The prospect of states disappearing is not just science fiction anymore, as five nations (the Maldives, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Kiribati) may become uninhabitable by 2100, generating 600,000 stateless climate refugees. Rising sea levels threaten low-lying nations’ physical existence. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) considers that losing land and habitat destroys culture, history, biodiversity, and sovereignty. The changing weather patterns are depleting the tourism revenues of small island nations. However, climate change crises are still not considered an immediate survival threat by many nations around the globe, possibly because their land is not submerging. Even developing countries grappling with climate crises, such as Pakistan, show selfish tendencies by considering climate change as a mid-term rather than an immediate crisis.
Only the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) appears dedicated to preserving small islands and low-lying coastal countries, contributing only 0.03% of global emissions but enduring climate change’s most significant damage. AOSIS reinforces small island governments’ voices in policy talks and negotiations in avenues such as UNFCC and other related international accords, notwithstanding their weak political clout. The AOSIS demonstrates that collective effort may overcome tremendous difficulties despite overwhelming odds. As climate change threatens small island states disproportionately, AOSIS’s responsibility intensifies. In an ever more unpredictable world, these governments must retain their vibrant cultures, finances, and population while surviving rising oceans. The AOSIS advocacy and initiatives struggle for its members’ survival and promote a more sustainable and fair tomorrow for the world. The urgency of these risks makes this coalition vital to its members and the global community’s efforts to confront the most pressing challenge of this contemporary world: climate change crises.
Climate activists always look up to COPs for taking decisive action against climate change crises, but the outcomes of COPs are hardly benefitting the most affected states. The COP28 so-called agreement was reached before AOSIS, the Alliance of Small Island States, had the opportunity to join the plenary session or make their contribution. Although the early acceptance and commitments to a Loss and Damage fund were positive, the enthusiasm for this decision was dampened by the realization that there are still significant challenges to address. These include the effective administration of the fund, ensuring that the most vulnerable and least responsible states and communities have access to the funding, and developing a fair method for calculating non-economic loss and damages that respects the dignity and values of communities impacted. Hence, the international community must precede AOSIS in climate discussions over COPs.
Pacific island nations have unequivocally expressed their stance, which has been evident since the adoption of the Paris Agreement at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in 2015: the global average temperature must not surpass the levels of the preindustrial era by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius to prevent the occurrence of severe and irreversible climate impacts. The Pacific nations have consistently used the maxim “1.5 to stay alive” at each successive Conference of the Parties (COP) since the Paris Agreement. In the context of Pacific Small Island Developing States, the threshold of 1.5 was considered a critical limit this year: no exceptions or excuses. Nevertheless, the outcomes did not meet the minimum threshold set by the 39 small island developing states of AOSIS, which are more severely impacted by climate change. COP28 failed to fulfill AOSIS’s request for a course correction and essential shift in actions and support towards a voluntary and non-binding “transition” away from fossil fuels. The compromised text lacked commitments, timetables, and enforceable measures, resulting in business continuation as usual. Therefore, AOSIS asserts that the outcome of COP28 represents a return to baseline.
Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster, the chair of the Alliance of the Small Island States (AOSIS), expressed concern about the multiple challenges faced by countries in his organization. These gamut of challenges include droughts, cyclones, flooding, and coral bleaching. The wide range of issues affecting these countries is the reason for their deep concern. To ensure the future survival of these states, significant stakeholders such as the European Union, United Arab Emirates, Germany, United Kingdom, and Japan have committed to providing money exceeding $400 million. However, this amount is insufficient since the demand would require around 100 billion per year to tackle the issue of loss and damage effectively. Thus, it might be considered a source of relief rather than a victory for AOSIS.
The newest developments are also worrisome, considering that the situation only intensified in the COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, as tensions reached a breaking point. The talks were frustrating and characterized by controversy and an unprecedented walkout of the AOSIS accompanied by the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) bloc. AOSIS finance negotiator Michai Robertson commented that other countries laughed at the group for demanding more substantial finance pledges to tackle climate change. This dismissive approach brought out the persistent inequalities that still characterize the negotiating process. Nevertheless, it underscored the alliance’s increasing ability to demonstrate muscle and reject token gestures after almost 19 hours of overrunning discussions. Even though a deal was signed after a while when 120 countries pledged $300 billion annually until 2035, it did not hit the $500 billion figure needed. As Robertson rightly said, the COP process provides a useful platform for amplifying their voices. Still, AOSIS members are bogged down by this process, and they are urging future summits, particularly COP30, to rise above petty geopolitics and start delivering.
With these considerations, the world must pay attention to AOSIS and consider the issues and opinions of this important existential crisis-ridden alliance. These island nations’ survival and growth are significantly tied to climate change mitigation and sustainable development processes, making their views relevant in global negotiations and decisions. Besides the moral argument, these states should be protected because they are at the frontline of vulnerability to climate change effects. Their response and firsthand expertise can feed into informing the global strategy as the AOSIS members pioneered sustainable and resistant modes in spite of their susceptibilities. The world might also benefit from their indigenous eco-friendly adaptation strategies, which are tested under the worst conditions. Lastly, a lot of small island states are endowed with large areas of the Exclusive Economic Zone in the rich marine environment, and they are strategically located at important points on the sea transport network and control large geographical areas in terms of sea control, sea power, and military strategic importance. Sustaining and entrenching these states is beneficial for their people and global financial and geo-political formations. So, the global north must make efforts to protect these most vulnerable small island nations rather than neglectfully accepting that their extinction is inevitable.
