High-level findings on the deep-sea capacity of 58 SIDS and 200 non-SIDS, divided into four income groups: high income, upper-middle income, lower-middle income, low income, and not categorized.
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) include 58 countries and territories, or geographical areas (GeoAreas), of which 56 claim Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with deep ocean (deeper than 200 m) (Figure 1) [1][2][3][4]. Due to factors like small population size, remoteness, high transportation costs, and fragile land and marine ecosystems, they face unique social, economic, and environmental challenges. For many SIDS, their EEZs are considerably larger than the country’s land mass, and the ocean is their primary source of natural resources. These factors make SIDS particularly vulnerable to biodiversity loss and climate change [5]. As such, they are a unique consideration for deep-sea research and exploration capacity, in contrast to the 141 non-SIDS that claim EEZs with deep ocean (Figure 2) [1][2][3][4].
Small Island Developing States
Map of SIDS for which we have survey and/or research data, colored by income group: high income, upper-middle income, lower-middle income, low income, and not categorized. Light shades of each color indicate the EEZs of each GeoArea. [1][2][3][4][6]
Non-Small Island Developing States
Map of non-SIDS for which we have survey and/or research data, colored by income group: high income, upper-middle income, lower-middle income, low income, and not categorized. Light shades of each color indicate the EEZs of each GeoArea. [1][2][3][4][6]
This assessment includes information about the technical and human capacity of 186 SIDS and non-SIDS GeoAreas, divided into four/five economic groups each: non-classified, low, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high-income groups [6]. A detailed report of SIDS and non-SIDS groups and their GeoAreas can be found in Results: SIDS & Non-SIDS Income Groups.
SIDS represent a significant opportunity for expanding deep-ocean research and exploration, given the majority of SIDS EEZs are deep ocean (below 200 mbsl). Deep-sea encompasses 97% of the total EEZ area across the SIDS compared with 77% of non-SIDS. Among SIDS, lower-middle-income countries had the largest EEZ and the largest with deep-sea EEZ. Despite low-income SIDS having only a bit less than half its EEZ area below 200 mbsl, deep-sea still represents 86% of all low-income EEZ areas.
In both SIDS and non-SIDS, more than half of the respondents agreed that exploration and research were considered important in their GeoArea (55 and 52%, respectively). However, more than three-quarters of SIDS respondents disagreed that they have the in-country tools/technology to conduct deep-sea exploration and research against less than half for non-SIDS respondents. Similarly, many more respondents for SIDS, two-thirds of them, disagreed that they have the in-country expertise to conduct deep-sea exploration and research, against less than a quarter for non-SIDS.
Respondents’ perceptions of the importance of and existence of in-country resources for deep-sea exploration and research were used to create groups of GeoAreas with similar responses (Table 1).
SIDS SP Group | Importance | Tech | Expertise | Income Groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|
I | Mid | High | High | Non-SIDS: High |
II | Low-mid | Low | Mid | Non-SIDS: Upper-middle |
III | High | Low | Low | Non-SIDS: Low |
IV | Mid | Low | Low | SIDS: High |
Respondents for low-income non-SIDS and lower-middle-income SIDS both agreed the most on the importance of deep-sea exploration and research while at the same time agreeing the least on the presence of expertise and technology in their GeoAreas.
In both SIDS and non-SIDS, most income groups had zero to few respondents agreeing they have in-country tools/technology to conduct deep-sea exploration and research. For example, none of the respondents for lower-middle-income and not-classified SIDS agreed they have the technology. The level of agreement regarding tools/technology in SIDS was always lower or, at best, equal to the level in non-SIDS. Globally, only respondents from high-income non-SIDS agreed they have the in-country tools/technology.
In both SIDS and non-SIDS, respondents agreed more about the importance of deep-sea research and the presence of expertise than the presence of tools/technology. All SIDS income groups had lower expertise than the equivalent non-SIDS income groups.
Issues, challenges, and opportunities generally differed between income groups within both SIDS and non-SIDS. While basic science was the most important deep-sea issue identified by respondents in non-SIDS, conservation & protection was most important in SIDS. Fisheries & aquaculture were among the most important deep-sea issues in both SIDS and non-SIDS.
