Technical ReportPDF Available

Ocean Risks in SIDS and LDCS

October 2021

Authors:

Kanae Tokunaga

Gulf of Maine Research Institute

Abigayil Blandon

Stockholm Resilience Centre

Robert Blasiak

Stockholm Resilience Centre

Show all 6 authorsHide

Coastal communities SIDS and LDCs are unique in their position of vulnerability towards ocean-derived risks. They have high levels of exposure and sensitivity to these risks, in part owing to the heavy dependency on the sea for fisheries and tourism – core sectors that support their GDP, livelihoods as well as food security. The situation in these countries is changing rapidly, as is their exposure to different types of risks, and their ability to adapt and respond. The high dependence of many developing countries on tourism and imports and concomitant effects of the current pandemic and tropical cyclone Harold, for instance, are examples of how fragile some of the existing means of livelihood and food security are to external forces. Through a synthesis of peer-reviewed and grey literature, empirical data, and case studies from SIDS and LDCs, this report describes the prominent biophysical and anthropogenic stressors and their impacts on SIDS and LDCs, highlights the key social-ecological features of SIDS and LDCs that shape their vulnerabilities to these stressors, and suggests potential ways that can support SIDS and LDCs to mitigate ocean risks and build resilience.

Economic impacts of coastal flooding (Figures show the findings from Desmet et al. 2021 that estimated the impacts of sea level rise on real GDP (top left), welfare (top right), and population (bottom left) in each country. Bars indicate the mean impact).

…

Figures - uploaded by Kanae Tokunaga

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Kanae Tokunaga

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Robert Blasiak

Content may be subject to copyright.

OCEAN RISKS IN

SIDS AND LDCS

Kanae Tokunaga1, Abigayil Blandon2,3,

Robert Blasiak2,4, Jean-Baptiste Jouray2,

Colette C.C. Wabnitz5,6, Albert V. Norström2,7

1 Coastal and Marine Economics Lab, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, USA

2 Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden

3 WWF-UK

4 Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Japan

5 Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University, USA

6 Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Canada

7 Global Resilience Partnership, Stockholm University, Sweden

REPORT

October 2021

Acknowledgments

This report is a contribution to the Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance (ORRAA). It

has been led by the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University and the Global

Resilience Partnership, and supported by the Government of Canada.

This publication has benetted from the generous and collaborative eorts of the many people

listed below with deep knowledge and diverse expertise, relevant to this work, who reviewed

this report and/or contributed to it with their time, and by recommending resourcesand

sharing experiences and valuable insights.

David Reidmiller, Climate Center, Gulf of Maine Research Institute

Piera Tortora, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Kazumi Wakita, School of Marine Science and Technology, Tokai University

Layout and graphics: Jerker Lokrantz/Azote

Cover photos: Satellite image of hurricane Irma as it approaches the Leeward Islands at peak intensity, September 5, 2017. In the foreground, damaged

palm trees in the hurricane aermath. Photo: NASA and Alejandro Photography.

Cite this report as: Tokunaga K, Blandon A, Blasiak R, Jouray J-B, Wabnitz CCC, Norström AV (2021) Ocean risks in SIDS and LDCs. Ocean Risk and

Resilience Action Alliance (ORRAA) Report

Key messages

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and

Least Developed Countries (LDCs) share certain

features that make their development paths

susceptible to ocean risks. Their economies are

heavily reliant on the natural environment; and they

are vitally dependent on public sector employment

and foreign nancing. These make SIDS and LDCs

particularly vulnerable to certain environmental and

socioeconomic stressors such as extreme weather

and geological events, coastal urbanization, as well as

global health and nancial crises.

However, SIDS and LDCs are not homogeneous

groups, but represent a set of countries and

territories that dier across many dimensions.

Countries and territories classied as SIDS and

LDCs are diverse in terms of population size, levels

of economic development, land masses, sizes

of territorial sea and exclusive economic zones

(EEZs), types and availabilities of natural resources,

cultures, histories, and governance systems. Thus,

vulnerabilities, adaptive and transformative capacities,

and pathways in which ocean risks manifest will vary

across coastal communities in SIDS and LDCs.

Ocean risks are coupled complex risks. Ocean

risks to coastal communities in SIDS and LDCs

are experienced across multiple dimensions. They

include environmental stressors linked to climate

change, such as oods, tropical storms, as well as

shis in species distributions and abundance. These

interact with socioeconomic stressors including

sheries overexploitation, pollution, dredging, and

poor land use. The unprecedented levels of hyper-

connectivity in our world exacerbate this ocean

risk landscape. Events such as pandemics, nancial

crises and synchronized food shocks propagate more

rapidly than in the past and with greater geographic

spread, and intersect with broader existing socio-

cultural, economic, and political vulnerabilities.

Eorts to quantify risk and vulnerability must pay

more explicit attention to the coupled complex

nature of ocean risks. For example, impacts from

sea level rise tend to be assessed in isolation from

the eects of ocean warming. Likewise, shing

communities located in areas that will be inundated

due to sea level rise likely will also be aected by

changes in sheries’ productivity. In such cases, coastal

infrastructure planning to adapt to climate change,

for instance, needs to consider possible shis in use

patterns, such as changes in sh processing facilities

and market functionalities. Such planning should also

consider changes in seafood demand by the global

market, demand for environmental conservation, and

development of the carbon market, among others,

while keeping social equity concerns in mind.

The complexity of ocean risk is mirrored

in the complexity of resilience, which is

multidimensional and dynamic. The global

community will need to gain experience in

understanding and addressing more complicated

risks in the coming years. This report highlights

examples of the socio-economic impacts of

displacements and migration, which disrupt local

social structures and can reduce or destroy social

capital critical for economic growth and resilience. At

the same time, an inability to relocate also negatively

impacts community resilience and may trap

communities in patterns of continually facing future

risks. It is important to keep in mind the context-

specicity of how ocean risks manifest and impact

SIDS and LDCs, meaning a diverse set of approaches

will be needed to adequately understand and

respond to risk and vulnerability. Context-dependent

solutions are essential; for instance, projects tailored

to local ecological systems may work better than

global-scale approaches under certain conditions.

Projects that are designed with local communities

can benet from local knowledge to ensure that

project address local demands and reect socio-

cultural contexts to achieve long-term success.

Strengthening of scientic and technical capacities

as well as integration of local indigeneous and

ecological knowledge can promote resilience,

sustainabiilty, and equity. SIDS and LDCs oen lack

domestic technical capacities and data to conduct

their own vulnerability and risk assessments. Thus,

investments in building domestic scientic and

technical capacities, baseline monitoring, data

collection, and deployment of blue techs are critical

for mitigating risks to build resilience. At the same

time, many communities in SIDS and LDCs hold

valuable local indigenous and ecological knowledge

that are oen neglected in the scientic or decision-

making process. Integration of these knowledge

systems can benet disaster response, resource

management, and climate adaptation.

Content

Key messages 3

Denitions 5

Introduction 6

Key Features of SIDS and LDCs 8

Ocean risk landscape 14

Natural disasters, sea level rise, and oods 14

Ocean warming and ecosystem changes 16

Human migrations and displacements 17

Dependence on tourism, and the case of COVID-19 19

Climate change mitigation 20

Macroeconomic shocks and impacts 21

Interdependent risks 22

Achieving a sustainable, equitable, and resilient ocean economy 24

Novel nancial tools and insurance products 24

Expanding the knowledge base 26

References 27

Adaptive capacity - the social factors that enable

resilience to current, perceived, or expected

social-ecological change 1.

Blue economy - sustainable development

framework for developing countries addressing

equity in access to, development of, and the

sharing of benefits from marine resources;

offering scope for re-investment in human

development and the alleviation of crippling

national debt burdens 2.

Displacement - Involuntary and unforeseen

movement of people from their place of

residence due to weather-related impacts on

property and infrastructure 3.

Exclusive economic zones - areas of the sea in

which a coastal state has sovereign rights

(as prescribed by the 1982 United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea) regarding the

exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing

living and non-living resources of the water

column, seabed and subsoil, including energy

production from water and wind, in its adjacent

section of the continental shelf extending 200

miles from the coastline.

Exposure - nature and degree to which a component

is in contact with or subject to a stressor.

Food and nutrition security - food and nutrition

security is achieved when adequate food

(quantity, quality, safety, socio-cultural

acceptability) is available and accessible for and

satisfactorily used and utilized by all individuals

at all times to live a healthy and active life 4.

Least Developed Countries (LDCs) - a group

of countries with low income and/or with

socioeconomic vulnerabilities.

Ocean economy - the sum of the economic

activities of ocean-based industries, and

the assets, goods, and services of marine

ecosystems5.

Ocean observing system - a collection of sensors

that collect data, the platforms that host these

sensors, and technology that sends the data to a

data collection center, often with satellite or cell

phone telemetry.Observing systems also include

computer models that produce forecasts of ocean

conditions 6.

Ocean risks - existing or potential impacts and

experiences of socioeconomic and environmental

stressors derived from the ocean or associated

with the ocean economy that derail SIDS

and LDCs from sustainable and equitable

development paths.

Resilience - the capacity of a system to cope,

adapt or transform in the changing social or

environmental conditions 7.

Sensitivity - degree to which a system is directly or

indirectly affected or modified by a stressor.

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) - a group

of countries and territories that share common

social, economic, and environmental challenges

in their development paths as small island states.

Social capital - features of social organization

such as networks, norms, and social trust that

facilitate coordination and cooperation for

mutual benefit 8.

Stressors - threats to a social-ecological system.

Stressors can be socioeconomic (e.g., market

shocks, coup d’état, population growth) or

environmental (e.g., tropical cyclone, sea level

rise, changing water quality).

Vulnerability - degree to which a system (or its

attributes) is susceptible to, or unable to cope

with, adverse effects of one or more stressors.

Vulnerability has three dimensions: exposure,

sensitivity, and adaptive capacity 9.

Denitions

Climate change has been impacting marine

and coastal ecosystems globally. Carbon

emissions from human activities are causing

ocean warming, acidication and oxygen

loss with some evidence of changes in nutrient

cycling and primary production 10. Increasingly,

ocean warming and extreme temperature events

(i.e., marine heatwaves) are aecting marine and

coastal ecosystems through changes in population

productivity and spatial distribution 11–14, impacting

sheries with implications for food production and

dependent human communities 15–19. Distributions of

seagrass meadows and mangroves are contracting,

while the frequency of large-scale coral bleaching

events has increased, causing worldwide reef

degradation 20–22. Small island developing states

(SIDS), a group of countries and territories that

share common social, economic, and environmental

challenges in their development paths, and least

developed countries (LDCs), a group of countries

with low income and/or with socioeconomic

vulnerabilities, are disproportionately vulnerable to

these impacts 19,23,24. Many of these countries have

an outsized dependence on marine and coastal

resources and healthy ecosystems for income,

livelihoods and nutrition security 25–28. Coastal

ecosystems are also critical to their culture and

linked to many traditions 29.

We are simultaneously seeing increasing hopes and

expectations that the ocean will serve as an engine

to sustain future economic development 30. There

is an accelerating scramble for current, and future,

ocean benets that is unfolding with unprecedented

intensity and diversity (e.g., sheries, aquaculture,

mining, bioprospecting, shipping, conservation,

Introduction

Morning aer Hurricane Maria, September 2017, between Castle Comfort and Roseau on the Island of Dominica.

communication, tourism, and geopolitics). This

scramble for the seas – or “blue acceleration” –

presents both risks and opportunities with a range of

ecological, economic, equity and policy ramications.

The future of the ocean economy in SIDS and LDCs

depends on their ability to navigate this new ocean

reality.

The international community has emphasized

the need to prioritize SIDS and LDCs in building

resilience against climate change and other risks

to achieve sustainable development goals; for

example, the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action

(SAMOA) Pathway was adopted in 2014 at the Third

International Conference on SIDS (Apia, Samoa),

and called for urgent actions and support for SIDS’

eorts to achieve their sustainable development.

Despite such calls and progress made since, gaps and

challenges remain 31, including access to nance to

support the sustainable development of key sectors,

such as sheries 32.

This report synthesizes peer-reviewed and grey

literature, empirical data, and case-studies to:

1. Highlight prominent environmental and

socioeconomic stressors and their impacts on

SIDS and LDCs;

2. Describe social-ecological features of SIDS and

LDCs that shape their vulnerabilities;

3. Describe potential ways that can support SIDS

and LDCs in mitigating ocean risks and building

resilience.

Key Features of SIDS

and LDCs

Formally, SIDS were recognized at the 1992

United Nations Rio Conference on Environment

and Development as having shared unique

sustainable development challenges, such as

geographical remoteness, low economic diversity,

and a heavy reliance on marine and coastal

resources33. LDCs are determined based on per

capita incomes following World Bank’s low-income

countries (LICs) classication. Designation as LDCs

is also associated with the level of human assets

and economic vulnerability 34. LDCs therefore

include LICs as well as those lower-middle income

countries with low human assets and high economic

vulnerability.

These classications and labels play a critical role in

determining access to certain types of nancing35.

For example, there are 24 countries who can receive

the World Bank’s International Development

Association’s concessional nancing (i.e., no interest,

40-year amortization with 10-year grace period) and

their eligibility is determined based on criteria such

as per capita income and their status as Small Island

States 36. Ocial development assistance (ODA) is

not available for non-LDC high income countries as

well as those that are members of G8 and current

and prospective members of the European Union

(EU) 37. Furthermore, LDCs can receive preferential

trade deals under the World Trade Organization

mechanism 38.

Many SIDS and coastal LDCs have economies

that are heavily reliant on coastal and marine

ecosystems, and oen have vast EEZs with rich

sheries resources. Consequently, communities and

households in SIDS and coastal LDCs largely depend

on sheries and aquaculture for nutrients and

livelihoods. Developmental nances, but also other

types of external resources through international

tourism, and sales of sheries access rights, play an

important role in these countries and territories39.

For example, coastal tourism brings in a large

amount of foreign income for many SIDS. In fact,

the tourism sector accounts for over 20% of GDP

for almost two-thirds of SIDS 40–42 (see also ORRAA

Report on Gender)*. Similarly, the sales of shing

licenses to distant water shing nations comprise a

* Wabnitz et al (2021) ORRAA Report. https://oceanrisk.earth

signicant portion of public revenue and contribute

to essential public services such as education and

healthcare 43. Combined with the general lack of

economic diversity, their heavy reliance on external

resources makes them vulnerable not only to

environmental hazards such as extreme weather

and ecosystem changes but also to socioeconomic

stressors such as global nancial crises, pandemics,

and geopolitics.

