Implementation Readiness Assessment
1. Outcome
1This Circular provides a country readiness self-assessment framework for launching or scaling ocean accounts. It guides countries through evaluating their institutional, data, and human capacity prerequisites, and outlines phased implementation pathways appropriate to different starting conditions. After reading this Circular, national statistical offices, ocean agencies, and inter-ministerial coordination bodies will be able to diagnose their current readiness level, identify priority gaps, design a sequenced implementation plan, and mobilise the institutional arrangements necessary to sustain ocean accounting as a regular statistical programme.
2. Requirements
1Essential prerequisites:
- 2TG-0.1 General Introduction to Ocean Accounts — for the conceptual framework and the nested superset structure of economy, society, and environment
3Helpful background:
- 4TG-0.4 Structure and Focus — for the overall structure of the Technical Guidance and dependency relationships between circulars
- 5TG-0.5 Navigating the Technical Guidance — for audience pathways that help prioritise which accounts to compile first
3. Guidance Material
3.1 Country Readiness Self-Assessment Framework
3.1.1 Assessment dimensions
1The readiness assessment covers four dimensions. Legal and regulatory environment is embedded as a sub-dimension of institutional capacity, because legal barriers to data sharing operate differently from coordination weakness and must be diagnosed separately:
| Dimension | Description | Key questions |
|---|---|---|
| Institutional capacity | Legal and regulatory environment (statutes governing data sharing, statistics-act provisions, agency-specific data-access laws); inter-agency coordination mechanisms; political commitment; and resource allocation | Is there a lead agency with a clear legal mandate? Do statistics-act or agency-specific laws permit the necessary data sharing? Are ocean accounting data-sharing agreements in place? Is ocean accounting embedded in national statistical plans? |
| Data infrastructure | Availability, accessibility, and quality of environmental, economic, and social data relevant to ocean accounting | What ocean-related data exist? Are they accessible in machine-readable formats? Do spatial and temporal coverages meet minimum requirements? |
| Human skills and knowledge | Technical expertise in statistical compilation, environmental science, economic accounting, and geospatial analysis | Are there staff with SEEA compilation experience? Is there familiarity with ecosystem classification and condition assessment? Are GIS capabilities available? |
| Policy demand and use | Existence of policy frameworks, planning processes, and reporting commitments that create demand for ocean account outputs | Are there national ocean or blue economy strategies? Does the country report on SDG 14? Are there active marine spatial planning processes? |
3.1.2 Readiness scoring rubric
1Each dimension is scored on a four-level maturity scale aligned to SEEA implementation progression. The levels are cumulative: achieving a higher level implies that the requirements of lower levels have also been met. Where sub-element profiles are mixed, score to the highest level for which all criteria are met and record partial achievement of higher-level criteria as evidence for gap analysis in Section 3.1.3 Step 3.1
| Level | Label | General description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pre-pilot | Ad hoc or absent. No SEEA accounts compiled. Activities depend on individual initiative or project-based funding. |
| 2 | Pilot compilation | At least one account type has been trialled. Some foundational elements in place. Formal arrangements are emerging but not yet institutionalised. |
| 3 | Regular compilation | Regular compilation of at least one account type is integrated into national reporting. Systematic arrangements are operational, though coverage or quality may be incomplete. |
| 4 | Multi-account with iterative improvement | Multi-account compilation is underway with continuous improvement processes embedded. Outputs are integrated into decision-making. |
2Institutional capacity scoring:
| Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 1 — Pre-pilot | No designated lead agency. Ocean accounting is not referenced in national statistical plans. Inter-agency coordination for ocean data is informal or absent. No data-sharing legal basis identified. |
| 2 — Pilot compilation | A lead agency has been identified (NSO, ocean ministry, or environment agency). Initial discussions on inter-agency coordination have occurred. Ocean accounting is referenced in at least one national strategy or plan. Legal basis for key data-sharing steps has been assessed. |
| 3 — Regular compilation | A formal inter-agency coordination mechanism (committee, working group, or MoU network) is operational. The lead agency has allocated recurrent budget for ocean accounting. Data-sharing agreements cover at least the core data providers. Statistics-act provisions and inter-agency legal authority for data access are documented. |