In SIDS, conservation & protection and fisheries & aquaculture were consistently among the more important issues in each income group. In non-SIDS, fisheries & aquaculture was an important issue in the lower-middle and low-income categories; however, basic science dominated in the higher-income and the non-classified groups.
Climate change was important for lower-middle and upper-middle income SIDS but not highlighted for non-SIDS. Maritime archeology & history and renewable energy were consistently the less important issues across both SIDS and non-SIDS income groups.
Funding was the most important challenge across SIDS and non-SIDS in every income group. Human capacity was one of the most important challenges for SIDS, whereas access to vessels and DSVs was the most important challenge for non-SIDS. Human capacity was consistently among the most important challenges in lower-income groups for both SIDS and non-SIDS. The scalability of technologies and access to sensors were consistently the least important challenges across income categories.
Training opportunities and less expensive data collection technology were the most exciting opportunities for both non-SIDS and SIDS respondents, except for high-income non-SIDS. Respondents from high-income SIDS and non-SIDS were the most excited about less expensive data collection technologies. While scalable platforms & sensors were the third most exciting opportunity for respondents for high-income GeoAreas, it was the least exciting for SIDS and non-SIDS.
The next part of the assessment recorded the presence of marine organizations, industries, and deep-sea technology—vessels, deep submergence vehicles (DSVs), sensors, and data tools—based on extensive research, survey respondents’ access to each type of technology, and respondents’ satisfaction with the technology to which they have access. One of the key findings throughout the report was the difference among income and geographic groups, with wealthier and/or non-SIDS groups having more technology and more access to it. This formed an assessment of the relative ability of each income and geographic group to conduct deep-sea exploration and research.
Using manual research and survey data, we assessed marine organizations and industries as a proxy for human capacity. First, we considered the presence of different types of organizations, including universities, research laboratories, government agencies and ministries, and other organizations. We identified 454 and 1682 deep-sea and marine organizations for SIDS and non-SIDS, respectively; on average, SIDS GeoAreas had less organization than non-SIDS GeoAreas.
While universities and research laboratories were the most common in non-SIDS, government agencies and ministries were most common in SIDS. The largest number of organizations, all types combined, were found in the high-income non-SIDS and upper-middle-income SIDS. The fewest were found in the not-classified non-SIDS and low-income SIDS. Globally, irrespective of the geographic group (SIDS or non-SIDS), fisheries & aquaculture and marine transport were the most common types of industries, followed by tourism in SIDS and conservation in non-SIDS. SIDS and non-SIDS had similar levels of industry diversity across their GeoAreas.
Vessels were the technical capacity with the most extensive presence but were the second lowest accessible technical capacity in SIDS and non-SIDS alike.
Fishing vessels were the most present type of vessel in both SIDS and non-SIDS and were also the most common vessels in all SIDS income groups considered separately. However, the most and least present vessels varied across non-SIDS income groups. In SIDS, more respondents reported having no access to vessels than respondents who reported having access to one of the listed vessels. Vessel accessibility was low across all non-SIDS income groups, and the average accessibility for non-SIDS was lower than for SIDS. However, for vessels that were accessible, respondents for non-SIDS were more satisfied than respondents for SIDS. More than 60% of the respondents for SIDS and non-SIDS alike reported that increased access to vessels would have a high impact or be transformative.
Deep submergence vehicles (DSVs) were the technical capacity with the lowest and least diverse presence and access in both SIDS and non-SIDS. Less than half of the respondents for SIDS considered DSVs important for their work, while 70% for non-SIDS did.
Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) were the most present DSV type, while towsleds were the least present in both SIDS and non-SIDS. ROVs were the most accessible DSV type in SIDS and non-SIDS, but more than half of the respondents for SIDS and more than a third for non-SIDS reported having no access to any DSV. In addition, more than two-thirds of the DSVs accessible to respondents for SIDS could not operate deeper than 200 mbsl, while more than two-thirds of DSVs accessible to respondents for non-SIDS could. Less than half the respondents for non-SIDS were satisfied with the DSVs they had access to. In SIDS, more than 70% were dissatisfied.
Fifty-eight percent of respondents for SIDS and 75% for non-SIDS reported that increased access to DSVs would significantly impact or be transformative for their work.
