDS -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, which was subsequently endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, called for the development of a vulnerability index for SIDS that ‘integrate[s] ecological fragility and economic vulnerability’. On foot of this call, the United Nations began preliminary studies on the development of a vulnerability index -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- with the Secretary-General reporting back in 1998 -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. Of the conclusions and recommendations made, two were especially important. The report concluded that: the vulnerability referred to is structural vulnerability i.e., where factors are not under the control of national authorities when shocks occur; and the CDP could build specific composite vulnerability indices.

The subsequent ECOSOCEconomic and Social Council (ECOSOC) resolution 1998/38 stressed the need for the CDP to undertake an assessment of the usefulness of a vulnerability index for SIDS as a ‘criterion for the designation of 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 -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.. The following year, the CDP reported that they would take a development-based approach to vulnerability that aimed to reduce the impacts of poverty, population pressure and the economic forces of globalisation and environmental degradation. Vulnerability would be defined as ‘the risk of being negatively affected by unforeseen events’ -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. They also noted some ‘ambiguity’ was attached to this concept.

In line with previous recommendations, the CDP felt that ‘structural’ rather than ‘conjunctural’ vulnerability should be emphasized. In conclusion, the committee recommended that an equal weighted composite EVI be constructed, comprised of five indicators: export concentration; instability of export earnings; instability of agricultural production; share of manufacturingManufacturing can broadly be understood as "the physical or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products" -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, consisting of section D in ISIC Rev. 3 -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. and modern services in GDP; and population size. Thus, we see that although the origins of the EVI were associated with SIDS, its actual construction was designed (i.e., the selected indicators chosen) with the broader specificities of LDCs in mind ²².

Over the years, the EVI has incorporated a number of refinements and minor amendments. The EVI was originally conceived as measuring the structural vulnerability of countries to economic and environmental shocks. In 2020, the economic vulnerability index was renamed economic and environmental vulnerability indexEconomic and environmental vulnerability index is a composite index of two subindices:an economic vulnerability index and an environmental vulnerability index. The economic vulnerability sub-index is made up of four indicators: • Share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in GDP;
• Remoteness and landlockedness;
• Merchandise export concentration; and
• Instability of exports of goods and services.
The environmental vulnerability sub-index is also made up of four indicators: • Share of population in low elevated coastal zones;
• Share of population living in drylands;
• Instability of agricultural production; and
• Victims of disasters.
but retained the abbreviation EVI. It is now conceptualized as the composite of economic and environmental vulnerability. In this conceptualisation, the EVI also comprises two sub-indices (see figure 1). The economic vulnerability sub-index is made up of four indicators:

1. Share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in GDP;
2. Remoteness and landlockedness;
3. Merchandise export concentration; and
4. Instability of exports of goods and services.

The environmental vulnerability sub-index is also made up of four indicators:

1. Share of population in low elevated coastal zones;
2. Share of population living in drylands;
3. Instability of agricultural production; and
4. Victims of disasters.

Figure 1. Updated composition of the EVI

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

A number of other changes were also made to the latest edition of the EVI. The indicator on population size was removed from the EVI, as small size does not directly measure an economic or environmental vulnerability. Specific economic and environmental vulnerabilities associated or compounded by population size are captured in some of the remaining EVI indicators. The economic vulnerability indicator ‘remoteness’ has been reconfigured ‘remoteness and landlockedness’ to better reflect the fact that the indicator accounts for specific challenges of LLDCsLandlocked least developed countries (LLDC). The environmental vulnerability indicator ‘victims of natural disasters’ has been renamed ‘victims of disasters’ to better align it with common United Nations terminology and to highlight that disasters are not natural. To broaden the coverage of environmental vulnerabilities, the indicator ‘share of population living in drylands’ has been added to the EVI -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. In this updated of the EVI, all sub-indices are equally weighted.

Across SIDS, vulnerability as measured by the EVI varied quite considerably, ranging from Kiribati, the most vulnerable (66.1) to the least, Barbados (16.5), see figure 2. For LDC graduation in the 2021 triennial review, a threshold of 36 or greater qualifies a country as a LDC whereas a threshold of 32 or less is used as the graduation threshold. But it is not clear that these thresholds are appropriate for SIDS; nor is it clear that the existing EVI is sufficiently tailored to SIDS vulnerabilities, where size and isolation should be included or given more prominence. The risks or vulnerabilities associated with environmental and natural shocks (in particular rising sea levels and climate change) may also deserve more importance. A persistent problem across most of the different measures is poor coverage, which by necessity limits the sophistication and range of indicators included. See appendix 2.