SIDS and coastal LDCs are especially vulnerable

to climate change. For example, global indices of

climate change vulnerability highlight that SIDS and

LDCs are highly exposed to the impacts of climate

change, have a relatively low adaptive capacity,

and are among the world’s most sensitive states to

climate change (Figure 1). The economic damages

from climate change are also projected to be high

Figure 1. Exposure, Sensitivity, and Adaptive Capacity (Figure

shows the climate change sensitivity (horizontal axis) and

adaptivity capacity (vertical axis) scores calculated for each

Coastal State by Blasiak et al. (2017). The colors indicate LDC

SIDS (red), non-LDC SIDS (purple), Other LDC (blue), and other

(grey) countries. The size of the dot indicates climate change

exposure score calculated from using IPCC RCP scenario (near

term projection, as described by Blasiak et al. (2017). Data: Blasiak

et al. (2017) supporting information https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

pone.0179632.s001)

Table 1. List of Coastal LDCs and SIDS (Regional classication follows UN region and sub-region classication).*

Region Subregion Country SIDS LDC

Population,

total

GNI per

capita, PPP

(current inter-

national $) Income group

External

debt

stocks (%

of GNI)

Lending

category Other

Per capita

greenhouse gas

emissions (kt of

CO2 equivalent)

Africa Northern Africa Sudan SDN LDC 42,813,238 3,990 Lower middle income 77.06 IDA HIPC 0.013593

Sub-Saharan Africa Angola AGO LDC 31,825,295 6,380 Lower middle income 63.96 IBRD 0.001659

Benin BEN LDC 11,801,151 3,400 Low income 27.37 IDA HIPC 0.003447

Cape Verde CPV SIDS 549,935 7,330 Lower middle income 93.90 Blend 0.000773

Comoros COM SIDS LDC 850,886 3,210 Lower middle income 25.57 IDA HIPC 0.000779

Congo -

Kinshasa COD LDC 86,790,567 1,110 Low income 11.11 IDA HIPC 0.011624

Djibouti DJI LDC 973,560 5,620 Lower middle income 79.00 IDA 0.003186

Eritrea ERI LDC 3,213,972 1,610 Low income 51.48 IDA HIPC

Gambia GMB LDC 2,347,706 2,280 Low income 39.97 IDA HIPC 0.001853

Guinea GIN LDC 12,771,246 2,650 Low income 23.54 IDA HIPC 0.009515

Guinea-

Bissau GNB SIDS LDC 1,920,922 2,230 Low income 44.20 IDA HIPC 0.004738

Liberia LBR LDC 4,937,374 1,320 Low income 49.95 IDA HIPC 0.000685

Madagascar MDG LDC 26,969,307 1,660 Low income 29.90 IDA HIPC 0.005277

Mauritania MRT LDC 4,525,696 5,360 Lower middle income 71.55 IDA HIPC 0.003600

Mauritius MUS SIDS 1,265,711 26,840 Upper middle income IBRD 0.001634

Mozambique MOZ LDC 30,366,036 1,310 Low income 135.73 IDA HIPC 0.015296

São Tomé &

Príncipe STP SIDS LDC 215,056 4,130 Lower middle income 60.36 IDA HIPC 0.001038

Senegal SEN LDC 16,296,364 3,470 Lower middle income 58.83 IDA HIPC 0.004043

* LDC status were determined by referencing UN Committee for Development Policy Secretariat 174. SIDS status were determined by referencing UNCTAD 175. Population, GNI per capita, External debt

stocks, and per capita GHG emissions were obtained and calculated from World Bank and are for the most recent data as of April 2021. Red font used for population indicate microstate with countries less

than 200,000 people. Red font used for per capita GHG emissions indicate countries with per capita GHG emission higher than OECD countries. These were obtained via R package ‘wbstats’ (version1.0.4).

Income group, World Bank lending category and HIPC listings were obtained from World Bank 36. Abbreviations: IDA: International Development Association, IBRD: International Bank of Reconstruction and

Development, HIPC: Highly Indebted Poor Countries.

Region Subregion Country SIDS LDC

Population,

total

GNI per

capita, PPP

(current inter-

national $) Income group

External

debt

stocks (%

of GNI)

Lending

category Other

Per capita

greenhouse gas

emissions (kt of

CO2 equivalent)

Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Seychelles SYC SIDS 97,625 29,470 High income IBRD 0.010309

Sierra Leone SLE LDC 7,813,215 1,770 Low income 44.42 IDA HIPC 0.001760

Somalia SOM LDC 15,442,905 Low income 268.83 IDA HIPC 0.001724

Tanzania TZA LDC 58,005,463 2,700 Low income 31.80 IDA HIPC 0.005002

Togo TGO LDC 8,082,366 1,670 Low income 40.01 IDA HIPC 0.003385

Americas Latin America and

the Caribbean Anguilla AIA SIDS

Antigua &

Barbuda ATG SIDS 97,118 21,780 High income IBRD 0.006114

Aruba ABW SIDS 106,314 36,300 High income 0.009977

Bahamas BHS SIDS 389,482 37,420 High income 0.013381

Barbados BRB SIDS 287,025 15,770 High income 0.005430

Belize BLZ SIDS 390,353 6,700 Upper middle income 80.03 IBRD 0.004645

British Virgin

Islands VGB SIDS 30,030 High income 0.004038

Cayman

Islands CYM SIDS 64,948 41,790 High income 0.011579

Cuba CUB SIDS 11,333,483 Upper middle income 0.004656

Curaçao CUW SIDS 157,441 26,670 High income

Dominica DMA SIDS 71,808 12,250 Upper middle income 49.35 Blend 0.003140

Dominican

Republic DOM SIDS 10,738,958 18,300 Upper middle income 42.42 IBRD 0.003363

Grenada GRD SIDS 112,003 16,080 Upper middle income 50.31 Blend 0.006759

Guyana GUY SIDS 782,766 13,540 Upper middle income 31.15 IDA HIPC 0.008129

Haiti HTI SIDS LDC 11,263,077 3,040 Low income 15.39 IDA HIPC 0.000862

Jamaica JAM SIDS 2,948,279 9,940 Upper middle income 98.83 IBRD 0.005445

Region Subregion Country SIDS LDC

Population,

total

GNI per

capita, PPP

(current inter-

national $) Income group

External

debt

stocks (%

of GNI)

Lending

category Other

Per capita

greenhouse gas

emissions (kt of

CO2 equivalent)

Americas Latin America and

the Caribbean Montserrat MSR SIDS

Netherlands

Antilles ANT SIDS

Sint Maarten SXM SIDS 40,733 35,400 High income

St. Kitts &

Nevis KNA SIDS 52,834 26,360 High income IBRD 0.002551

St. Lucia LCA SIDS 182,790 15,180 Upper middle income 31.99 Blend 0.003390

St. Vincent &

Grenadines VCT SIDS 110,589 12,930 Upper middle income 43.59 Blend 0.002944

Suriname SUR SIDS 581,363 15,310 Upper middle income IBRD 0.004911

Trinidad &

Tobago TTO SIDS 1,394,973 27,140 High income IBRD 0.045589

Turks &

Caicos Islands TCA SIDS 38,191 28,020 High income 0.000508

Northern America Bermuda BMU SIDS 64,027 86,460 High income 0.009767

Asia South-eastern Asia Cambodia KHM LDC 16,486,542 4,320 Lower middle income 60.01 IDA 0.008619

Myanmar

(Burma) MMR LDC 54,045,420 5,170 Lower middle income 15.16 IDA 0.010278

Singapore SGP SIDS 5,703,569 92,270 High income 0.010524

Timor-Leste TLS SIDS LDC 1,293,119 4,970 Lower middle income 7.53 Blend 0.000847

Southern Asia Bangladesh BGD LDC 163,046,16 5,200 Lower middle income 18.01 IDA 0.001214

Maldives MDV SIDS 530,953 18,380 Upper middle income 52.70 IDA 0.001310

Western Asia Bahrain BHR SIDS 1,641,172 44,250 High income 0.025270

Yemen YEM LDC 29,161,922 3,520 Low income 31.26 IDA 0.001672

Oceania Melanesia Fiji FJI SIDS 889,953 13,120 Upper middle income 20.22 Blend 0.002610

New

Caledonia NCL SIDS 287,800 High income 0.008873

Region Subregion Country SIDS LDC

Population,

total

GNI per

capita, PPP

(current inter-

national $) Income group

External

debt

stocks (%

of GNI)

Lending

category Other

Per capita

greenhouse gas

emissions (kt of

CO2 equivalent)

Oceania Melanesia Papua New

Guinea PNG SIDS 8,776,109 4,360 Lower middle income 78.81 Blend 0.001453

Solomon

Islands SLB SIDS LDC 669,823 2,750 Lower middle income 22.27 IDA 0.008257

Vanuatu VUT SIDS LDC 299,882 3,320 Lower middle income 44.59 IDA 0.001788

Micronesia Guam GUM SIDS 167,294 High income 0.000537

Kiribati KIR SIDS LDC 117,606 4,650 Lower middle income IDA 0.000522

Marshall

Islands MHL SIDS 58,791 5,090 Upper middle income IDA 0.000103

Micronesia

(Federated

States of)

FSM SIDS 113,815 3,640 Lower middle income IDA 0.000536

Nauru NRU SIDS 12,581 17,820 Upper middle income IBRD

Northern

Mariana

Islands

MNP SIDS 57,216 High income 0.000230

Palau PLW SIDS 18,008 19,580 High income IBRD

Polynesia American

Samoa ASM SIDS 55,312 Upper middle income 0.001056

Cook Islands COK SIDS

French

Polynesia PYF SIDS 279,287 High income 0.002535

Niue NIU SIDS

Samoa WSM SIDS 197,097 6,500 Upper middle income 50.13 IDA 0.001883

Tonga TON SIDS 104,494 7,000 Upper middle income 34.68 IDA 0.001499

Tuvalu TUV SIDS LDC 11,646 6,180 Upper middle income IDA 0.000488

in SIDS and LDCs. For example, recent reviews

of existing economic assessments and models of

climate change impacts suggest that countries with

lower per capita income will see larger GDP losses in

the long run 44. This body of research also argues that

such regressive distribution of climate impacts across

countries is oen not accounted for in the estimation

of economic damages from climate change.

Despite having many of the shared features described

above, SIDS and LDCs should not be treated as

homogenous groups. They represent a diverse set

of countries and territories that dier across many

dimensions (Table 1). As of 2021, the list of LDCs

included 47 countries, 21 of which are Coastal States

with exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and the list

of SIDS included 58 countries and territories, with

9 countries appearing on both lists (LDC-SIDS)

(Table1). While the majority of the 58 recognized

SIDS are sovereign states, 20 of them are classied as

territories and/or are not the members of the United

Nations 45. Among SIDS, there is a great variability in

terms of land mass, territorial sea, natural resource

availabilities, as well as governance systems 42. For

example, Bahrain is an oil producing country, Papua

New Guinea is rich in forestry resources, and Tuvalu

is a coral atoll. Several SIDS are classied as high-

income countries (Table 1).

In summary, certain shared features make SIDS

and coastal LDCs particularly vulnerable to certain

environmental and socioeconomic stressors such

as extreme weather and geological events, coastal

urbanization, as well as global health and nancial

crises. However, dierences across dimensions such

as population size, levels of economic development,

land masses, sizes of territorial sea and EEZs, types

and availabilities of natural resources, cultures,

histories, and governance systems indicates

that vulnerabilities, adaptive and transformative

capacities, and pathways in which ocean risks

manifest will vary across coastal communities in SIDS

and LDCs.

Ocean risk landscape

Globally, 40% of the world’s population (i.e.,

2.4 billion people) live within 100 km of the

coast 46, and these numbers are higher for

SIDS and LDCs. Coping with environmental

stressors (sometimes referred to as natural hazards)

that are ocean-derived has dramatically shaped

resource use and human settlement in SIDS and

coastal communities across LDCs throughout their

histories. However, there is a growing scientic

recognition that we live in a time where humans are

the dominant force of planetary change – termed

the Anthropocene epoch47. Human activity is now

fundamentally modifying weather patterns, the

climate, the cryosphere (i.e., the frozen parts of

the Earth), and the ocean. The natural baseline

(e.g., frequency and intensity) of many of these

ocean-derived environmental stressors is changing.

Technological advancement in the past few decades

has led humanity to reach deeper and further into

the ocean, with rapidly increasing commercial

interests driving growth in existing industries and the

emergence of new ones 30,48. The Blue Acceleration,

a race among diverse and oen competing interests

for ocean food, material, and space, is driving an

unprecedented expansion in the intensity, and

diversity of socioeconomic stressors impacting SIDS

and LDC coastal communities (see also ORRAA

Report on the Blue Acceleration)*. Together, these

environmental (e.g., tropical cyclones, sea level rise)

and socioeconomic (e.g., urbanization, nancial crises)

stressors are creating ocean risks that can derail SIDS

and LDCs from sustainable development paths.

The next sections synthesize the impacts and

interactions of the key environmental and

socioeconomic stressors that are derived from the

ocean and/or associated with the ocean economy,

including extreme weather and geological events,

climate-induced sea level rise, coastal urbanization,

global pandemic, nancial crises, and the associated

ocean risks for SIDS and LDCs.

Natural disasters, sea level rise, and

oods

The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel

* Jouray et al (2021) ORRAA Report. https://oceanrisk.earth

on Climate Change asserted that global mean sea

level will continue to rise through 2100, resulting

in more coastal areas experiencing increases in

relative sea level, coastal ooding, and coastal

erosion 49. Even if emissions were to stop today, it

is likely that sea-level rise (SLR) would increase

by an additional 0.7-1.1m by 2300. Considering the

“pledged emissions” through 2030, these numbers

increase to 0.8-1.4m of committed SLR. If emissions

continue beyond 2030, sea level will continue to rise

accordingly. SLR is therefore anticipated to be one of

the most expensive and irreversible consequences

of climate change worldwide. For example, a recent

study, using a spatially dynamic model of the world

economy, estimated that SLR would reduce global

real GDP by 0.19% in present value terms under an

intermediate scenario (RCP 4.5) of greenhouse gas

emissions 50. Corresponding country-level estimates

of SLR impacts on GDP, welfare, and population

project that the countries that will suer the most

GDP and population loss are LDCs,** predominantly

those found in sub-Saharan Africa. The study also

found varying degrees of impacts within and across

global regions (Figure 2). For instance, despite nearby

countries projected to experience large welfare and

population losses, Mauritania and Sierra Leone are

expected see an increase in GDP and population.

SLR, in conjunction with increases in extreme rainfall

events, will lead to more frequent and prominent

coastal ooding and erosion. Flood risks will be

further exacerbated by coastal development driven

by population growth and rapid urbanization. A recent

global analysis, using spatially detailed inundation

maps and night lights data suggested that cities

located in areas that are less than 10 meters above

sea level have a high annual probability of large-scale

oods that could displace >100,000 people 51.