Sensors had a limited presence in both SIDS and non-SIDS. Access to different sensor systems was different between SIDS and non-SIDS. More numbers and types of sensors were accessible to respondents for non-SIDS, and more than half of SIDS reported having no access. More than two-thirds of respondents for SIDS and non-SIDS considered sensor systems important for their work.
The most and least present sensor systems varied across income and geographic groups, but water sampling systems were consistently (among) the most present and accessible sensors in SIDS and non-SIDS. Almost half of respondents for non-SIDS were generally satisfied with sensor systems, while fewer respondents for SIDS were satisfied. The cost of sensors represented the most significant issue in SIDS and non-SIDS. More than two-thirds of respondents for SIDS and nearly 75% for non-SIDS reported that increased access to deep-sea sensor systems would have a high impact or would be transformative for their work.
Data tools were widely present across SIDS and non-SIDS. Data tools were also the most accessible technical capacity in SIDS and the second-most accessible in non-SIDS. However, while presence and access to data tools were generally high, respondents for SIDS were the second-least satisfied with these data tools and were generally less satisfied than respondents for SIDS. A majority of respondents for SIDS and non-SIDS generally agreed that deep-sea data tools were important for their work.
Geographic information systems were consistently the most present and accessible type of data tool in SIDS and non-SIDS. Both in SIDS and non-SIDS, data tools were the second most present and diverse technical capacity to which a majority had access. Respondents from the high-income group had more access than those from lower- or non-classified groups. In addition, levels of satisfaction varied greatly across income groups, with wealthier groups generally more satisfied and lower-income groups generally more dissatisfied.
More than two-thirds of respondents for SIDS and over three-quarters of respondents for non-SIDS reported that increased access to data tools would greatly impact or be transformative for their work.
Organizations, industries, vessels, DSVs, sensors, and data tools were assessed using research to identify the presence of capacity in each GeoArea, and survey responses were used to identify accessibility to and satisfaction of vessels, DSVs, sensors, and data tools in each geographic and income group. We used this information to create Deep-Sea Capacity Index (DSC) groups based on similarities concerning the presence of marine infrastructure and deep-sea technology, access to technology, and satisfaction with the technology available, allowing for comparison between locations on the basis of their economy and geography (Table 2).
SIDS DSC Group | Presence | Access | Satisfaction | Income Groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|
I | High | High | High | Non-SIDS: High |
II | Mid | Low-mid | Low-mid | Non-SIDS: Upper-middle |
III | Low-mid | Low | Low-mid | Non-SIDS: Low |
IV | Low-mid | Low | Low | Non-SIDS: Not-categorized |
High-income non-SIDS had the highest combination of presence, accessibility to, and satisfaction with marine infrastructure and deep-sea technology. Non-SIDS groups were split between all DSC Groups, demonstrating a high variation in the presence of, access to, and satisfaction with marine infrastructure and deep-sea technology. Levels of access and satisfaction were generally low in both Non-SIDS and SIDS, except for high-income non-SIDS.
The Declaration for the Enhancement of Marine Scientific Knowledge, Research Capacity, and Transfer of Marine Technology created by AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) at 2022's UN Ocean Conference detailed the unique position SIDS are in regarding the capacity for ocean exploration and marine conservation [7]. It recognized the dependency SIDS have on the ocean to sustain lives and livelihoods and that they have been disproportionately affected by the changes to ocean health due to climate change and ocean acidification. It also acknowledged that capacity building and technology transfer need to be accelerated to meet the urgent global need for the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean and that current capacity efforts often create more of a burden than a benefit to creating sustainable and locally retained capacity.
The declaration encouraged the global ocean community to co-design and co-develop solutions and to build long-term relationships recognizing SIDS as "key partners rather than passive beneficiaries" and that country-relevant, context-specific, flexible solutions guided by needs assessments are critical.
In this assessment, we documented some differences in perspectives and capacities between SIDS and non-SIDS, demonstrating that different types of GeoAreas had different priorities regarding some of the most important deep-sea issues, challenges, and opportunities. Insights provided by this assessment could assist with strategically developing, equitably implementing, and quantitatively measuring capacity development tailored to unique gaps for deep-sea exploration and research in SIDS and non-SIDS alike.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)