Figure 2. EVI in the SIDS, 2020

To sum up, the United Nations M49 classification provides comprehensive coverage but provides limited useful guidance on what islands should be considered SIDS from a development perspective. The World Bank classification also gives comprehensive coverage, but only a narrow view of development. Richer perspectives of development, such as the HDI or the SDSN development index do not yet provide sufficient coverage to be used from a SIDS perspective. Another approach is to focus on island vulnerabilities. As with development, there are several alternatives, but the EVI seems to be a promising place to start. It addresses, to some extent, many vulnerabilities relevant to SIDS. With improved coverage and perhaps some modifications to more explicitly include some vulnerabilities relevant to SIDS, the EVI or an EVI+ could be used as the basis of a criterion-based approach to ‘development as vulnerability’. Another approach might be to combine aspects of development and vulnerability, by using all CDP indices: EVI, HAIHuman Assets Index (HAI) is a summary measure of the level of human capital. It is composed of six indicators with each indicator carrying an equal weight. It comprises the under-five mortality rate, prevalence of stunting, maternal mortality rate, gross secondary school enrollment ratio, adult literacy rate and gender parity index for gross secondary school enrollment.-—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- and GNI. The new UNCTAD PCIProductive Capacities Index (PCI) is a multidimensional composite index that measures productive capacities of economies by using eight categories: natural and human capital, energy, institutions, private sector, structural change, transport and information, and communication technologies, which together yield the multidimensional productive capacity index. The choice of indicators to measure productive capacity is based on the -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- definition and the availability of comparable data. could also be factored in for a richer perspective still -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

States or Economies?

At the inception of the SIDS debate, the focus was on countries rather than on States, as independence or self-governance were not seen as important qualifying criteria, with the result that 64 islands were included for analytical considerations -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. However, the report of the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of SIDS -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- makes it clear that thinking had evolved and that the importance of independence and sovereignty is now recognized as being centrally important. That realization has not been universally incorporated into all SIDS classifications, analyses and reports, with the result that the conceptualization of SIDS has been hampered by the interchangeable and loose use of terms such as “small island developing States” -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, “small and vulnerable economies” -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-, ‘structurally weak, vulnerable, and small economies’ (São Paulo 2004) and back to ‘Small Island Developing States’-—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-. Not only does this give rise to a great deal of confusion, but this lack of consistency and clarity undermines the argument for a SIDS group -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—-.

The Barbados Programme of Action -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- stressed the importance of statehood, emphasizing the importance of sovereign rights for SIDS. -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- argues that ‘statehood’ is a straightforward notion designating self-governing entities as opposed to dependent or associated territories, i.e. states should be autonomous or self-governing ²³. If statehood is important, then presumably it should form part of the qualification criteria to become a SIDS. Using M49 as the reference frame, this would mean that all non-autonomous islands, such as, American Samoa, French Polynesia, the British and United States Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Sint Maarten would all be removed from the analytical SIDS list (see appendix 3). In most cases, this is indeed a simple and straight forward delineation. However, for the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau the situation is less clear-cut. These islands are formally defined as ‘States in free association with the Realm of New Zealand’ meaning they enjoy near-total autonomy: total autonomy in their domestic affairs but delegation of defense matters and foreign affairs to New Zealand. Consequently, although described as States, they are not fully independent (entirely self-governing). For consistency therefore, these islands were not included in the analytical SIDS list.

Conclusion

In 1975, the -—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—--—
– ‒
- –
—- noted that ‘any attempt to draw up a list of geographically disadvantaged island countries would meet with major difficulties’, and so no attempt was made to do so. The result is that today there are multiple SIDS classifications in use. This abundance has been facilitated by ambiguous terminology and an unwillingness to define clearly what it means to be a SIDS.

Today, there is still no universally agreed definition for SIDS, and as a result there are multiple SIDS classifications in use. This is problematic as it tolerates uncertainty and confusion and undermines coherent policy programming. It also represents a failure of international coordination and governance. The loose or heterogeneous nature of some SIDS classifications, some of which include territories that do not appear to belong in a group described as SIDS, has greatly reduced their usefulness. Worse, it has undermined the legitimacy and justification for such a SIDS group.

A good classification should be stable so that it can provide a platform to facilitate use. But any criteria should be periodically reviewed to consider changing priorities. The issues facing SIDS in today’s hyper-globalized, climate threatened world are not the same as the issues they faced back in 1972, when the justification for a SIDS group was first raised at the UNCTAD III conference. For example, vulnerability seems to be a more pressing issue now, as the risks are now understood to be more than just economic but include also environmental and climate related risks. So much so that perhaps the group should be reformulated as SIDVS or SIVS.

One of the challenges in defining SIDS and providing a meaningful, universally accepted classification is that SIDS is both a technical and political term. In this chapter, the concept of SIDS was explored from a statistical or analytical perspective. Taking a literal interpretation of SIDS, meaning that the countries included in the classification must be small – island – developing – States, this chapter examined whether a criteria-based approach to conceptualizing SIDS is feasible. The analyses suggests that despite the ambiguities of smallness, islandness, development and vulnerability, and states, such a systematic approach is possible. Tentative results are presented in table 5. The benefit of this approach is improved coherence, clarity and transparency.

As noted above, changes in criteria or in some cases, subtle changes in interpretation of criteria could yield different results. For example, one could argue that the Bahamas fails the remoteness criteria. Equally, a fractionally looser interpretation of ‘State’ would see the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau being included as SIDS. Therefore, as with any statistic, clear metadata should accompany all of the criteria and rules to ensure consistent and transparent application.