| 4 — Multi-account with iterative improvement | Ocean accounting is embedded in the National Strategy for the Development of Statistics (NSDS) or equivalent. The coordination mechanism has a formal mandate and meets regularly. Production is funded through recurrent budget lines. Quality assurance procedures are documented and applied. |
3Data infrastructure scoring:
| Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 1 — Pre-pilot | Key datasets (marine area delineation, fisheries production, coastal land use) are unavailable or inaccessible. No data inventory for ocean-relevant holdings has been conducted. |
| 2 — Pilot compilation | A data inventory has been completed identifying available ocean-relevant datasets. Some key datasets are accessible but may lack spatial referencing, consistent time series, or documentation. Global or regional datasets are used to fill gaps. |
| 3 — Regular compilation | Core datasets for at least one account type (e.g., extent, economic flows) are available with adequate spatial and temporal coverage. A common spatial framework (e.g., ecosystem accounting areas, statistical geography) is defined. Metadata standards are applied. |
| 4 — Multi-account with iterative improvement | Comprehensive data holdings support multiple account types. Data pipelines are automated or semi-automated. Data quality is regularly assessed against documented standards. New data sources (remote sensing, citizen science, administrative records) are actively integrated. |
4Human skills scoring:
| Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 1 — Pre-pilot | No staff have received training in environmental-economic accounting or SEEA methods. Relevant expertise (ecology, marine science, economic statistics, GIS) exists in separate agencies but has not been mobilised for ocean accounting. |
| 2 — Pilot compilation | At least one staff member has received SEEA or ocean accounting training. A skills gap analysis has been conducted. Expertise in relevant disciplines has been identified across agencies. |
| 3 — Regular compilation | A core team (3—5 staff) has practical experience in compiling at least one type of ocean account. The team includes or has access to expertise in ecological classification, economic accounting, and geospatial analysis. Training plans are in place. |
| 4 — Multi-account with iterative improvement | A multi-disciplinary team is in place with documented skills across all required domains. Staff participate in international peer networks. Knowledge management systems (documentation, handover procedures, training curricula) ensure institutional memory. |
5Policy demand scoring:
| Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 1 — Pre-pilot | No explicit policy demand for ocean accounts. Ocean governance relies on sector-specific data without integration across domains. |
| 2 — Pilot compilation | At least one policy process (national ocean strategy, marine spatial plan, SDG reporting) has identified ocean accounts as a potential input. Initial engagement with policy users has occurred. |
| 3 — Regular compilation | Ocean account outputs are referenced in at least one active policy process. Regular dialogue between account compilers and policy users is established. Indicator needs have been specified. |
| 4 — Multi-account with iterative improvement | Ocean accounts are routinely used in multiple policy processes (budgeting, spatial planning, international reporting). Feedback loops between users and producers are formalised. Account outputs are cited in policy documents. |
3.1.3 Conducting the assessment
1The self-assessment should be conducted by a small team that includes representatives from the national statistical office, the lead ocean or environment agency, at least one major data provider, and where possible a policy user from a planning or finance ministry. The assessment can be completed in a structured workshop of one to two days, following these steps:
- 2Preparation: Assemble background documentation including the national statistical plan, any existing data inventories, relevant policy documents, and organisational charts showing institutional responsibilities for ocean-related data.
- 3Scoring: Work through each dimension and score against the rubric. Document the evidence supporting each score and note any uncertainties.
- 4Gap identification: For each dimension where the score falls below the target level for the intended implementation pathway (Section 3.2), identify specific gaps and their causes. Where sub-element profiles are mixed, record the partial achievement as evidence for the gap analysis.
- 5Priority setting: Rank gaps by their impact on the chosen pathway and the feasibility of addressing them. Use the requirements matrix in Section 3.3 to map gaps to specific account types.
