The first baseline, and it is sobering
2026 is the first year that progress on the Antigua and Barbuda Agenda for SIDS (ABAS) is measured through a dedicated monitoring and evaluation framework, built on 59 targets and 83 indicators. Presenting the Secretary-General’s report, Li Junhua delivered the baseline and the reason it is so hard to read: the data mostly is not there. On climate action, the priority that SIDS themselves rank first, fewer than ten have reported any data since 2015. Upper-secondary completion sits near 43% against a global average of 61%, and annual disaster losses run at more than double the global average.
The measurement problem is the development problem. A monitoring framework designed around indicators that are globally well established still cannot see most of the islands it was built for, because the national statistical systems behind it were never resourced to produce the data.
Vulnerability, not income
The session’s central demand was almost unanimous and entirely technical: stop using GDP per capita to decide who gets affordable money. Because most SIDS are classified as middle-income, the income test locks them out of concessional finance even as a single storm erases a decade of progress. The proposed replacement, the Multidimensional Vulnerability Index, already exists. What it lacks is operational force.
The numbers behind the grievance were laid out from the floor: small island states draw roughly 0.6% of global foreign direct investment, and while they hold close to 19% of the membership of the World Bank and the IMF, they carry about 2.5% of the voting rights. Belize pressed for a system in which, as its delegate put it, vulnerability is legible in finance decision-making.
Building back to zero
Matthew Bishop of ODI reframed island debt as a structural condition rather than a fiscal failing, and it was the sharpest analytical move of the morning. Jamaica cut its debt from roughly 150% of GDP to almost 60%, a genuine achievement, and then a hurricane inflicted an estimated $9 billion to $12 billion in damage. Recovery consumes the capital that development was supposed to use.
His conclusion followed directly. The goal, he argued, should not simply be to help islands manage debt better but to redesign the system so that investing in resilience becomes cheaper than repeatedly paying for disasters.
Double fragility
Saint Kitts and Nevis brought the most useful piece of evidence: a Vulnerability and Resilience Country Profile, piloted with UN DESA under the MVI. Its finding is a warning about what national averages conceal. At the macro level the country looks stable, with functioning institutions and secure government systems. Go down to the household level and the picture inverts.
The delegation drew the distinction that matters for anyone building these instruments: the monitoring framework gives you the what, the country profile gives you the why and the where, and the two have to work together.
Our read
President Whipps put the same point without the machinery, in a video message that the moderator returned to twice.
Why it matters for the SDGs
The session is cross-cutting by construction, since ABAS maps most of its indicators onto the SDGs, but the load falls on SDG 17 (finance, partnerships and, above all, data), SDG 13 (climate action) and SDG 14 (oceans). It is also the clearest statement at this Forum of the “beyond GDP” argument that runs through the measurement debate: that a single income number, used as a gate, produces worse decisions than a vulnerability profile would. Roughly 65 million people live in small island developing states, and the review made the case that the statistics describing them are the thinnest in the system.
Watch & read
- UN Web TV, recording of the HLPF 2026 5th meeting (9 July 2026).
- HLPF 2026, official programme and documents.
- The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2026, the stocktake this Forum is measured against.
- Full HLPF 2026 coverage.
Quotations are lightly edited from an automated (Otter.ai) transcript of the UN Web TV recording and should be read as close paraphrase. Speaker names and titles were reconciled against the official HLPF annotated programme and public records. The transcript garbled several delegates’ names, and interventions delivered in Arabic, French and Spanish were not usable, so some speakers are cited by country or role. The panellist listed for Saint Kitts and Nevis in the official programme did not deliver the intervention summarised here, so it is attributed to the delegation.