With a 2°C increase in temperature, there will be

more intense tropical cyclones and the proportion

of Category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones will increase

by 13% 42,49. If major hard infrastructure (e.g., ports,

roads) and so infrastructure (e.g., nancial and

governance centers) are hit, these impacts will

ripple throughout the entire country. SIDS and

** This study also estimated the impacts of SLR for land-locked

countries.

coastal LDCs oen have critical infrastructure such

as transportation hubs, healthcare facilities, water

treatment plants, desalination plants, and power

stations in low-lying areas. This infrastructure is

exposed to stressors such as coastal ooding caused

by events such as large storms and tsunamis. For

instance, airports and ferry terminals that are critical

to the economies of Jamaica and St. Lucia will be

more frequently inundated over the course of the

coming century as a result of sea level rise and

stronger storms 52. Marine ooding can also impact

coastal aquifers, decreasing the availability of fresh

water supplies 53.

Local socio-economic factors and historical changes

to coastal areas can exacerbate the impacts of

SLR. Documented cases of coastal inundation and

erosion oen cite additional circumstances such as

vertical subsidence, engineering works, development

activities, or beach mining. For instance in the

Indian Ocean, on Anjouan Island, Comoros, coral

reef shing and beach mining worsened coastal

erosion to extend to the entire island’s coastline 54.

On the atoll island of Fongafale Islet, the capital of

Tuvalu, urbanization and construction activities in

swampland that have taken place since the 1970s

have worsened the impacts of SLR 55.

Figure 2. Economic impacts of coastal ooding (Figures show the ndings from Desmet et al. 2021 that estimated the impacts of sea level

rise on real GDP (top le), welfare (top right), and population (bottom le) in each country. Bars indicate the mean impact).

Some SIDS and LDCs are located in areas that

are seismically active and are impacted by

oshore earthquakes and tsunamis. Many coastal

communities in these countries have limited

access to advanced warning systems and scientic

information that would aid disaster planning56,57.

Lack of a routine monitoring and data can severely

limit their ability to benet from advanced

technologies that are employed by developed

countries to reduce their disaster risks from

geophysical and weather-related events. Increased

international support is critical for building and

strengthening local scientic infrastructure as well

as human and nancial resource capacities. Recent

developments in UN-led global observing systems

are aiding SIDS and LDCs in accessing, building, and

beneting from relevant scientic advances (Box1).

Further, in conjunction with building scientic

capacities, integration of local indigenous knowledge

and local ecological knowledge in the scientic

and decision-making process can lead to improved

understanding of the system. For instance, many

communities in Papua New Guinea have made use

of local indigenous and ecological knowledge to

manage disaster risks 58. Similarly, these knowledge

systems can improve resource management 59,60 and

climate change response and adaptation 61.

Ocean warming and ecosystem

changes

The ocean has absorbed the bulk of human-induced

warming since the industrial era – about 90% of

the excess heat 10. This has caused unambiguous

increases in the global average sea surface

temperature (SST) over the 20th century. In addition

to gradual warming of the ocean, marine heatwaves

– dened as “a period of extreme warm near-SST

that persists for days to months and can extend up

to thousands of kilometers 62” – are also becoming

The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable

Development began in 2021. Decisions based on

indigenous knowledge or local ecological knowledge, in

conjunction with customary rules and practices, have

historically contributed to sustainable management

of coastal and marine natural resources 59,171 and to

planning for and recovery from natural disasters in

their coastal communities in SIDS and LDCs 58. As the

world shis into conditions unprecedented in human

history, however, relying solely on past experience

can limit these communities as they plan for the

future. Coastal communities in highly industrialized

countries are increasingly relying on scientic models

and projections for vulnerability assessments and

adaptation planning. SIDS and LDCs have limited

resources to establish and manage ocean observation

systems. Yet some regions, namely Caribbean SIDS

and Pacic SIDS, respectively, have establish regional

alliances for ocean observing systems to cooperate

in collecting and using ocean data (IOCARIBE-GOOS

in the Caribbean and PI-GOOS in Pacic Islands)27.

These eorts are both part of the Global Ocean

Observing Systems (GOOS) Regional Alliance, an eort

led by UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic

Commission (IOC). These regional eorts have led,

among other things, to the establishment of a Tsunami

Warning System in the Caribbean and inundation

projections in Fiji 27.

There are thirteen GOOS Regional Alliances in the

world, including IOCARIBE-GOOS, PI-GOOS, and

Indian Ocean GOOS (IO-GOOS), and these regional

alliances are governed and funded in a variety of ways.

Ocean observing systems are costly, and SIDS and

LDCs rely heavily on external funds to establish and

maintain the systems. IOCARIBE-GOOS is governed

by the IOC sub-commission; PI-GOOS is governed by

the Pacic Islands Applied Geoscience Commission

and Secretariat of the Pacic Regional Environmental

Programme, and in the Indian Ocean, IO-GOOS is

governed by a memorandum of understanding among

marine institutes from 16 countries181. These Regional

GOOS alliances have been serving as international

collaboration platforms for ocean science, and in

SIDS, they have led to international collaborations

between SIDS and developed economies to attract

external funds to develop data and scientic products

to support local decisions. Although SIDS and LDCs

are limited by their lack of data 42,182,regional GOOS

have a tremendous potential to increase their scientic

capacity for monitoring, modeling and forecasting to

mitigate future risks.

The development of a Framework for Ocean Observing

in 2012, which established guidelines for the design

and implementation of ocean observing systems, led

to increased and strengthened collaboration among

ocean observing systems practitioners, institutions,

and scientists. Yet, there is a lack of budgetary

resources to coordinate and govern ocean observing

systems in a sustainable manner 183. GOOS can play a

pivotal role in providing baseline information not only

about oshore waters but also about coastal waters to

bring benet to coastal human populations. Continued

funding support and investments towards international

eort to strengthen GOOS can bring benets to coastal

communities SIDS and coastal LDCs and should be a

key component of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for

Sustainable Development and aligned eorts.

Ocean observing systems and scientic cooperation

Box 1

longer and more intense, with the frequency of the

most impactful marine heatwaves over the last few

decades having increased more than 20-fold because

of anthropogenic global warming 63–65. By the end of

the century, the IPCC projects that these extreme

events will become four times more frequent under

low emission scenarios (SSP1-2.6), or eight times

more frequent under high emission scenarios (SSP5-

8.5).

Ocean warming will impact marine ecosystems by

changing the abundance and distributions of sh

species 66–68. Tropical regions, where many SIDS and

LDCs are located, are particularly vulnerable to

these shis in species as more sh make poleward

moves 69–72. The impacts of directional shis in sh

distribution can be gradual and felt over long periods

of time. Coastal shers who may be able to respond

and adapt to the changes at rst by traveling farther

from their home may not be able to continue to track

the changes as the range of shis become larger

over time. Gradual decline in stock abundance could

also result in chronic poverty and loss of shing as

livelihoods 73,74.

The sheries on which many SIDS and LDCs depend

for nutrition and livelihoods are oen transboundary

stocks, which are shared with neighboring countries.

Sustainable management of transboundary

stocks requires countries to collaborate to set up

management arrangements 75–77. Many SIDS have

vast EEZs with highly-migratory species such as

tunas, and they oen bear more conservation

burdens over such resources than distant water

shing nations that operate in their EEZs and nearby

international waters 78,79.

Countries have historically struggled to achieve

sustainable management of transboundary stocks,

and climate change is expected to further exacerbate

such challenges 77,80–82. In this context, eective

cooperation will grow increasingly relevant through

Regional Fisheries Management Organizations

and bilateral or multi-lateral joint management

agreements. To align with the sustainable

development agenda, these arrangements need to

mainstream issues of fairness and equity regarding

sharing of benets as well as burdens of management

and conservation 83 (Box 2).

Human migrations and displacements

When disasters hit coastal communities,

including those in SIDS and LDCs, people and

entire communities can be displaced. Gradual

environmental changes or slow-onset climate events

can cause displacement as well. In the year 2020

alone, 40.5 million people were displaced globally,

with three-quarters of this displacement caused by

natural disasters 84.

Between 2008 and 2019, there were nine natural

disaster events (seven storms, one ood, and one

earthquake) that caused more than one million

people to be displaced in just four countries

(Bangladesh, Myanmar, Haiti, and Cuba) (Figure 3). In

terms of per capita displacements, 17 natural disaster

events resulted in the displacement of more than 5%

of a country’s population. These included 15 storms,

one drought, and one earthquake. Nine of these

events occurred in Oceania (American Samoa, Fiji,

Federated States of Micronesia, Northern Mariana

Islands, Palau, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu); seven in

the Americas (British Virgin Islands, Cuba, Dominica,

Haiti, and Sint Maarten (Dutch part)), and one in

Africa (Somalia). On average, over 2.9 million people

were displaced annually from 2008 to 2019.* These

numbers would certainly increase if they included

people displaced due to long-term gradual changes

or slow-onset climate events that disrupt their

physical and social infrastructure.

Countries and communities may also choose

to migrate as a precautionary measure and use

planned relocation as an adaptation strategy. A

survey of 86 case studies of community relocation in

Pacic Islands found that environmental variability

and natural hazards accounted for relocation of

communities in 37 of the cases 85. However, studies

of island migration commonly reveal the complexity

of a decision to migrate and rarely identify a single

cause. For example, research from the Pacic have

shown that culture, lifestyle, and a connection to

place are more signicant drivers of migration than

climate 86. However, nancial, legal, and political

barriers are expected to inhibit signicant levels

of environmentally-induced migration within and

across countries 87,88.

Migration and displacement can distort social

structure, weaken sociocultural fabric, and harm

social capital that is critical for economic growth and

resilience. The adverse impacts of displacement are

felt through multiple areas, including education and

health, and ultimately impact human capital and

labor productivity 3,84,89. Coastal communities oen

draw on social structures and capabilities that can

reduce risk and increase adaptive capacity in the

face of coastal hazards 90,91. Permanent relocation

of a community to a distant and foreign location

can erode culture, tradition, and identity of the

displaced people 84,92. Studies also show that failing

to assimilate in the destination communities can

result in environmental and resource degradation

* All of the numbers mentioned in this paragraph are

calculated based on Internal Displacement Data by International

Displacement Monitoring Center (https://www.internal-

displacement.org/), as described by Figure 2. Per capita

displacement numbers use population data obtained from World

Bank and Worldometers.info when population data was missing in

World Bank database.

SIDS in the Western and Central Pacic have vast

EEZs with rich sheries resources, including highly

migratory tropical tuna species. Parties to the Nauru

Agreement (PNA), a group which was formed in

1982 by the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati,

Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea,

Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu,* have been engaged in

cooperative and sustainable management of these

species. In their EEZs, skipjack tuna alone is valued

at over USD2 billion annually 184, and countries have

been gaining important revenue through the sale of

purse seine shing access rights to their waters to

distant water shing nations185,186. The purse seine

skipjack tuna shery has been managed through a

Vessel Day Scheme (VDS), which was introduced in

2007 and implemented in 2012, that allocates the

share of eort quotas among the Parties 187,188.** Under

this scheme vessel owners can purchase and trade

days shing at sea, within a total allowable eort

limit, in places subject to the PNA and Tokelau. The

primary motivation for the establishment of the PNA

was to form a united front against rich and powerful

distant water shing nations to ensure more equitable

negotiation outcomes in the sale of shing rights

while ensuring resource sustainability 43. In 2019, a

vessel day (the trading unit) in PNA waters cost on

average USD12,590, with the Parties collectively

generating over USD500 million in sheries-related

revenue annually 184. Revenue from the VDS provides

an average 37% of all government revenue across PNA

members and Tokelau (Bell et al. 2021), with monies

generated from licensing fees key to nancing public

infrastructure and providing basic services 25.

Recent stock assessments highlight the four key

tuna stocks in the western and central Pacic as in

a healthy state 189,190. Skipjack, yellown, and bigeye

tuna caught with purse seines benet from MSC

certication.*** Yet, as with many sheries around the

globe, tropical tuna are being impacted by climate

change 77. Existing studies project an eastward shi

of tuna across the region 191,192. Climate change is

therefore expected to create winners and losers

within the PNA as countries located in the western

Pacic (e.g., Papua New Guinea) will see their

proportion of the stock diminish, while countries

located in the central Pacic (e.g., Kiribati) will gain a

greater share 72,193,194. The PNA also face the challenge

of tuna moving out of their EEZs into international

waters, which is projected to result in revenue loss

from sheries access fees of USD 12 million per year

under the conservative Representative Conservation

Pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenario by 2050 – or USD 90

* Tokelau participates as an observer to PNA.

** VDS is currently implemented for tuna sheries that use

longline gear as well.

*** Currently, the MSC certication covers those that are

caught without sh aggregating device (FAD). As of March

2023, the certication will include those that use FAD as well.

million under a high greenhouse gas emissions

scenario (i.e., RCP 8.5) 193. Such change could reduce

incentives for cooperative management for countries

losing sh 193.

However, thus far, eorts to manage tuna stocks by

the PNA are paying o as they face climate challenges.

The VDS has several features that help the PNA adapt

to climate change. First, the scheme uses a rolling

historical reference of average shing eort input

(i.e., shing days) from recent years, as opposed to a

xed historical reference, to allocate shares 187,195,196.

The EU Common Fisheries Policy on the other hand,

for instance, has EU Member State’s quota shares

allocated based on catches in the 1970s. The PNA is

further responding by adapting their allocation policy

to climate change. In the early days of the VDS, the

Parties allocated the eort shares based on a the pre-

determined formulae that used a mix of the historical

shing eorts from the immediate seven years and

the relative stock abundance of each Party’s EEZ 197.

Currently, the eort allocation focuses on shing

eort as it has become more challenging to accurately

estimate the relative abundance of stocks in each

Party’s waters 195. The VDS has another advantage: it

allows Parties to trade shares.

As highlighted above, the PNA is not immune to

climate change challenges. Yet, existing sustainable

sheries management eorts can help mitigate some

of the projected changes. Adaptive management

systems such as the VDS can help sheries

management reduce climate risks. Evidence also exists

that, where accurate spatial distribution of biomass

can be estimated, harvest control rules (i.e., harvest

control rules = rules based on stock status indicators

that determine how much shing can take place 198)

that takes changes in biomass into consideration

can help sheries become more resilient to climate

change 199. The PNA’s VDS example and this evidence

can help inform approaches to climate-proof sheries

management systems around the globe.

Parties to the Nauru Agreement and climate change

Box 2

Photo: Quentin Hanich

in the region to which they have been displaced

as the new entrants may not be familiar with the

informal rules or norms related to resource use 93. For

migration to be considered an adaptation measure,

the community needs to be exercising its agency in

making any such decisions 94,95.

Dependence on tourism, and the case

of COVID-19

Many SIDS and coastal LDCs are highly dependent

on income from tourism. For example, two thirds

of ODA eligible SIDS are securing more than 20%

of their GDP from tourism. Eight of countries have

tourism sharing more than 40% of their GDP 41,42.