- 6Action planning: Develop a time-bound action plan to address priority gaps, assigning responsibilities and identifying resource requirements.
- 7External review (Recommended): Share the completed assessment with a peer country, regional statistical body, or GOAP technical assistance team. External review is particularly valuable where self-assessment scores fall at level boundaries or where institutional capacity constraints make objective scoring difficult.
8Countries are encouraged to share their assessments through the GOAP network to support peer learning.
3.2 Phased Implementation Pathway
3.2.1 Three-phase pathway
1The following three-phase pathway is recommended as a general model. Countries should adapt it to their specific circumstances. The phases are not rigidly sequential, and countries may pursue elements of later phases in parallel where capacity permits. Figure 0.8.1 illustrates how a country’s SNA and spatial capacity profile routes it to an entry point, and how the phase at which it starts the Foundation—Expansion—Integration pathway is set separately by its overall readiness level.
Figure 0.8.1 A 2×2 of SNA/NSO against spatial capacity routes each profile to an entry point, not a pathway phase. [a] High SNA/NSO capacity favours ocean economy accounts first. [b] High spatial capacity favours ecosystem extent. All entry points begin in Phase 1. Source: TG-0.8 §3.1 (Readiness self-assessment), §3.2 (Phased implementation pathway, Table 3.2.1 entry-point matrix). Adapted from: SEEA EA 2024 Quality Assurance Framework Annex A (capacity diagnostics); TG-0.7 §4 (QA principles for staged adoption).
2Phase 1: Foundation
3Key activities:
- 4
Institutional setup: Identify and formalise the lead agency. Establish an inter-agency coordination mechanism (see Section 3.5). Secure initial funding, which may combine government budget with international technical assistance.
- 5
Data inventory and gap analysis: Conduct a full inventory of ocean-relevant data holdings across government agencies, research institutions, and international sources. Assess data quality, spatial coverage, temporal frequency, and accessibility.
- 6
Spatial framework: Define the ecosystem accounting area(s) and establish a common spatial framework aligned with the GSGF principles on common geographies and geocoding.2
- 7
Initial accounts — three entry-point pathways: Compile at least one type of account to demonstrate feasibility and generate initial policy-relevant outputs:
Entry point 1 — SEEA CF / Ocean Economy Satellite Accounting (OESA): Recommended where a country has strong SNA infrastructure and an active NSO. OESA, which disaggregates ocean-related components from the National Accounts, is typically the first deliverable. Fisheries, maritime transport, and coastal tourism accounts are typical starting products.
Entry point 2 — SEEA EA extent accounts: Recommended where a country has strong spatial data infrastructure (remote sensing, marine surveys, habitat mapping programmes) but weaker SNA capacity. Ecosystem extent accounts for one or two marine or coastal ecosystem types can be compiled largely from remote sensing data and can be led by an environment agency without full SNA alignment.
Entry point 3 — Opportunity-led pilot (externally supported): Recommended where both SNA and spatial capacity are limited. Start with whichever account type has the strongest existing data champion and the clearest near-term policy use. Externally led pilots are a recognised entry pathway, often preceding government internalisation of the programme (Trueb et al., 2024).3
SNA / NSO strong? Spatial / RS strong? Recommended entry point Yes Yes Entry points 1 and 2, in parallel or in close sequence subject to team capacity (see Section 3.4.1) Yes No Entry point 1 (SEEA CF / OESA) No Yes Entry point 2 (SEEA EA extent) No No Entry point 3 (Opportunity-led pilot) - 8
Stakeholder engagement: Present initial results to policy users to test relevance, build demand, and refine the work programme for Phase 2.
9Phase 2: Expansion
10Phase 2 begins at Phase 1 completion, with elements that may be initiated in parallel where capacity permits. Key activities:
- 11Additional account types: Extend to ecosystem condition accounts, physical ecosystem service flow accounts, and asset accounts. The sequence should be guided by policy demand and data availability, drawing on the requirements matrix in Section 3.3.
- 12Monetary valuation: Initiate monetary valuation of ecosystem services where appropriate, beginning with services where market-based methods can be applied.
- 13Indicator derivation: Develop indicators from the accounts in consultation with policy users.
- 14Institutional consolidation: Formalise data-sharing agreements. Integrate ocean accounting into the NSDS or equivalent. Establish quality assurance procedures aligned with TG-0.7.
15Phase 3: Integration and sustainability (ongoing)
16Key activities:
- 17Regular production: Establish a regular production cycle for priority accounts, typically aligned with national accounts periodicity. Develop standard operating procedures, compilation guides, and automated data pipelines.
- 18Full account suite: Work toward complete coverage of the Ocean Accounts Framework, including combined presentations (see TG-3.8) and sub-national accounts where policy demand exists (see TG-3.11).
- 19Policy integration: Embed account outputs in budget processes (TG-1.1), marine spatial planning, environmental impact assessment (TG-1.6), national development plans (TG-1.10), and international reporting commitments.
- 20Continuous improvement: Conduct regular readiness reassessments. Participate in international technical networks and contribute to global standards development.
3.2.2 Aligning the pathway with readiness levels
| Overall readiness profile | Recommended entry point |
|---|---|
| Predominantly Pre-pilot (Level 1) across dimensions | Begin with Phase 1 institutional setup and data inventory. Focus on a single pilot account. |
| Mixed Pre-pilot / Pilot compilation (Levels 1—2) with at least one dimension at Pilot compilation | Enter Phase 1, building on existing strengths as the starting point for initial account compilation. |
| Predominantly Pilot compilation (Level 2) with some Regular compilation (Level 3) | Begin Phase 2 activities in areas of strength whilst completing Phase 1 requirements in others. |
| Predominantly Regular compilation (Level 3) or higher | Focus on Phase 3 integration and sustainability. Expand account coverage and deepen policy use. |
1Countries with existing SEEA implementation experience for land, water, energy, or forest accounts will often find that their readiness levels are higher across multiple dimensions. Institutional arrangements, data infrastructure, and human skills developed for those accounts are substantially transferable to ocean accounting.
3.3 Implementation Requirements Matrix
1The matrix below maps institutional capacity, data infrastructure, and human skills needed across major ocean account types. Reading down a column identifies the full set of prerequisites for a particular account type. Reading across a row indicates how requirements scale across types for planning purposes.
3.3.1 Institutional capacity requirements
1Lead-agency entries in the first row are illustrative, whilst country governance choices in Section 3.5.2 take precedence.
| Requirement | Ocean economic accounts | Ecosystem extent accounts | Ecosystem condition accounts | Ecosystem service flow accounts | Ecosystem asset accounts | Social and governance accounts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead agency identified | Illustrative: NSO national accounts division | Illustrative: environment or geospatial agency | Illustrative: environment agency with research-institution support | Illustrative: NSO with environment agency | Illustrative: NSO with environment agency | Illustrative: NSO with social/community development agency |
| Inter-agency coordination | NSO + fisheries/maritime agencies (pilot-compilation level coordination) | Environment agency + geospatial agency + marine research (pilot-compilation level) | Environment agency + multiple research institutions + monitoring agencies (regular-compilation level) | NSO + environment + sectoral agencies (fisheries, tourism, water) (regular-compilation level) | All of the above (regular-compilation level) | NSO + governance + community development agencies (regular-compilation level) |
| Data-sharing agreements | Standard statistical data sharing | Geospatial data licensing + research data access | Research data sharing + monitoring network agreements | Cross-domain agreements spanning environment and economic agencies | Comprehensive agreements covering all data sources | Agreements with governance and community organisations |
| Budget commitment | Low (marginal if SNA infrastructure exists; moderate otherwise) | Moderate: geospatial data acquisition, mapping | Moderate to high: field monitoring, laboratory analysis | Moderate: modelling, valuation expertise | Moderate: builds on service flow and condition accounts | Moderate: survey instruments, community engagement |
| Legal/mandate basis | Statistics Act (typically sufficient) | Environmental legislation + statistics mandate | Environmental monitoring legislation | Cross-cutting mandate desirable | Cross-cutting mandate desirable | Social statistics mandate + governance assessment framework |
2The lead agency should have both the institutional authority to convene data-contributing agencies and a clear mandate to manage or report on the relevant resource or ecosystem. Where no single agency holds both, a joint coordination mechanism is appropriate (see Section 3.5.2).