This high dependence on coastal tourism can

result in multiple ocean risks in SIDS and LDC. For

example, meeting the food preferences of large

numbers of visitors also has serious impacts. On

the one hand, it results in demand for high levels of

food imports to meet tourists’ preferences, while on

the other hand, it has nutritional impacts for local

communities when tourism creates higher demand

Figure 3. Internal Displacement due to Natural Disasters in SIDS and Coastal LDCs (Figures show per capita (le) and total number of

(right) new internal displacement caused by natural disasters from 2008 – 2019 by dierent hazard types. Data: Internal Displacement

Monitoring Centre (https://www.internal-displacement.org/) The denition of internally displaced persons follow the UN denition:

"Persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to ee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in

particular as a result of or in order to avoid the eects of armed conict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights

or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border” (Guiding Principles on

Internal Displacement, 1998). For more information, refer to https://www.internal-displacement.org/internal-displacement. Per capita

displacement numbers use population data obtained from World Bank and Worldometers.info when population data was missing in

World Bank database.)

for local sh 96,97. In addition, tourism generates

demand for considerable imports of consumer

goods and construction materials used for tourism

infrastructure.

Coastal tourism further adds stress to the chronic

waste problem in SIDS. Per capita waste production

by SIDS residents is 48% higher than the global

average, and recycling rate is low 98. Lack of

infrastructure, limited space, outdated waste

transportation vehicles and narrow roads challenge

these countries ability to manage waste and are

major culprit of marine litter 98,99. This chronic

waste problem is also closely linked to the fact that

tourists produce more waste; thus, development

of coastal tourism is poised to further worsen the

waste problem.

For tourism-dependent countries, the COVID-19

pandemic has been particularly damaging.

By March 2021, 38 countries had experienced

complete border closures for at least 40 weeks,

including 19 SIDS and 9 LDCs 100. Most severely hit

are Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Fiji, Maldives and

Saint Lucia, who are expected to have their GDPs

decrease by more than 16% 41. The loss of income

from coastal tourism impacted communities

and household across these countries to cause

significant equity concerns (see also ORRAA

Report on Gender)*. Panelists at Island Finance

Forum 2021 predicted that international travelers

would focus on the extent to which healthcare

services are available in the destination country

in case they get sick when they arrive 101. This

suggests a slow and delayed economic recovery for

tourism-dependent SIDS and LDCs.

Using the pandemic as an example, however, we

also realize how complex interactions across key

economic sectors can either increase or reduce

vulnerabilities to ocean risks. For example, a

general downturn in coastal tourism also means

that beaches and other marine parks are receiving

fewer visitors, lowering associated impacts. As

such, the COVID-19 pandemic has had some

positive eects on environmental conservation

in the short-run 102. For example, a study of 29

urban tourist beaches in seven Latin-American

countries (Mexico, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador,

Brazil, Cuba, and Puerto Rico) found that lockdowns

contributed to decreased socioeconomic stressors

such as noise, odor, and litter on beaches, improved

dune vegetation, and increased burrow density

of crabs in some cases 103. However, if visitors do

not return aer the pandemic and the demand for

marine parks decreases, there is a concern that

countries and communities may not have sucient

nancial incentives and resources to continue

to protect these areas. Indeed, in a survey about

possible impacts of the pandemic on biodiversity

conservation, 60% of experienced conservation

experts expressed that the pandemic will have

negative impacts on biodiversity conservation 104.

Some of the concerns listed include government

prioritizing economic recovery over conservation,

reduced philanthropy, and increased illegal

activities due to reduced enforcement during the

pandemic. Fisheries were also aected by the

pandemic. The major positive impact was possible

recovery of some of the previously depleted

sh stocks as a result of prolonged slowdown

of commercial shing activities due to travel

restrictions and port closures 105. The pandemic has

also negatively impacted the shing sector in SIDS

and LDCs as demand has fallen for many seafood

product exports, and local demand to supply the

tourism sector has declined 102,106. The pandemic

also had signicant impacts on food systems,

including increased use of food sharing to maintain

food security within a community and a revival of

local food systems in many parts of the world 107,108.

* Wabnitz et al (2021) ORRAA Report. https://oceanrisk.earth

Climate change mitigation

Many SIDS and LDCs have a large potential for

ocean and oshore energy (e.g., oshore wind,

ocean thermal energy conversion, wave and tidal

energy) and other renewable energy (e.g., solar

photovoltaic) development 109 (see also ORRAA

Report on the Blue Acceleration)**. However, these

countries have struggled to harness this potential

110. SIDS and LDCs are heavily reliant on imported

petroleum not only for transportation but also for

electricity generation110.*** As of 2015, at least 24 SIDS

relied more than 80% of their energy on imports 111.

Island States spend over USD 67 million on oil, and

oil price hikes such as the ones in 2008 contributed

to increase external debt for SIDS 112. This reliance,

coupled with the high volatility of petroleum prices

compared with renewables and other types of fossil

fuels, leads to strains on island economies.

Some of the major causes for limited adoption of

renewable energy technologies include lack of

policies that provide incentives for renewable energy

producers, limited technical capacity, barriers for

renewable energy producers to access the electric

grid, and isolated island grid systems that are

vulnerable to intermittent sources of energy 110,113.

Further, geographical remoteness of SIDS, many of

which are located in Indian Ocean and Pacic Ocean,

means higher transportation and logistical costs 114.

These factors make it costly to switch to renewable

energy sources such as oshore wind. Further,

because many of the ocean energy technologies

are at early stage of development, there is high

technological and nancial risks associated with

these technologies that limit access to nance 115.

There is also a great variability in terms of household

access to electricity in SIDS and LDCs 116. For these

countries, renewable energy development can

improve electricity access as well as energy security

to enhance their resilience 114. Out of seventy SIDS

and coastal LDCs with records, 19% reported that

less than 50% of the population has access to

electricity.**** The cost of electricity varies across these

countries, with SIDS facing signicantly higher costs

of electricity compared with continental LDCs 117.

Since tourism is an energy intensive sector, SIDS with

tourism-dependent economies emit higher levels

of greenhouse gases (GHGs), with some SIDS and

LDCs such as Trinidad & Tobago, Bahrain, Bahamas,

and Sudan having high GHG emissions per capita

(Table1). The development of a carbon market

could be benecial for climate change mitigation by

** Jouray et al (2021) ORRAA Report. https://oceanrisk.earth

*** Also based on authors calculation using data published by

World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.PETR.

ZS).

**** Authors calculation based on data published by World Bank

(https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS).

reducing global carbon emissions, but SIDS and LDCs

are disadvantaged in terms of their ability to benet

from the carbon market due to the barriers they face

in scaling up renewable energy usage.

Macroeconomic shocks and impacts

Many SIDS and LDCs are dependent on external

assets through ODA, remittance, and philanthropy.

This reliance on foreign nancing also makes SIDS

and LDCs sensitive to global economic cycles. For

example, the funds supplied as ocial development

assistance and other aid assistance by OECD

countries oen depend on prevailing economic

conditions. Since 1970, all OECD member companies

have pegged their target of 0.7% of their gross

national income to be made available as ODA,

although this target has seldom been hit by member

states 118. The amount of funding available therefore

uctuates with the global economic cycle, which is

also a key factor for the growth or contraction of the

tourism sector, as expenditure for tourism goes down

during recessions. Tourism-dependent SIDS and

LDCs are therefore doubly impacted during global

economic recessions. The 2007-08 nancial crisis

impacted SIDS more severely than other developing

countries for their reliance on tourism by reducing

GDP growth rate to 0.9% as compared to over 3% for

other developing countries 119.

Climate change can also impact nancial markets

and asset values, both globally and locally. The

literature on climate-related nancial risks identies

three types of potential risks to the nancial system:

(1) physical risks (i.e., environmental stressors

such as sea level rise, marine heatwaves, and

extreme weather events, and their direct impacts

on businesses and households); (2) transition risks

(i.e., those that stem from socioeconomic reactions

to climate change such as changes in carbon policy,

changes in consumer preferences, and changes in

production technologies); and (3) liability risks (i.e.,

those that stem from victims of climate damage

demanding compensation) 120,121. The impacts of

these three risk categories manifest themselves in

business operations and household activities and

are ultimately felt at the nancial market system

level. For example, decarbonization policies oen

impact energy sector to switch away from fossil fuels.

This energy transition makes fossil fuel resources

to lose their value and become stranded. This is an

example of transition risk that can pose a signicant

risk to oil- and gas-producing SIDS such as Trinidad

& Tobago, Bahrain, Angola, and Timor-Leste. Further,

some of these countries such as Trinidad & Tobago

and Bahrain also have high per-capita GHG emissions

and thus could also be impacted by global policies to

mitigate GHG emissions (Table 1).

Climate-related nancial risks, in turn, impact

businesses and household activities. Central banks

and nancial institutions have already been taking

actions to mitigate the impacts of these risks. As

of December 2020, 83 members and 13 observers,

including members from SIDS and LDCs, have joined

the Network for Greening the Financial System, a

network of central banks and supervisors focused

on these issues 122. While only 12% of central banks

currently incorporate sustainability goals into their

policy 123, as several countries set sustainability goals

as their primary policy objective, there may be hope

this will feed into central banks’ decisions. Climate

change can directly impact nancial systems, and

therefore, better understanding and incorporation

of climate risks and sustainability related goals

in central banks’ policies can help create overall

macroeconomic and nancial stability 121,123.

Interdependent risks

As technology develops and enables humans

to further expand the range of benets

derived from the ocean, understanding how

human activities impact coastal and marine

ecosystems grows increasingly complicated (see

also ORRAA Report on the Blue Acceleration)*.

While it is known that these multiple socioeconomic

stressors (e.g. shing, seabed mining, shipping, and

land reclamation) interact, and result in complex

impacts on the ocean, we have limited understanding

of what they are and how these interactions

occur124,125. Siloed academic disciplines limit scientic

approaches to fully understand the interactions

and cumulative impacts of multiple stressors 126.

Climate change will exacerbate this complexity,

altering the nature of interactions to create increased

uncertainty, and magnifying the impacts of such

interacting stressors 127,128. Ultimately, climate change

* Jouray et al (2021) ORRAA Report. https://oceanrisk.earth

and its symptoms – ocean warming, acidication,

deoxygenation, etc. – will alter the structure and

functioning of the overall ecosystem and the

benets that it provides to humans 126,129. Since the

interactions among these multiple stressors pose

new ocean risks, these risks need to be considered

jointly, and seeking to address individual stressors in

isolation will be insucient to achieve sustainable

development goals 128,130 (Box 3).

In coastal ecosystems where local human impacts are

already prominent, added climate change stressors

will further amplify the interactions across multiple

stressors and their eects on local ecosystems 127,131,132.

For instance, anthropogenic climate change is now

attributed as a contributing cause for many natural

disasters 133. The increased frequency and magnitude

of storms also means there is an increased likelihood

that communities will be hit by multiple disasters

Ocean and coastal ecosystems provide essential

nutrients for many coastal communities in SIDS and

LDCs 28,200. Wild capture sheries and aquaculture

provide 17% of edible meat 201,202, and many coastal

communities depend on seafood as sources of healthy

nutrients. An analysis predicted that coastal sheries

in 16 of the 22 Pacic Island countries and territories

would not be able to provide sucient nutrition to a

rapidly growing population and that improved access to

tuna, more-ecient sheries governance, and expansion

of pond aquaculture can collectively improve food

security and public health 203,204. Further, a study found

a parallel transition in diet to consume more processed,

sweetened, and high caloric food as the changes in

natural environment that provide food take place.

Climate change threatens nutritional security of

communities in SIDS and LDCs in multiple ways. For

instance, climate change will reduce the availability

of sh for these communities 205. Tropical coastal

ecosystems are among the world’s most at-risk to

climate change especially when we take existing

threats such as land use changes and overshing

into consideration. In addition to ocean acidication

and gradual warming of the waters, more frequent

and intense marine heatwaves are expected 206. The

resulting coral bleaching, pole-ward shi of species,

and changes in species productivity will signicantly

reduce the availability of sh and therefore reduce the

variety and abundance of marine-derived nutrients

to these communities 207, with particularly severe

impacts on coastal communities 208. Explicit linkages

between human health and ocean health are evident

in many coastal communities in LDCs and SIDS, where

alternatives to nutritionally rich seafood are scarce –

declines in marine sh populations have been linked to

micronutrient deciencies and corresponding negative

health outcomes 207,28,209,210.

Ocean warming is also a factor in increasingly frequent

harmful algal blooms (HABs). Marine biotoxins

impact marine organisms that feed on toxic algae and

cause catastrophic damage to inshore sheries and

aquaculture operations by killing impacted sh and

shellsh. They could also cause severe food poisoning

for humans who consume impacted sh and shellsh.

A recent large-scale global study conducted by IOC

found 48% of the HAB events involved seafood toxins,

Nutrition, public health, and harmful algal blooms

Box 3

at the same time. On 12 January 2010, a magnitude

7.0 earthquake struck Haiti and displaced over 1.5

million people, or approximately 15% of the total

population (Figure 3). On 14 August 2021, another

major earthquake, magnitude 7.2, struck Haiti, amid

the global COVID-19 pandemic and immediately aer

the assassination of the president on 7 July 2021,

and was rapidly followed by a direct hit by a Tropical

Depression Grace on 16 August 2021. Following the

assassination, gang violence increased and displaced

over 19,000 people in Port-au-Prince, also impacting

food security 134,135. Tropical Depression Grace le

650,000 in need of humanitarian assistance 135.

These events contributed to deteriorating conditions

for stemming the COVID-19 pandemic as it became

more dicult to take preventative measures to avoid

contracting the disease 135.

The interdependencies of economic sectors in SIDS

and LDCs make these countries sensitive to system-

wide shocks such as natural disasters and global

pandemics and can prolong the recovery from such

shocks. Climate change, which produces long-term

gradual changes as well as acute shocks, adds to this

complexity. This new reality requires a corresponding

shi from single-shock or sector-specic risk mindset

to a coupled complex risk mindset 136.

and listed Central America and the Caribbean as one

of the regions seeing an increase in HAB events 211.

SIDS and LDCs lack infrastructure and capacity to

monitor the occurrences of harmful algal blooms, and

thus the consequences of these events can oen be

fatal or cause long term disabilities due to damage to

the nervous system resulting in paralytic, amnesic,

and neurologic symptoms 212. In 2021, an event killed

19 people in Madagascar who consumed a turtle that

had fed on toxic algae 213.

Increased and intensied aquaculture production

that cause nutrient pollution will increase the risks

of HABs211. Developed countries are investing in

early warning systems and forecasting to monitor

harmful algal blooms to reduce the impacts of marine

biotoxins on aquaculture 214. Aquaculture development

and coastal subsistence sheries in SIDS and LDCs

alike can benet from such systems to mitigate future

risks to food safety, nutritional security, and economic

development.