3.3.2 Data infrastructure requirements
| Requirement | Ocean economic accounts | Ecosystem extent accounts | Ecosystem condition accounts | Ecosystem service flow accounts | Ecosystem asset accounts | Social and governance accounts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spatial framework | Administrative boundaries; port/coastal zone delineation | Ecosystem type map aligned with IUCN GET level 3 (Ecosystem Functional Group) or equivalent national typology4 | Same as extent + monitoring site locations | Same as extent + user locations (households, industries) | Same as extent, condition, and services | Administrative + community boundaries |
| Core datasets | National accounts (Supply-Use Tables (SUT), GDP by industry); business register; trade statistics; fisheries production | Satellite imagery (Landsat, Sentinel); habitat maps; bathymetry; land cover | Water quality; biodiversity surveys; physical oceanography; benthic monitoring | Fisheries catch; coastal protection models; recreation surveys; carbon flux data | Service projections; discount rates; NPV inputs5 | Governance indicators; community surveys; regulatory records |
| Temporal requirements | Annual (aligned with national accounts cycle) | Multi-year baseline + periodic update (3—5 years) | Annual or sub-annual for key indicators | Annual (aligned with national accounts) | Annual or aligned with condition assessment cycle | Periodic (2—5 year cycle typical) |
| Quality standards | SNA compilation standards; UN-NQAF | Accuracy assessment of classification; positional accuracy of maps | Measurement uncertainty quantification; inter-calibration of monitoring networks | Model validation; sensitivity analysis | Propagation of uncertainty from underlying accounts (see SEEA EA paras. 11.116—11.135 and TG-1.9 for Monte Carlo and sensitivity-analysis approaches) | Survey methodology standards; response rate thresholds |
| Metadata requirements | SDMX-compliant metadata | ISO 19115 geospatial metadata; lineage documentation | Measurement protocols; QA/QC records | Model documentation; assumption registers | Valuation methodology documentation | Survey instruments; sampling design documentation |
3.3.3 Human skills requirements
| Skill domain | Ocean economic accounts | Ecosystem extent accounts | Ecosystem condition accounts | Ecosystem service flow accounts | Ecosystem asset accounts | Social and governance accounts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National accounting | Essential: SNA compilation, industry classification (ISIC) | Useful for integration with economic data | Useful for integration with economic data | Essential: supply-use framework, linking ecosystem services to industries | Essential: asset valuation, NPV methods, balance sheets | Useful for linking social data to SNA framework |
| Environmental science | Useful for defining ocean economy boundaries | Essential: ecology, remote sensing, ecosystem classification (IUCN GET) | Essential: marine ecology, water chemistry, biodiversity assessment | Essential: ecosystem service modelling, biophysical quantification | Essential: understanding ecosystem dynamics and sustainability thresholds | Useful for understanding environmental context |
| Geospatial analysis | Moderate: spatial delineation of coastal zones | Essential: GIS, remote sensing, spatial analysis | Essential: spatial interpolation, monitoring network design | Essential: spatial modelling of service flows and use | Essential: spatially explicit valuation | Moderate: mapping governance jurisdictions |
| Statistical methods | Essential: sampling, estimation, seasonal adjustment | Moderate: accuracy assessment, area estimation | Moderate to high: index construction, composite indicators | High: modelling, uncertainty analysis | High: discounting, time series, sensitivity analysis | Essential: survey design, social statistics |
| Monetary valuation | Not required (market data used directly) | Not required for physical accounts; useful for downstream monetary integration | Not required for physical accounts; useful for downstream monetary integration | Required for monetary accounts: market price methods, replacement cost, avoided damage cost | Essential: NPV, discount rate selection, welfare economics | Not typically required |
| Data management | Essential: database management, data integration | Essential: geospatial databases, raster/vector data management | Essential: time series databases, monitoring data management | Essential: multi-source data integration | Essential: all of the above | Essential: survey data management, confidentiality |
3.3.4 Using the requirements matrix
- 1Identify target accounts: Based on the implementation pathway (Section 3.2) and policy priorities, identify which account types will be compiled in each phase.