Photo: Kanae Tokunaga

Achieving a sustainable, equitable,

and resilient ocean economy

This report has focused some of the key

environmental and socioeconomic stressors,

that are derived from the ocean and associated

with the ocean economy and highlighted

their associated risks to SIDS and LDCs. The report

has also described the complex web of interactions

created by multiple stressors and illustrated how

ocean risks are coupled complex risks. Resilience

has emerged as a popular approach or concept to

rethink and reshape development for dynamic and

turbulent contexts 137. Resilience refers to abilities

of a social-ecological system to anticipate, absorb,

accommodate, or recover from hazardous events7.

The complexity of ocean risks is mirrored in the

complexity of resilience, which is multidimensional

and dynamic. As such, context-dependent solutions

are essential. The future is expected to bring with it

a growing range of highly complex ocean risks. There

are a number of strategies for enhancing resilience

and several studies have made major progress in

synthesizing across disciplines, domains and systems

to identify more focused lists of these resilience-

enhancing strategies 138–140 .

Novel nancial tools and insurance

products

During the past decade, an increasing number of

SIDS have started referring themselves as Large

Ocean States or Great Ocean States, recognizing

the vast opportunities that ocean provides for their

economic development 141–143. Indeed, the ocean

oers unprecedented solutions and opportunities

for sustainable and equitable growth 21,144,145. For

instance, the development of oshore renewable

energy and the restoration and conservation of blue

carbon ecosystems such as mangroves and salt

marshes can contribute to reducing GHG emissions

and atmospheric levels of GHGs 144.

Foreign nancing can play a signicant role in

amplifying these countries’ eorts to diversify and

further develop their ocean economy sectors to build

resilience. Some of the key nancial instruments that

can be used to promote a sustainable ocean economy

include traditional loans and grants, carbon markets,

and insurance instruments 146. These instruments

can be designed to incentivize actions that promote

social-ecological system sustainability, conservation,

and equity and to reduce risks that could cause

SIDS and coastal LDCs to deviate from achieving

their development goals. Diversied sources of

nancial capital are a critical component to building

resilience. For example, private equity and venture

capital funds can also promote businesses whose

objectives are aligned with sustainable and socially

equitable economic development; however, less

than USD 50 billion is invested in emerging market

as opposed to USD 300 billion and USD 150 billion

invested in the United States and in Western Europe,

respectively147. Furthermore, a survey of 440 private

investors found that SDG 14 “Life Below Water” is the

least attractive SDG as a target for impact investing,

citing the diculty of turning ocean conservation into

investment products 148 (Box 4).

Public or philanthropic co-nancing or blended

nance, where public nance (e.g., ODA, development

banks) is used to attract private nancing, is critical

for a sustainable ocean economy as there are many

activities that cannot generate market returns 146.*

For example, coral reefs support over 25% of marine

species and 1 billion people worldwide150,151. But,

coral reefs are one of the most costly ecosystem

to restore,152–154, oen associated with large

nancial risk and low or uncertain market return.

There has a critical lack in nancing coral reef

conservation, protection, and restoration 150,151,155.

Thus, a blended nancing approach has been taken

with the establishment of Global Fund for Coral

Reefs in September 2020; the major goal for this is

to facilitate innovation and attract private market-

based investments to conserve and restore coral

reefs 151,156. Blended nance can also be useful for

attracting funds to foster ocean and oshore energy

developments in SIDS and LDCs.

Access to nance is also an essential attribute of

resilience because it can enable communities to

respond to shocks and adapt to changes 157. External

climate and development nancing continue to

represent key avenues to build and strengthen

adaptive capacities of LDCs and SIDS to mitigate

* For the discussion of who bears the risk and who gets paid out

rst, refer to the discussion of capital stack in the Ocean Finance

Handbook 149.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

represent a shared vision for the future. Ocean-

related targets described under SDG14 “Life Below

Water” clearly articulate sustainable development

priorities for SIDS and LDCs that leverage ocean

sectors. There are other SDGs and associated

targets that directly address relevant challenges

for SIDS and LDCs, including SDG4 Education (e.g.,

target 4.a that calls for enhancing scholarship and

scientic capacities in SIDS and LDCs) and SDG7

Clean Energy (e.g., target 7.b that calls for increased

supply of modern and sustainable energy sources

in SIDS and LDCs) 130. At the same time, these

development goals reveal important tradeos

that need to be navigated as well as synergies that

can be cultivated to support multiple benets.

For instance, among the nine other targets under

SDG14:

● achievement of two targets (target 14.1pollution

and 14.3 ocean acidication) could pose conicts

or tradeos with target 14.7,

● three targets (target 14.4 restore sh stocks, 14.a

Scientic knowledge and technology transfer,

and 14.b Access to resources and market for

small shers) support the goal of target 14.7, and

● the remaining four targets (target 14.2

Management of coastal and marine ecosystems,

14.5 Protect 10 percent of marine areas, 14.6

Reform sheries subsidies, and 14.c implement

international law) pose varied impacts on

achieving target 14.7 130.

Understanding linkages across dierent goals

nested within the SDGs can help countries evaluate

their progress towards SDGs 180, as well as providing

opportunities for creating co-benets.

Sustainable Development

Goals

Box 4

risks. However, it is also important to highlight

complementary measures to build domestic

capabilities (see also ORRAA Report on Gender)*.

For example, there is evidence that developing

internal nancing capabilities, as opposed to external

nancing, is more eective for building disaster

resilience 158. Stability and capabilities of governance

and nancial systems are critical for not attracting

but also improving the eectiveness of foreign

nancing 150,159. As such, investments in the domestic

nance sector as well as governance sector could

help amplify the benets gained through other funds.

* Wabnitz et al (2021) ORRAA Report. https://oceanrisk.earth

At the country level, the National Adaptation

Plan process, established by the UNFCCC’s COP

16 Cancun Adaptation Framework, have resulted

in 22 developing countries announcing national

adaptation plans (NAPs) (as of March 2021, UNFCCC,

2021). Eorts to develop NAPs in other countries

are also underway with support from sources such

as the Green Climate Fund, a multi-sector funding

mechanism that supports climate mitigation and

adaptation 160,161. Upon approval of their NAPs,

countries can draw on support from Green Climate

Fund to operationalize them by implementing

projects 162. Regional eorts to coordinate adaptation

planning eorts have also started to take shape,

including, for instance, through the Caribbean

Community Climate Change Center and the

Secretariat for the Pacic Regional Environmental

Programme 42.

Greater future uncertainty also creates demands

for insurance. In the aermath of the 2010 Haiti

earthquake, the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk

Insurance Facility (CCRIF), the world’s rst multi-

country risk pool, established in 2007, provided

support to Haiti with over US$ 7.7 million payouts

under its parametric insurance scheme 163. Following

the 2021 earthquake, CCRIF was expected to make

payouts of approximately US$ 40 million 164. To hedge

against extreme weather events, sheries index

insurance was launched for sherfolks in Caribbean

countries by the Caribbean Oceans and Aquaculture

Sustainability Facility (COAST) in July 2019 with

funding support from the US State Department 165

(see also ORRAA Report on Gender)**. Under this

framework, governments can purchase COAST

policies, but to be eligible to participate in this

program, they must also implement the Caribbean

Community Common Fisheries Policy 166. COAST is

a parametric insurance scheme, and the rst of its

kind, in supporting sheries hedge against climate

risks. Meanwhile, mutual insurance schemes

have commonly been used in Asian countries to

insure shers and aquaculture operations due in

part to eorts to stabilize incomes against harvest

volatility167.

Recent studies have found that international

adaptation funding in LDC-SIDS has been ineective

at addressing the root causes of the problems168,169.

For instance, barriers to adaptation to reduce

climate-related disaster risks are oen rooted

in governance and technical capacities as well

as cognitive and cultural factors, yet, adaptation

projects funded by international adaptation funding

are sector specic (e.g., project targeting coastal

shery) 168. Further, existing public and private funds

cannot easily be mobilized to cope with the sudden

emergence of new risks such as COVID-19 41.

** Wabnitz et al (2021) ORRAA Report. https://oceanrisk.earth

Expanding the knowledge base

Economic theory indicates that public nancing

towards pilot projects can contribute to expanding

investments in climate-related projects 170. Yet,

values of conducting pilot projects may not be

realized if the knowledge gained through the

pilot projects are not transferred to inform future

projects or to inform similar projects in other parts

of the world. Monitoring and evaluations backed by

environmental and socioeconomic data are crucial.

Context-dependent solutions are also essential; for

instance, projects tailored to local ecological systems

may work better than global-scale approaches

under certain ecological conditions 131. A critical

examination aimed at prioritizing and selecting cost-

ecient measures that can provide multiple benets

or co-benets is essential for mitigating climate

change and its impacts 144. All of these can benet

from ne-scale and long-term data.

There are many tools with varying scope

and objectives that can help assess risks and

vulnerabilities to articulate local challenges and

opportunities (Table 2). Yet, again, lack of data in SIDS

Table 2. Examples of dierent types of risk and vulnerability assessment tools and studies.

Reference Scope Key metrics and variables

Assessed countries/

regions

Risk and vulnerability assessments

Heck et al., 2021 176 Assessment of storm risks

to sheries

storm hazard, exposure,

sensitivity, lack of adaptive

capacity

Country-level/

Global

Thiault et al., 2018 177 Mapping of social-ecological

vulnerability

ecological exposure, ecological

sensitivity, ecological adaptive

capacity, social exposure, social

sensitivity, social adaptive

capacity

Small-scale shery

of Moorea, French

Polynesia

Blasiak et al., 2017 23 Assessment of climate

change vulnerabilities, focus

on coastal communities

climate change exposure,

sensitivity, adaptive capacity

Country-level/Global

Guillaumont, 2010 178 Assessment of

macroeconomic

vulnerabilities

size and frequency of exogenous

shocks (natural shocks and

external/export shocks), exposure

to shocks, capacity to react to

shocks

Country-level/ SIDS

and LDCs

Reviews/Critiques

Comte et al., 2019 179 Comparison of eight global

vulnerability assessments

Study objectives, denition

of vulnerability, Formulae for

vulnerability

Monnereau et al., 2017 24 Assessment of climate

change vulnerabilities

in sheries sector, Cross

comparison of dierent

assessment methods

Metrics used to quantify

exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive

capacity

Country-level/Global

and LDCs as well as domestic technical capacities

oen limits their abilities to assess vulnerabilities

and risks at a ner temporal and geospatial

scale. This could limit these countries’ abilities to

benet from state-of-the-art scientic models and

tools. Investments in baseline monitoring, data

collection, and deployment of blue technologies

(e.g., underwater drone, AI for sheries electronic

monitoring) can certainly contribute to mitigating

ocean risks and to building resilience.

At the same time, many communities and cultures

in SIDS and LDCs hold rich local indigenous and

ecological knowledge. Yet, these knowledge

systems are oen neglected and not included in the

scientic and decision-making processes. Scientist

and decision-makers alike can benet from these

knowledge systems to contextualize their ndings

to cra context-specic solutions. Integration of

local indigenous and ecological knowledge as well

as collaborative or participatory approach can be

eective at designing solutions that meet the local

social-ecological context and at overcoming cognitive

or socio-cultural barriers to building resilience 58,171–173.

References

1. Janssen, M. A. & Ostrom, E. Resilience, vulnerability, and

adaptation: A cross-cutting theme of the International Human

Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change. Glob.

Environ. Change 16, 237–239 (2006).

2. UNEP. Blue Economy Concept Paper. http://www.unep.org/

resources/report/blue-economy-concept-paper (2016).

3. Adger, W. N., de Campos, R. S. & Mortreux, C. Mobility,

displacement and migration, and their interactions with

vulnerability and adaptation to environmental risks. in Routledge

handbook of environmental displacement and migration (ed.

McLeman, R and Gemenne, F) 29–41 (2018).

4. Committee on world food security. Coming to terms with

terminology. http://ww w.fao.org/3/MD776E/MD776E.pdf (2012).

5. OECD. Ocean economy. https://www.oecd.org/ocean/topics/

ocean-economy/.

6. NERACOOS. About ocean observing systems. NERACOOS http://

neracoos.org/about/ocean_observing.

7. IPCC. 2012: Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to

advance climate change adaptation. A special report of Working

Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

in Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance

climate change adaptation: Special report of the intergovernmental

panel on climate change (eds. Barros, V. et al.) (Cambridge

University Press, 2012). doi:10.1017/CBO9781139177245.

8. Putnam, R. D. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital:

originally published in Journal of Democracy 6 (1), 1995. J. Democr.

6, 65–78 (1995).

9. Thiault, L. et al. Harnessing the potential of vulnerability

assessments for managing social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 26,

art1 (2021).

10. Bindo, N. L. et al. Changing ocean, marine ecosystems, and

dependent communities. in IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and

Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (2019).

11. Britten, G. L., Dowd, M., Kanary, L. & Worm, B. Extended sheries

recovery timelines in a changing environment. Nat. Commun. 8,

15325 (2017).

12. Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change:

Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355,

eaai9214 (2017).

13. Pershing, A. J. et al. Challenges to natural and human communities

from surprising ocean temperatures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116,

18378–18383 (2019).

14. Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on

marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 919–925 (2013).

15. Lam, V. W. Y. et al. Climate change, tropical sheries and prospects

for sustainable development. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 440–454

(2020).

16. Lam, V. W. Y., Cheung, W. W. L., Reygondeau, G. & Sumaila, U.

R. Projected change in global sheries revenues under climate

change. Sci. Rep. 6, 32607 (2016).

17. Lluch-Cota, S. E., Arreguín-Sánchez, F., Salvadeo, C. J. & Del Monte

Luna, P. Climate change impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptations:

Northeast Tropical Pacic marine sheries. in Impacts of climate

change on sheries and aquaculture Synthesis of current knowledge,

adaptation and mitigation options (eds. Barange, M. et al.) (FAO,

2018).

18. Oxenford, H. A. & Monnereau, I. Climate change impacts,

vulnerabilities and adaptations: Western Central Atlantic marine

sheries. in Impacts of climate change on sheries and aquaculture

Synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options

(eds. Barange, M. et al.) (FAO, 2018).

19. Thiault, L. et al. Escaping the perfect storm of simultaneous

climate change impacts on agriculture and marine sheries. Sci.

Adv. 5, eaaw9976 (2019).

20. Eddy, T. D. et al. Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide

ecosystem services. One Earth 4, 1278–1285 (2021).

21. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Poloczanska, E. S., Skirving, W. & Dove,

S. Coral Reef Ecosystems under Climate Change and Ocean

Acidication. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 158 (2017).

22. Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef

assemblages. Nature 556, 492–496 (2018).

23. Blasiak, R. et al. Climate change and marine sheries: Least

developed countries top global index of vulnerability. PLOS ONE

12, e0179632 (2017).

24. Monnereau, I. et al. The impact of methodological choices on

the outcome of national-level climate change vulnerability

assessments: An example from the global sheries sector. Fish

Fish. 18, 717–731 (2017).

25. Barclay, K. Impacts of tuna industries on coastal communities in

Pacic Island countries. Mar. Policy 34, 406–413 (2010).