- 2Read requirements: For each target account type, read down the relevant column across all three requirement tables to identify the full set of prerequisites.
- 3Compare to readiness assessment: Map identified requirements against the country’s current readiness levels. Where requirements exceed current capacity, these represent gaps to be addressed.
- 4Sequence investment: Prioritise requirements shared across multiple account types (e.g., spatial framework, inter-agency coordination) as foundational investments that enable multiple downstream products.
5Requirements become progressively more demanding moving left to right across the matrix. Ocean economic accounts build substantially on existing SNA infrastructure. Ecosystem accounts require environmental science and geospatial capabilities. Social and governance accounts add survey and community engagement capabilities.
3.4 Human Capacity Requirements and Team Composition
3.4.1 Core team structure
1Sustained ocean accounting requires a dedicated core team combining expertise across multiple disciplines. The following structure provides a general model for countries at Phase 2 or later:
| Role | Key responsibilities | Typical background | FTE allocation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Programme coordinator | Overall management; inter-agency liaison; stakeholder engagement; quality assurance | Senior statistician or environmental economist with management experience | 0.5—1.0 (the 0.5 lower bound applies only where the coordinator has dedicated administrative support; otherwise 0.75 minimum for Phase 1) |
| Economic accountant | Ocean economy satellite accounts; SNA-SEEA linkages; monetary ecosystem service accounts | National accounts compilation; economic statistics | 0.5—1.0 |
| Environmental scientist | Ecosystem classification; condition assessment; ecosystem service quantification | Marine ecology, environmental science, or conservation biology | 0.5—1.0 |
| Geospatial analyst | Spatial framework management; remote sensing; map production; spatial data integration | GIS, remote sensing, cartography | 0.5—1.0 |
| Data manager | Data acquisition; quality control; database management; metadata documentation | Information technology, data science, statistics | 0.5—1.0 |
4During Phase 1, a smaller team of two to three staff may be sufficient, provided they have access to specialist advice from other agencies or international partners. The programme coordinator role matters from the outset, as the primary challenge in Phase 1 is institutional coordination rather than technical compilation.
3.4.2 Extended expertise network
1Beyond the core team, ocean accounting requires access to specialised expertise distributed across multiple agencies and institutions:
| Specialist role | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Fisheries scientists | Biomass estimation, stock assessments, and catch data validation. |
| Oceanographers | Physical and chemical condition data (temperature, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen). |
| Biodiversity specialists | Species-level assessments, habitat classification, and ecological integrity indicators. |
| Economists | Non-market valuation, cost-benefit analysis, and economic impact modelling. |
| Social scientists | Community surveys, governance assessments, and distributional analysis. |
| Indigenous knowledge holders | Traditional ecological knowledge, customary use patterns, and cultural value assessment. |
| IT specialists | Database architecture, web platforms, and data visualisation tools. |
2Countries should map existing expertise early in the implementation process and develop formal or informal mechanisms (secondments, advisory panels, memoranda of understanding) to access it on a sustained basis.
3.4.3 Capacity building strategy
1A systematic approach to building and sustaining human capacity should address three time horizons:
2Short-term: Targeted training for the core team in SEEA concepts, ocean accounting methods, and relevant tools, combined where possible with practical application to real data through mentored pilot compilation exercises.