26. Charlton, K. E. et al. Fish, food security and health in Pacic Island

countries and territories: a systematic literature review. BMC

Public Health 16, 285 (2016).

27. Grimes, S. Ocean science for development in SIDS: Facts and

gures. SciDev.Net https://www.scidev.net/global/features/ocean-

science-development-sids-facts-gures/ (2014).

28. Hicks, C. C. et al. Harnessing global sheries to tackle

micronutrient deciencies. Nature 574, 95–98 (2019).

29. Lau, J. D., Hicks, C. C., Gurney, G. G. & Cinner, J. E. What matters

to whom and why? Understanding the importance of coastal

ecosystem services in developing coastal communities. Ecosyst.

Serv. 35, 219–230 (2019).

30. Jouray, J.-B., Blasiak, R., Norström, A. V., Österblom, H. &

Nyström, M. The Blue acceleration: The trajectory of human

expansion into the ocean. One Earth 2, 43–54 (2020).

31. UN. Mid-Term Review of the SAMOA Pathway High level political

declaration. https://www.un.org/pga/73/wp-content/uploads/

sites/53/2019/08/SAMOA-MTR-FINAL.pdf (2019).

32. Blasiak, R. & Wabnitz, C. C. C. Aligning sheries aid with

international development targets and goals. Mar. Policy 88, 86–92

(2018).

33. UN-OHRLLS. Small Island Developing States: Small Island Big(ger)

Stakes. http://unohrlls.org/custom-content/uploads/2013/08/

SIDS-Small-Islands-Bigger-Stakes.pdf (2011).

34. UNCTAD. LDC - What is a least developed country? https://unctad.

org/press-material/ldc-what-least-developed-country (2017).

35. Robinson, S. & Dornan, M. International nancing for climate

change adaptation in small island developing states. Reg. Environ.

Change 17, 1103–1115 (2017).

36. World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. https://

datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-

world-bank-country-and-lending-groups (2021).

37. Global Environment Facility. Note on ODA eligiblity. https://w ww.

thegef.org/sites/default/les/council-meeting-documents/

Note%20on%20ODA%20Eligiblity%2C%20FINAL%20

FORMATTED.pdf.

38. WTO. WTO committee explores initiatives to increase developing

countries’ trading capacities. https://www.wto.org/english/

news_e/news21_e/devel_29mar21_e.htm (2021).

39. United Nations. The Least Developed Countries report

2019. (United Nations Publications, 2019). doi:10.1163/

ej.9789004180048.i-962.602.

40. IMF. Small states resilience to natural disasters and climate

change - role for the IMF. Policy Pap. 16, (2016).

41. OECD. COVID-19 pandemic Towards a blue recovery in small

island developing states. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/

view/?ref=1060_1060174-tnkmsj15ap&title=COVID-19-pandemic-

Towards-a-blue-recovery-in-small-island-developing-states&_

ga=2.77468438.229292467.1628796235-750020651.1616092861

(2021).

42. Thomas, A., Baptiste, A., Martyr-Koller, R., Pringle, P. & Rhiney,

K. Climate change and small island developing states. Annu. Rev.

Environ. Resour. 45, 1–27 (2020).

43. Pala, C. The mice that roared: how eight tiny countries took on

foreign shing eets. The Guardian (2021).

44. Piontek, F. et al. Integrated perspective on translating biophysical

to economic impacts of climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 11,

563–572 (2021).

45. UN Department of Economic and Social Aairs. List of SIDS:

Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. https://

sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sids/list.

46. UN. Factsheet: People and Oceans. in (UN, 2017).

47. Folke, C. et al. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio

50, 834–869 (2021).

48. OECD. The Ocean Economy in 2030. (OECD Publishing, 2016).

49. IPCC. 2021: Summary for policymakers. in Climate change 2021:

The Physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the

Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (eds. Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge University

Press, 2021).

50. Desmet, K. et al. Evaluating the economic cost of coastal ooding.

Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 13, 444–486 (2021).

51. Kocornik-Mina, A., McDermott, T. K. J., Michaels, G. & Rauch, F.

Flooded Cities. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 12, 35–66 (2020).

52. Monioudi, I. Ν. et al. Climate change impacts on critical

international transportation assets of Caribbean Small Island

Developing States (SIDS): the case of Jamaica and Saint Lucia. Reg.

Environ. Change 18, 2211–2225 (2018).

53. Rotzoll, K. & Fletcher, C. H. Assessment of groundwater

inundation as a consequence of sea-level rise. Nat. Clim. Change 3,

477–481 (2013).

54. Ratter, B. M. W., Petzold, J. & Sinane, K. Considering the locals:

coastal construction and destruction in times of climate change

on Anjouan, Comoros. Nat. Resour. Forum 40, 112–126 (2016).

55. Yamano, H. et al. Atoll island vulnerability to ooding and

inundation revealed by historical reconstruction: Fongafale Islet,

Funafuti Atoll, Tuvalu. Glob. Planet. Change 57, 407–416 (2007).

56. Bird, D. K., Chagué-Go, C. & Gero, A. Human Response to

Extreme Events: a review of three post-tsunami disaster case

studies. Aust. Geogr. 42, 225–239 (2011).

57. Inazu, D., Ikeya, T., Waseda, T., Hibiya, T. & Shigihara, Y. Measuring

oshore tsunami currents using ship navigation records. Prog.

Earth Planet. Sci. 5, 38 (2018).

58. Sithole, W. W., Naser, M. M. & Guadagno, L. Indigenous knowledge

for disaster risk reduction: documenting community practices in

Papua New Guinea. (International Organization for Migration,

2015).

59. McClanahan, T. r. & Cinner, J. e. A framework for adaptive gear and

ecosystem-based management in the artisanal coral reef shery

of Papua New Guinea. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 18,

493–507 (2008).

60. Silvano, R. A. M. & Valbo-Jørgensen, J. Beyond shermen’s tales:

contributions of shers’ local ecological knowledge to sh ecology

and sheries management. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 10, 657–675

(2008).

61. Beckford, C. Climate change resiliency in Caribbean SIDS: building

greater synergies between science and local and traditional

knowledge. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 8, 42–50 (2018).

62. IPCC. 2019: Annex I: Glossary. in IPCC special report on the ocean

and cryosphere in a changing climate (eds. Weyer, N. M. et al.)

(2019).

63. Frölicher, T. L., Fischer, E. M. & Gruber, N. Marine heatwaves under

global warming. Nature 560, 360–364 (2018).

64. Oliver, E. C. J. et al. Marine Heatwaves. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 13,

313–342 (2021).

65. Oliver, E. C. J. et al. Longer and more frequent marine heatwaves

over the past century. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–12 (2018).

66. Cheung, W. W. L. et al. Large-scale redistribution of maximum

sheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change.

Glob. Change Biol. 16, 24–35 (2010).

67. Hanich, Q. et al. Small-scale sheries under climate change in the

Pacic Islands region. Mar. Policy 88, 279–284 (2018).

68. Sumaila, U. R., Cheung, W. W. L., Lam, V. W. Y., Pauly, D. & Herrick,

S. Climate change impacts on the biophysics and economics of

world sheries. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 449–456 (2011).

69. Cheung, W. W. L. Signature of ocean warming in global sheries

catch. Nature 497, 365–368 (2013).

70. Golden, C. D. et al. Aquatic foods to nourish nations. Nature 1–6

(2021) doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03917-1.

71. Golden, C. D. et al. Nutrition: Fall in sh catch threatens human

health. Nature 534, 317–320 (2016).

72. Lehodey, P. et al. Vulnerability of oceanic sheries in the tropical

Pacic to climate change. in Vulnerability of tropical pacic sheries

and aquaculture to climate change (eds. Bell, J. D., Johnson, J. E. &

Hobday, A. J.) (Secretariat of the Pacic Community, 2011).

73. Cinner, J. E., Daw, T. & McClanahan, T. R. Socioeconomic Factors

that Aect Artisanal Fishers’ Readiness to Exit a Declining Fishery.

Conserv. Biol. 23, 124–130 (2009).

74. Free, C. M. et al. Impacts of historical warming on marine sheries

production. Science 363, 979–983 (2019).

75. Bailey, M., Rashid Sumaila, U. & Lindroos, M. Application of game

theory to sheries over three decades. Fish. Res. 102, 1–8 (2010).

76. Munro, G. R. The optimal management of transboundary

renewable resources. Can. J. Econ. 355–376 (1979).

77. Pinsky, M. L. et al. Preparing ocean governance for species on the

move. Science 360, 1189–1191 (2018).

78. Hanich, Q., Campbell, B., Bailey, M. & Molenaar, E. Research into

sheries equity and fairness—addressing conservation burden

concerns in transboundary sheries. Mar. Policy 51, 302–304

(2015).

79. McCauley, D. J. et al. Wealthy countries dominate industrial shing.

Sci. Adv. 4, eaau2161 (2018).

80. Palacios-Abrantes, J. et al. Timing and magnitude of climate

driven range shis in transboundary sh stocks challenge

their management. 2021.08.26.456854 https://ww w.

biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.26.456854v1 (2021)

doi:10.1101/2021.08.26.456854.

81. Palacios-Abrantes, J., Reygondeau, G., Wabnitz, C. C. C. & Cheung,

W. W. L. The transboundary nature of the world’s exploited marine

species. Sci. Rep. 10, 17668 (2020).

82. Spijkers, J. et al. Exploring the future of shery conict through

narrative scenarios. One Earth 0, (2021).

83. Österblom, H. et al. Towards Ocean Equity. 65 (2020).

84. Internal Displacement Monitoring Center. Global Report on Internal

Displacement 2021. https://www.internal-displacement.org/sites/

default/les/publications/documents/grid2021_idmc.pdf (2021).

85. Campbell, J. R., Goldsmith, M. & Koshy, K. Community relocation as

an option for adaptation to the eects of climate change and climate

variability in Pacic Island Countries (PICs). (Asia-Pacic Network for

Global Change Research, 2005).

86. Webber, M. & Barnett, J. Accommodating migration to promote

adaptation to climate change. (The World Bank, 2010).

87. Barnett, J. & Chamberlain, N. Migration as climate change

adaptation: implications for the Pacic. Clim. Change Migr. S. Pac.

Perspect. Wellingt. N. Z. Inst. Policy Stud. (2010).

88. McLeman, R. Perception of climate migrants. Nat. Clim. Change 10,

600–601 (2020).

89. Suprenant, M. P. et al. Internal Displacement’s Impacts on Health

in Yemen. https://www.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/

les/publications/documents/IDMC_ImpactsonHealthinYemen.

pdf (2020).

90. Cinner, J. E. et al. Building adaptive capacity to climate change in

tropical coastal communities. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 117–123 (2018).

91. Petzold, J. & Magnan, A. K. Climate change: thinking small islands

beyond Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Clim. Change 152,

145–165 (2019).

92. Robinson, S. Climate change adaptation in SIDS: A systematic

review of the literature pre and post the IPCC Fih Assessment

Report. WIREs Clim. Change 11, e653 (2020).

93. Cassels, S., Curran, S. R. & Kramer, R. Do migrants degrade coastal

environments? Migration, natural resource extraction and poverty

in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Hum. Ecol. 33, 329–363 (2005).

94. Betzold, C. Adapting to climate change in small island developing

states. Clim. Change 133, 481–489 (2015).

95. Remling, E. Migration as climate adaptation? Exploring discourses

amongst development actors in the Pacic Island region. Reg.

Environ. Change 20, 3 (2020).

96. Wabnitz, C. C., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Hanich, Q. & Ota, Y.

Ecotourism, climate change and reef sh consumption in Palau:

Benets, trade-os and adaptation strategies. Mar. Policy 88,

323–332 (2018).

97. Wabnitz, C. C. C. Adapting tourist seafood consumption practices

in Pacic Islands to climate change. in Predicting Future Oceans

215–225 (Elsevier, 2019). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-817945-1.00020-

98. UN Environment Programme. SIDS Waste Management Outlook.

99. Verlis, K. M. & Wilson, S. P. Paradise Trashed: Sources and

solutions to marine litter in a small island developing state. Waste

Manag. 103, 128–136 (2020).

100. World Tourism Organization. COVID-19 Related Travel Restricitons:

A global review for tourism: Ninth Report as of 8 March 2021. https://

webunwto.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2021-

03/210309-Travel-Restrictions.pdf (2021).

101. Desai, K., Zutt, J., Maharaj, D., Phelps, J. & Adhikari, R. Debt and

Access to Finance for Small Island Developing States in the Era of

COVID-19 and Beyond. (2021).

102. Hudson, A. The ocean and COVID-19. United Nations Development

Programme https://www.undp.org/blogs/ocean-and-covid-19

(2020).

103. Soto, E. H. et al. How does the beach ecosystem change without

tourists during COVID-19 lockdown? Biol. Conserv. 255, 108972

(2021).

104. Gibbons, D. W. et al. The relative importance of COVID-19

pandemic impacts on biodiversity conservation globally. Conserv.

Biol. (2021) doi:10.1111/cobi.13781.

105. UN ESCAP. Changing Sails: Accelerating Regional Actions

for Sustainable Oceans in Asia and the Pacic. (UN, 2020).

doi:10.18356/b33759c0-en.

106. OHRLLS & FAO. COVID19 and Impacts on Food Security in LDCs,

LLDCs and SIDS. https://w ww.un.org/ohrlls/sites/www.un.org.

ohrlls/les/ohrlls-fao-report_nal.pdf (2020).

107. Bennett, N. J. et al. The COVID-19 Pandemic, small-scale sheries

and coastal shing communities. Coast. Manag. 48, 336–347

(2020).

108. Stoll, J. S. et al. Alternative Seafood Networks During COVID-19:

Implications for resilience and sustainability. Front. Sustain. Food

Syst. 5, 614368 (2021).

109. ESMAP. Going Global: Expanding Oshore Wind to Emerging

Markets. (World Bank, 2019).

110. Tao, J. Y. & Finenko, A. Moving beyond LCOE: impact of various

nancing methods on PV protability for SIDS. Energy Policy 98,

749–758 (2016).

111. Genave, A., Blancard, S. & Garabedian, S. An assessment of energy

vulnerability in Small Island Developing States. Ecol. Econ. 171,

106595 (2020).

112. Feinstein, C. SIDS – Towards a sustainable energy future. (2014).

113. Tokunaga, K. & Konan, D. E. Home grown or imported? Biofuels life

cycle GHG emissions in electricity generation and transportation.

Appl. Energy 125, 123–131 (2014).

114. Chase, V. et al. Independent evaluation of the relevance and

eectiveness of the green climate fund’s investments in small island

developing states. https://ieu.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/

les/document/201123-sids-nal-report-top-web_2.pdf (2020).

115. IRENA. Fostering a blue economy: Oshore renewable energy. 48

(2020).

116. Lucas, H., Fita, S., Talab, I., Marschel, C. & Cabeza, L. F. Critical

challenges and capacity building needs for renewable energy

deployment in Pacic Small Island Developing States (Pacic

SIDS). Renew. Energy 107, 42–52 (2017).

117. Low-carbon futures in Least Developed Countries. World Resources

Institute https://www.wri.org/climate/expert-perspective/low-

carbon-futures-least-developed-countries (2019).

118. OECD. The 0.7% ODA/GNI target - a history. https://www.oecd.

org/dac/nancing-sustainable-development/development-

nance-standards/the07odagnitarget-ahistory.htm (2016).

119. OECD. Making development co-operation work for small island

developing states. (OECD Publishing, 2018).

120. Carney, M. Breaking the tragedy of the horizon–climate change

and nancial stability. (2015).

121. Chenet, H., Ryan-Collins, J. & van Lerven, F. Finance, climate-

change and radical uncertainty: Towards a precautionary

approach to nancial policy. Ecol. Econ. 183, 106957 (2021).

122. Network for greening the nancial system. Annual Report 2020.

https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/les/medias/documents/

ngfs_annual_report_2020.pdf (2021).

123. Dikau, S. & Volz, U. Central bank mandates, sustainability

objectives and the promotion of green nance. Ecol. Econ. 184,

107022 (2021).

124. Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. Interactive and cumulative

eects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett.

11, 1304–1315 (2008).

125. Crona, B. et al. Sharing the seas: a review and analysis of ocean

sector interactions. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 063005 (2021).

126. Orr, J. A. et al. Towards a unied study of multiple stressors:

divisions and common goals across research disciplines. Proc. R.

Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287, 20200421 (2020).

127. Gissi, E. et al. A review of the combined eects of climate change

and other local human stressors on the marine environment. Sci.

Total Environ. 755, 142564 (2021).

128. Simpson, N. P. et al. A framework for complex climate change risk

assessment. One Earth 4, 489–501 (2021).

129. Doney, S. C. et al. Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems.

Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4, 11–37 (2012).

130. Blanc, D. L., Freire, C. & Vierros, M. Mapping the linkages between

oceans and other Sustainable Development Goals: A preliminary

exploration. UNDESA Work. Pap. 34 (2017).

131. He, Q. & Silliman, B. R. Climate change, human impacts, and

coastal ecosystems in the anthropocene. Curr. Biol. 29, R1021–

R1035 (2019).

132. Schulte to Bühne, H., Tobias, J. A., Durant, S. M. & Pettorelli,

N. Improving predictions of climate change–land use change

interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 29–38 (2021).

133. Pidcock, R. & McSweeney, R. Mapped: How climate change aects

extreme weather around the world. Carbon Brief https://www.

carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-aects-extreme-

weather-around-the-world (2021).

134. OCHA. Haiti: Flash Appeal - Earthquake (August 2021) - Haiti.

ReliefWeb https://reliefweb.int/report/haiti/haiti-ash-appeal-

earthquake-august-2021 (2021).

135. OCHA Haiti. Haiti: Earthquake: Situation Report No. 3. https://

reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/les/resources/2021-08-31_

Haiti%20earthquake%20-%20SitRep%233.pdf (2021).

136. Zscheischler, J. et al. Future climate risk from compound events.

Nat. Clim. Change 8, 469–477 (2018).

137. Reyers, B., Folke, C., Moore, M.-L., Biggs, R. & Galaz, V. Social-

ecological systems insights for navigating the dynamics of the

anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 267–289 (2018).

138. Berkes, F. & Ross, H. Community resilience: Toward an integrated

approach. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26, 17 (2013).

139. Biggs, R. et al. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of

ecosystem services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 421–448 (2012).

140. Carpenter, S. R. et al. General resilience to cope with extreme

events. Sustainability 4, 3248–3259 (2012).

141. Chan, N. “Large Ocean States”: Sovereignty, small islands, and

marine protected areas in global oceans governance. Glob. Gov.

Rev. Multilateralism Int. Organ. 24, 537–555 (2018).

142. Devex & The World Economic Forum. Catalyzing a new future:

From small islands to great ocean states. (2021).

143. Hume, A. et al. Towards an ocean-based large ocean states country

classication. Mar. Policy 134, 104766 (2021).

144. Gattuso, J.-P. et al. Ocean solutions to address climate change and

its eects on marine ecosystems. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 337 (2018).

145. Morrison, T. H. et al. Advancing coral reef governance into the

anthropocene. One Earth 2, 64–74 (2020).

146. Sumaila, U. R. et al. Financing a sustainable ocean economy. Nat.

Commun. 12, 3259 (2021).

147. Ahmad, R. A., Reed, L. & Zhang, R. Private equity and venture

capital’s role in catalyzing sustainable investment. (International

Finance Corporation, Washington, DC, 2018). doi:10.1596/31056.

148. Libes, L. & Eldridge, M. Who, What, Where and How: 440 Investors.

https://investorow.org/wp-content/uploads/Investorow-

Report-440-Investors-March-2019.pdf (2019).

149. Friends of Ocean Action. The ocean nance handbook: Increasing

nance for a healthy ocean. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/

WEF_FOA_The_Ocean_Finance_Handbook_April_2020.pdf

(2020).

150. Iyer, V., Mathias, K., Meyers, D., Victurine, R. & Walsh, M. Finance

tools for coral reef conservation: A guide. https://www.icriforum.

org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/50+Reefs+Finance+Guide.pdf

(2018).

151. UNDP. Global Fund for Coral Reefs launches fundraising

campaign. United Nations Development Programme https://www.

undp.org/press-releases/global-fund-coral-reefs-launches-

fundraising-campaign (2021).

152. Bayraktarov, E. et al. The cost and feasibility of marine coastal

restoration. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1055–1074 (2016).

153. Secretariat of the convention on biological diversity. High-level

panel on global assessment of resources for implementing the

strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020.

154. Global biodiversity outlook 4: a mid-term assessment of progress

towards the implementation of the strategic plan for biodiversity

2011-2020. (Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity,

2014).

155. Cooper, C. Today’s conservation challenges are bigger than

any one solution – or funder. Alliance magazine https://ww w.

alliancemagazine.org/blog/todays-conservation-challenges-are-

bigger-than-any-one-solution-or-funder/ (2021).

156. Global Fund for Coral Reefs. How We Work. Global Funds for Coral

Reefs https://globalfundcoralreefs.org/how-we-work/.

157. Green, K. M. et al. How adaptive capacity shapes the adapt, react,

cope response to climate impacts: insights from small-scale

sheries. Clim. Change 164, 15 (2021).

158. Zhang, D. & Managi, S. Financial development, natural disasters,

and economics of the Pacic small island states. Econ. Anal. Policy

66, 168–181 (2020).

159. Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M. et al. Enabling conditions for an

equitable and sustainable blue economy. Nature 591, 396–401

(2021).

160. UNFCCC. National Adaptation Plans 2020. https://unfccc.int/sites/

default/les/resource/NAP-progress-publication-2020.pdf (2021).

161. Green Climate Fund. About GCF. Green Climate Fund https://w ww.

greenclimate.fund/about (2021).

162. Green Climate Fund. Approved projects. Green Climate Fund

https://w ww.greenclimate.fund/projects (2021).

163. CCRIF SPC. About Us. https://www.ccrif.org/about-us?language_

content_entity=en.

164. CCRIF. CCRIF to make US$40 million payout to Haiti following

devastating August 14 earthquake - Haiti. ReliefWeb https://

reliefweb.int/report/haiti/ccrif-make-us40-million-payout-haiti-

following-devastating-august-14-earthquake (2021).

165. Sainsbury, N. C., Turner, R. A., Townhill, B. L., Mangi, S. C. &

Pinnegar, J. K. The challenges of extending climate risk insurance

to sheries. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 896–897 (2019).

166. The Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility & World Bank

Group. The Caribbean Oceans and Aquaculture Sustainability

Facility. (2019).

167. Li, H. Experience and enlightenment of the shery mutual

insurance system in asian countries. Asian Agric. Res. 5, 127–130

(2013).

168. Kuruppu, N. & Willie, R. Barriers to reducing climate enhanced

disaster risks in least developed country-small islands through

anticipatory adaptation. Weather Clim. Extrem. 7, 72–83 (2015).

169. Pelling, M. Urban governance and disaster risk reduction in the

Caribbean: the experiences of Oxfam GB. Environ. Urban. 23,

383–400 (2011).

170. Kotchen, M. J. & Costello, C. Maximizing the impact of climate

nance: Funding projects or pilot projects? J. Environ. Econ. Manag.

92, 270–281 (2018).

171. Aswani, S. & Hamilton, R. J. Integrating indigenous ecological

knowledge and customary sea tenure with marine and social

science for conservation of bumphead parrotsh ( Bolbometopon

muricatum ) in the Roviana Lagoon, Solomon Islands. Environ.

Conserv. 31, 69–83 (2004).

172. DeCaro, D. A., Arnold, C. A. (Tony), Frimpong Boamah, E. &

Garmestani, A. S. Understanding and applying principles of

social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental

governance. Ecol. Soc. 22, (2017).

173. Kuruppu, N. & Liverman, D. Mental preparation for climate

adaptation: The role of cognition and culture in enhancing

adaptive capacity of water management in Kiribati. Glob. Environ.

Change 21, 657–669 (2011).

174. UN Committee for Development Policy Secretariat. Triennial

review dataset 2000-2018. https://www.un.org/development/

desa/dpad/least-developed-country-category/ldc-data-retrieval.

html/ (2018).

175. UNCTAD. Memo items of development status groups and

composition. UNCTADstat - Classications https://unctadstat.

unctad.org/en/classications.html (2021).

176. Heck, N., Beck, M. W. & Reguero, B. Storm risk and marine

sheries: a global assessment. Mar. Policy 132, 104698 (2021).

177. Thiault, L. et al. Mapping social–ecological vulnerability to inform

local decision making. Conserv. Biol. 32, 447–456 (2018).

178. Guillaumont, P. Assessing the economic vulnerability of small

island developing states and the least developed countries. J. Dev.

Stud. 46, 828–854 (2010).

179. Comte, A., Pendleton, L. H., Bailly, D. & Quillérou, E. Conceptual

advances on global scale assessments of vulnerability: Informing

investments for coastal populations at risk of climate change. Mar.

Policy 99, 391–399 (2019).

180. OECD. Sustainable Development Goals and

Evaluation. https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/

sustainabledevelopmentgoalsandevaluation.htm.

181. Moltmann, T. et al. A Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS),

Delivered through enhanced collaboration across regions,

communities, and new technologies. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 291 (2019).

182. Mycoo, M. A. Beyond 1.5°C: vulnerabilities and adaptation

strategies for Caribbean small island developing states. Reg.

Environ. Change 18, 2341–2353 (2018).

183. Tanhua, T. et al. What we have learned from the framework for

ocean observing: evolution of the global ocean observing system.

Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 471 (2019).

184. PNA Oce. PNA Oce Year Book 2019. (2019).

185. Havice, E. The structure of tuna access agreements in the

Western and Central Pacic Ocean: Lessons for vessel day scheme

planning. Mar. Policy 34, 979–987 (2010).

186. Miller, K. A. Climate variability and tropical tuna: management

challenges for highly migratory sh stocks. Mar. Policy 31, 56–70

(2007).

187. Havice, E. Rights-based management in the Western and Central

Pacic Ocean tuna shery: Economic and environmental change

under the Vessel Day Scheme. Mar. Policy 42, 259–267 (2013).

188. Yeeting, A. D., Weikard, H. P., Bailey, M., Ram-Bidesi, V. & Bush, S.

R. Stabilising cooperation through pragmatic tolerance: the case

of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) tuna shery. Reg.

Environ. Change 18, 885–897 (2018).

189. Adolf, S., Bush, S. R. & Vellema, S. Reinserting state agency in

global value chains: The case of MSC certied skipjack tuna. Fish.

Res. 182, 79–87 (2016).

190. Hare, S. R. et al. The western and central Pacic tuna shery: 2019

overview and status of stocks. 55 https://oceansh.spc.int/en/

ofpsection/sam/513-tuna-sheries-assessment-report-no-20

(2020).

191. Lehodey, P., Senina, I., Calmettes, B., Hampton, J. & Nicol, S.

Modelling the impact of climate change on Pacic skipjack tuna

population and sheries. Clim. Change 119, 95–109 (2013).

192. Senina, I. et al. Impact of climate change on tropical tuna species

and tuna sheries in Pacic Island waters and high seas areas. http://

www.fao.org/leadmin/user_upload/common_oceans/docs/

Final-report-PacicTunaClimateChange.pdf (2018).

193. Bell, J. D. et al. Pathways to sustaining tuna-dependent Pacic

Island economies during climate change. Nat. Sustain. 1–11 (2021)

doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00745-z.

194. Bell, J. D. et al. Eects of climate change on oceanic sheries in the

tropical Pacic: implications for economic development and food

security. Clim. Change 1–14 (2012).

195. Clark, S. et al. Chapter 12. The Parties to the Nauru Agreement

(PNA) ‘Vessel Day Scheme’: A cooperative shery management

mechanism assisting member countries adapt to climate

variability and change. in Adaptive management of sheries in

response to climate change (FAO, 2021). doi:10.4060/cb3095en.

196. Priddle, E., Burden, M., Landman, J. & Kleisner, K. Climate-related

impacts on sheries management and governance in the North East

Atlantic. 37 (2017).

197. Dunn, S., Rodwell, L. & Joseph, G. The Palau Arrangement for

the management of the Western Pacic purse seine shery-

management scheme (Vessel Day Scheme). in Sharing the Fish

Conference, Perth (2006).

198. Pew Charitable Trust. Harvest control rules. Harvest control rules

approaches to eective long-term sheries management http://pew.

org/2adpw3p (2016).

199. Kritzer, J. P., Costello, C., Mangin, T. & Smith, S. L. Responsive

harvest control rules provide inherent resilience to adverse eects

of climate change and scientic uncertainty. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 76,

1424–1435 (2019).

200. Farmery, A. K. et al. Conceptualising value chain research to

integrate multiple food system elements. Glob. Food Secur. 28,

100500 (2021).

201. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. (FAO,

2020). doi:10.4060/ca9229en.

202. Lubchenco, J., Haugan, P. M. & Pangestu, M. E. Five priorities for a

sustainable ocean economy. Nature 588, 30–32 (2020).

203. Bell, J. D. et al. Diversifying the use of tuna to improve food security

and public health in Pacic Island countries and territories. Mar.

Policy 51, 584–591 (2015).

204. World Bank & United Nations Department of Economic and

Social Aairs. The Potential of the Blue Economy: Increasing

Long-term Benets of the Sustainable Use of Marin Resources

for Small Island Developing Staets and Coastal Least Developed

Countries. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/

handle/10986/26843/115545.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

(2017).

205. Gaines, S. et al. The Expected impacts of climate change on the

ocean economy. 56 https://oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/expected-

impacts-climate-change-ocean-economy (2019).