3Medium-term: Deepening expertise through peer exchanges with more experienced countries and participation in international expert networks. Formal recognition of ocean accounting competencies within institutional human resource frameworks helps retain skilled staff.
4Long-term: Embedding ocean accounting in university curricula and national training institutions ensures a pipeline of qualified graduates. Documentation of institutional knowledge (compilation manuals, standard operating procedures, and lesson-learned reports) protects against capacity loss through staff turnover.
3.5 Institutional Arrangements for Implementation
3.5.1 Coordination models
1The principal coordination models (NSO-led, environment agency-led, joint steering committee, and dedicated unit) are described with their advantages, limitations, and country examples in TG-1.10 OA and National Planning Integration. The decisive success factors regardless of model are: (a) a clear mandate recognised by all participating agencies, (b) designated staff with allocated time, (c) formal data-sharing arrangements, and (d) recurrent funding that does not depend on project-based support alone.
2Country examples illustrating each coordination model appear in the Section 5 case studies (TG-5.1 through TG-5.13). For instance, TG-5.1 (Australia) illustrates an NSO-led model; TG-5.5 (Indonesia) illustrates an environment agency-led approach.
3.5.2 Implementation readiness checklist for institutional arrangements
1Countries should aim to address all items by the end of Phase 1, though items 7 and 8 may extend into Phase 2:
- 2 1. Lead agency designated: A single agency has been identified as the lead for ocean accounting, with endorsement from relevant senior officials.
- 3 2. Coordination mechanism established: An inter-agency coordination mechanism has been formed with representation from the NSO, environment/ocean agency, and at least two major data providers.
- 4 3. Terms of reference agreed: The coordination mechanism has documented terms of reference specifying its mandate, membership, meeting frequency, and decision-making procedures.
- 5 4. Work programme adopted: A time-bound work programme has been adopted, specifying which accounts will be compiled, by whom, and on what timeline.
- 6 5. Data-sharing agreements executed: Formal or semi-formal data-sharing agreements are in place with at least the core data providers identified in the data inventory.
- 7 6. Core team assembled: A core team of at least two to three staff has been identified or recruited, with dedicated time allocated to ocean accounting.
- 8 7. Budget secured: Multi-year funding (covering Phase 1 in full, with a credible plan for transition to recurrent budget support) has been secured.
- 9 8. Quality assurance framework adopted: Quality assurance procedures consistent with TG-0.7 have been documented and endorsed by the lead agency.
- 10 9. Stakeholder engagement plan developed: Key policy users have been identified, their information needs assessed, and a plan for regular engagement adopted.
- 11 10. International linkages established: The country has connected with the GOAP network, relevant UN regional commissions, and other international or regional support mechanisms.
12For guidance on coordination models and their relationship to national planning processes, see TG-1.10 OA and National Planning Integration. For data coordination architectures, see TG-4.7 National Data Coordination Architectures.
3.6 Country Commitment Framework
1This section provides a commitment checklist for use at the readiness assessment stage, before implementation begins. It records political endorsement, resource commitment, and accountability mechanisms as preconditions for programme launch. For guidance on embedding ocean accounts in national planning frameworks and integrating accounts into budget cycles, see TG-1.10 OA and National Planning Integration.
2A country commitment framework for ocean accounting should address the following elements:
3Political endorsement: A statement of commitment from an appropriate authority (minister, chief statistician, or inter-ministerial body) establishing ocean accounting as a national priority. The statement should reference the policy objectives ocean accounting will support and the institutional arrangements to be put in place.
4Strategic plan integration: Inclusion of ocean accounting in the NSDS or equivalent national statistical plan. For countries without an NSDS, ocean accounting can be included in the strategic plan of the lead agency.
5Resource commitment: An explicit commitment to allocate financial, human, and infrastructure resources. The commitment should distinguish between initial investment (which may draw on international technical assistance) and recurrent production costs (which should transition to domestic funding). A realistic budget estimate, benchmarked against GOAP partner country experience, should accompany the resource commitment.
6Timeline and milestones: A time-bound implementation plan with clear milestones aligned to the phased pathway in Section 3.2 (e.g., “Complete data inventory by month 6 of Phase 1; publish first ecosystem extent account by end of Phase 1”).
7Accountability mechanism: A designated person or body responsible for monitoring implementation progress and reporting to the coordination mechanism and senior leadership at least annually.
8Countries should plan early wins: policy-relevant outputs deliverable in the early stages of the programme. Phase 1 account types (see Section 3.2.1) serve well as early wins because they are feasible with existing data and are directly relevant to common policy processes.
4. Limitations and Considerations
4.1 Context sensitivity
1The readiness assessment framework and phased pathway provide a general model that must be adapted to country-specific circumstances. Small island developing states may face distinctive challenges related to limited institutional capacity and data infrastructure but may also benefit from relatively simpler ocean geographies and strong policy demand. Large maritime nations may have abundant data and institutional resources but face coordination challenges across multiple agencies and levels of government.
4.2 Assessment subjectivity
1Self-assessment inherently involves subjective judgement. Countries can mitigate that subjectivity by including diverse perspectives in the assessment team, requiring evidence to support scores, and inviting external review through GOAP peer review or technical assistance missions (see Section 3.1.3 Step 6).
4.3 Dynamic nature of readiness
1Readiness is not a fixed state. Changes in government priorities, staffing, funding, or data availability can shift readiness levels in either direction. The assessment should be treated as a living instrument updated regularly and used to inform adaptive management of the implementation programme.
5. Acknowledgements
1Authors: [To be confirmed]
2Reviewers: [To be confirmed]
3This Circular draws on the methodological frameworks established by the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA), the Strategy for Implementing 2025 SNA and BPM7, the UN National Quality Assurance Frameworks Manual, the Global Statistical Geospatial Framework (2nd edition), and NSDS guidelines.6 The guidance also benefits from the practical experience of GOAP partner countries in implementing ocean accounts across diverse institutional contexts.
6. References and Notes
Footnotes
- 1
Levels reflect the progressive implementation model described in Chapter 1 of the SEEA EA Implementation Guide (UN, 2021). Consistency with SEEA EA Chapters 14—15 and the 2025 SNA implementation strategy’s staged approach (scoping, adaptation, estimation, follow-up) informs both the rubric design and the phased pathway in Section 3.2. ↩
- 2
United Nations. (2025). The Global Statistical Geospatial Framework, 2nd edition. UN Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM). ↩
- 3
Trueb, L., Gacutan, J., Praphotjanaporn, T., Alarcon Blazquez, M., and Milligan, B. (2024). ‘Identifying the institutional modalities for commencing Environmental-Economic Accounting for the ocean’. Marine Policy 106410. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106410. ↩ ↩2
- 4
SEEA EA recommends IUCN GET level 3 as the default spatial reference framework (SEEA EA paras. 3.27—3.34). Finer resolution (level 4, regional ecotype) may be required for sub-national or thematic accounts. Coarser resolution is insufficient for SEEA-compliant extent accounts. See TG-2.1 Aggregate Biophysical Indicators of Environmental State for ecosystem extent account compilation guidance. ↩
- 5
Asset accounts require a social discount rate. See TG-1.9 Safe Usage of Monetary Valuation for discount-rate selection guidance. SEEA EA paras. 11.97—11.115 recommend a 3—5% real discount rate for most applications, with sensitivity testing across the range. ↩
- 6
Full references: Inter-secretariat Working Group on National Accounts (2025), Strategy for Implementing 2025 SNA and BPM7; PARIS21 (2018), Guidelines for NSDS preparation; United Nations (2019), UN National Quality Assurance Frameworks Manual, Studies in Methods Series M No. 100; United Nations (2021), SEEA EA; United Nations (2021), SEEA EA Implementation Guide; United Nations (2025), GSGF 2nd edition. ↩