206. IPCC. 2019: Summary for policymakers. in IPCC Special Report on

the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (eds. Pörtner, H.-O.

et al.) (2019).

207. Golden, C. D. et al. Nutrition: Fall in sh catch threatens human

health. Nat. News 534, 317 (2016).

208. World Health Organization. Guidance on mainstreaming

biodiversity for nutrition and health. https://cdn.who.int/

media/docs/default-source/climate-change/mainstreaming-

biodiversity-for-nutrition-and-health12d76606-f87e-4857-9264-

dd2b2924186a.pdf?sf vrsn=afd00782_1&download=true (2020).

209. Maire, E. et al. Micronutrient supply from global marine sheries

under climate change and overshing. Curr. Biol. 31, 4132-4138.e3

(2021).

210. Golden, C. D. et al. Social-ecological traps link food systems to

nutritional outcomes. Glob. Food Secur. 30, 100561 (2021).

211. IOC. An unprecedented analysis on global harmful algal blooms

launched by IOC. https://ioc.unesco.org/news/unprecedented-

analysis-global-harmful-algal-blooms-launched-ioc (2021).

212. Visciano, P. et al. Marine biotoxins: Occurrence, toxicity, regulatory

limits and reference methods. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1051 (2016).

213. AFP. Nineteen die in Madagascar aer eating turtle. CGTN Africa

(2021).

214. Fernandes-Salvador, J. A. et al. Current status of forecasting toxic

harmful algae for the north-east Atlantic shellsh aquaculture

industry. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 656 (2021).

Co-Designing Protected Areas Management with Small Island Developing States’ Local Stakeholders: A Case from Coastal Communities of Cabo Verde

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2023

The Small Island Developing State, Cabo Verde, is one of the most important marine biodiverse hotspots in the North Atlantic. One of its national conservation strategies has been the declaration of protected areas, and currently, the country has 47 declared protected areas and only 26 have been fully implemented. The latest protected area, Baía do Inferno e Monte Angra Natural Park, is the first protected area proposed by a civil initiative, and the local people strongly support the declaration of this protected area. Therefore, this study aims to better understand the mechanisms behind strong local support, explore the lessons learned from this case and how it can help improve the implementation of other protected areas in Cabo Verde. We conducted 7 semi-structured interviews with previously identified community leaders and 480 questionnaires with the general population of the local communities. The results show that 78.6% of the questionnaire respondents chose co-management as the desired management model. We also found that non-governmental organizations and local leaders have played a crucial role in sharing knowledge with local populations and helping them to have a critical and informed view about the future implementation of the protected area.

Ocean Sand: Putting sand on the ocean sustainability agenda

Technical Report

Full-text available

May 2023

The Ocean Decade as an instrument of peace

Article

Oct 2023

Independent evaluation of the relevance and effectiveness of the Green Climate Fund's investments in the Least Developed Countries

Technical Report

Full-text available

Jan 2022

This evaluation assesses whether the GCF’s approach and investments have been relevant and effective in reducing the vulnerability of local communities in LDCs and of their livelihoods to the effects of climate change, and whether these impacts are likely to be sustained. It examines how and to what extent the GCF’s approach, mechanisms and financial modalities respond to the conditions facing LDCs. Moreover, the evaluation assesses the key enabling conditions for the GCF to support a paradigm shift towards low emission and climate resilient development pathways in LDCs. The evaluation team has structured the main findings and recommendations according to the core chapters of the report: responsiveness and relevance of the GCF to LDCs, coherence and complementarity of the GCF with other climate funds, country ownership and capacity development in LDCs, performance of the GCF’s business model and processes in LDCs, and results and impacts.

Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2021

Coral reefs worldwide are facing impacts from climate change, overfishing, habitat destruction, and pollution. The cumulative effect of these impacts on global capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services is un- known. Here, we evaluate global changes in extent of coral reef habitat, coral reef fishery catches and effort, Indigenous consumption of coral reef fishes, and coral-reef-associated biodiversity. Global coverage of living coral has declined by half since the 1950s. Catches of coral-reef-associated fishes peaked in 2002 and are in decline despite increasing fishing effort, and catch-per-unit effort has decreased by 60% since 1950. At least 63% of coral-reef-associated biodiversity has declined with loss of coral extent. With projected continued degradation of coral reefs and associated loss of biodiversity and fisheries catches, the well-being and sustain- able coastal development of human communities that depend on coral reef ecosystem services are threatened.

Aquatic foods to nourish nations

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2021
NATURE

Despite contributing to healthy diets for billions of people, aquatic foods are often undervalued as a nutritional solution because their diversity is often reduced to the protein and energy value of a single food type (‘seafood’ or ‘fish’)1–4. Here we create a cohesive model that unites terrestrial foods with nearly 3,000 taxa of aquatic foods to understand the future impact of aquatic foods on human nutrition. We project two plausible futures to 2030: a baseline scenario with moderate growth in aquatic animal-source food (AASF) production, and a high-production scenario with a 15-million-tonne increased supply of AASFs over the business-as-usual scenario in 2030, driven largely by investment and innovation in aquaculture production. By comparing changes in AASF consumption between the scenarios, we elucidate geographic and demographic vulnerabilities and estimate health impacts from diet-related causes. Globally, we find that a high-production scenario will decrease AASF prices by 26% and increase their consumption, thereby reducing the consumption of red and processed meats that can lead to diet-related non-communicable diseases5,6 while also preventing approximately 166 million cases of inadequate micronutrient intake. This finding provides a broad evidentiary basis for policy makers and development stakeholders to capitalize on the potential of aquatic foods to reduce food and nutrition insecurity and tackle malnutrition in all its forms. Data on the nutrient content of almost 3,000 aquatic animal-source foods is combined with a food-systems model to show that an increase in aquatic-food production could reduce the inadequate intake of most nutrients.

Pathways to sustaining tuna-dependent Pacific Island economies during climate change

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2021

Climate-driven redistribution of tuna threatens to disrupt the economies of Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and sustainable management of the world’s largest tuna fishery. Here we show that by 2050, under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario (RCP 8.5), the total biomass of three tuna species in the waters of ten Pacific SIDS could decline by an average of 13% (range = −5% to −20%) due to a greater proportion of fish occurring in the high seas. The potential implications for Pacific Island economies in 2050 include an average decline in purse-seine catch of 20% (range = −10% to −30%), an average annual loss in regional tuna-fishing access fees of US$90 million (range = −US$40 million to –US$140 million) and reductions in government revenue of up to 13% (range = −8% to −17%) for individual Pacific SIDS. Redistribution of tuna under a lower-emissions scenario (RCP 4.5) is projected to reduce the purse-seine catch from the waters of Pacific SIDS by an average of only 3% (range = −12% to +9%), indicating that even greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, in line with the Paris Agreement, would provide a pathway to sustainability for tuna-dependent Pacific Island economies. An additional pathway involves Pacific SIDS negotiating within the regional fisheries management organization to maintain the present-day benefits they receive from tuna, regardless of the effects of climate change on the distribution of the fish.

Micronutrient supply from global marine fisheries under climate change and overfishing

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2021
CURR BIOL

Fish are rich in bioavailable micronutrients, such as zinc and iron, deficiencies of which are a global food security concern.¹,² Global marine fisheries yields are threatened by climate change and overfishing,³,⁴ yet understanding of how these stressors affect the nutrients available from fisheries is lacking.⁵,⁶ Here, using global assessments of micronutrient content² and fisheries catch data,⁷ we investigate how the vulnerability status of marine fish species⁸,⁹ may translate into vulnerability of micronutrient availability at scales of both individual species and entire fishery assemblages for 157 countries. We further quantify the micronutrient evenness of catches to identify countries where interventions can optimize micronutrient supply. Our global analysis, including >800 marine fish species, reveals that, at a species level, micronutrient availability and vulnerability to both climate change and overfishing varies greatly, with tropical species displaying a positive co-tolerance, indicating greater persistence to both stressors at a community level.¹⁰ Global fisheries catches had relatively low nutritional vulnerability to fishing. Catches with higher species richness tend to be nutrient dense and evenly distributed but are more vulnerable to climate change, with 40% of countries displaying high vulnerability. Countries with high prevalence of inadequate micronutrient intake tend to have the most nutrient-dense catches, but these same fisheries are highly vulnerable to climate change, with relatively lower capacity to adapt.¹¹ Our analysis highlights the need to consolidate fisheries, climate, and food policies to secure the sustainable contribution of fish-derived micronutrients to food and nutrition security.

Social-ecological traps link food systems to nutritional outcomes

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2021

Recognized as an emerging global crisis in the mid-1990s, the “nutrition transition” is marked by a shift to Western diets, dominated by highly processed, sugar-sweetened, and high caloric foods. Occurring in parallel to these health transitions are dramatic shifts in the natural systems that underlie food availability and access. Traditionally, environmental degradation and ecosystem change, and processes of nutritional transition, though often collinear and potentially causally linked, have been addressed in isolation. Food systems represent an emblematic social-ecological system, as both cultivated and wild foods are directly reliant on natural ecosystems and their processes. While healthy ecosystems are a necessary precondition of food production, they are not themselves sufficient to ensure continued benefits from local food systems. Mediating between food production and nutritional security are myriad governance and market institutions that shape differential access to food resources. Moreover, globalization and urbanization may shift communities from non-market to market-based economies, with profound implications for local environments and food systems. Specifically, we argue that it is this feedback between coupled socioeconomic and natural dynamics within food systems that reinforces specific nutritional outcomes, and may result in a social-ecological trap. Here, we use the case of reef-based food systems globally, paying particular attention to the Pacific to showcase social-ecological traps present in global food systems, and to illustrate how such traps lead to the acceleration of the nutrition transition. Improving both nutritional and environmental outcomes of food systems requires understanding the underlying drivers of each, and how they interact and reinforce each other. Only in recognizing these interactions and coupled dynamics will economic, governance, and environmental policies be positioned to address these food system challenges in an integrated fashion.

Current Status of Forecasting Toxic Harmful Algae for the North-East Atlantic Shellfish Aquaculture Industry

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Across the European Atlantic Arc (Scotland, Ireland, England, France, Spain, and Portugal) the shellfish aquaculture industry is dominated by the production of mussels, followed by oysters and clams. A range of spatially and temporally variable harmful algal bloom species (HABs) impact the industry through their production of biotoxins that accumulate and concentrate in shellfish flesh, which negatively impact the health of consumers through consumption. Regulatory monitoring of harmful cells in the water column and toxin concentrations within shellfish flesh are currently the main means of warning of elevated toxin events in bivalves, with harvesting being suspended when toxicity is elevated above EU regulatory limits. However, while such an approach is generally successful in safeguarding human health, it does not provide the early warning that is needed to support business planning and harvesting by the aquaculture industry. To address this issue, a proliferation of web portals have been developed to make monitoring data widely accessible. These systems are now transitioning from “nowcasts” to operational Early Warning Systems (EWS) to better mitigate against HAB-generated harmful effects. To achieve this, EWS are incorporating a range of environmental data parameters and developing varied forecasting approaches. For example, EWS are increasingly utilizing satellite data and the results of oceanographic modeling to identify and predict the behavior of HABs. Modeling demonstrates that some HABs can be advected significant distances before impacting aquaculture sites. Traffic light indices are being developed to provide users with an easily interpreted assessment of HAB and biotoxin risk, and expert interpretation of these multiple data streams is being used to assess risk into the future. Proof-of-concept EWS are being developed to combine model information with in situ data, in some cases using machine learning-based approaches. This article: (1) reviews HAB and biotoxin issues relevant to shellfish aquaculture in the European Atlantic Arc (Scotland, Ireland, England, France, Spain, and Portugal; (2) evaluates the current status of HAB events and EWS in the region; and (3) evaluates the potential of further improving these EWS though multi-disciplinary approaches combining heterogeneous sources of information.

Towards an ocean-based large ocean states country classification

Article

Dec 2021
MAR POLICY

International development country classifications are important for achieving development goals by directing differential support to a group of countries facing common development constraints. The small island developing States (SIDS) classification is a widely used country classification supporting developing island nations. Some nations are now self-identifying as “large ocean states” (LOS), citing the central role of the ocean for their development. Here we show the need for a new ocean-based LOS country classification by highlighting important limitations of current classifications. We analyze this further by enumerating 15 nations self-identifying as LOS since 2001 in official UN statements, most often citing ocean-based economy, size of ocean territory, and vulnerability to climate change as evidence. An ocean-based LOS classification, which requires further research to fully define, would complement existing classifications by targeting countries that disproportionately rely on the ocean to achieve sustainable development priorities, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Storm risk and marine fisheries: a global assessment

Article

Oct 2021
MAR POLICY

Coastal storms can affect marine fisheries in multiple ways and have the potential to negatively affect the socio-economic well-being of fishery dependent coastal nations. To date, storm risk to marine fisheries is poorly understood. This study provides a global assessment of coastal nations’ risk to storm impacts on their fisheries. We calculated a risk index of coastal nations to storms using the 5th IPCC risk framework. We find that tropical countries in the Caribbean, South- East Asia, and Oceania are most at risk, with multiple Small Island Developing States ranking the highest. Most coastal nations in Africa ranked low for overall risk, due to low exposure, but highest in terms of vulnerability. In addition, we detect a positive correlation between fishery specific adaptive capacity and the general adaptive capacity of coastal countries, suggesting that the capacities of fisheries to respond to climate change might be related to broader national adaptation capacities. The index provides can be used to guide the development of targeted strategies for increasing adaptive capacity of fishery dependent nations to storms, which are a significant threat to the well-being of coastal nations.

Integrated perspective on translating biophysical to economic impacts of climate change

Article

Jun 2021

Estimates of climate change’s economic impacts vary widely, depending on the applied methodology. This uncertainty is a barrier for policymakers seeking to quantify the benefits of mitigation. In this Perspective, we provide a comprehensive overview and categorization of the pathways and methods translating biophysical impacts into economic damages. We highlight the open question of the persistence of impacts as well as key methodological gaps, in particular the effect of including inequality and adaptation in the assessments. We discuss the need for intensifying interdisciplinary research, focusing on the uncertainty of econometric estimates of damages as well as identification of the most socioeconomically relevant types of impact. A structured model intercomparison related to economic impacts is noted as a crucial next step. Uncertainty in estimates of the economic impacts of climate change makes it difficult to evaluate the benefits of mitigation. This Perspective reviews methods for determining economic damages from biophysical impacts, highlights critical gaps and suggests priorities moving forward.

Ocean Risks in SIDS and LDCS

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

The Role of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Enhancing Food Security and Climate Change Resilienc...

Gender Dimensions of Ocean Risk and Resilience in SIDS and Coastal LDCs

Blue Acceleration: An Ocean of Risks and Opportunities

The Ocean Decade as an instrument of peace

Aligning fisheries aid with international development targets and goals