Circular TG-0.8 · Section 0: Concepts, Definitions and Front Matter · 1 September 2026
Implementation Readiness Assessment
Circular TG-0.8 · Section 0: Concepts, Definitions and Front Matter · 1 September 2026
Implementation Readiness Assessment
Provides a country readiness self-assessment framework for launching or scaling ocean accounts.
Provides a country readiness self-assessment framework for launching or scaling ocean accounts.
- Read first
- TG-0.1 General Introduction to Ocean Accounts, TG-0.4 Structure and Focus of the Technical Guidance
- After this circular
- TG-4.7 National Data Coordination Architectures, TG-3.11 Sub-National Ocean Accounts
Standards this circular implements
- Adapts SEEA Ecosystem Accounting: SEEA EA Implementation Guide and Chapters 14–15 staged compilation. The readiness rubric and three-phase pathway treat SEEA EA extent accounts as the spatial entry point, and they score maturity against progressive SEEA implementation rather than a full-framework first compilation. — §3.2.1
- Implements SEEA Central Framework: SEEA CF / ocean-economy satellite accounting as Entry point 1. Where SNA infrastructure is strong, the circular sequences ocean economy disaggregation from national accounts before ecosystem accounts. — §3.2.1
- Adapts SNA 2025: Strategy for Implementing 2025 SNA (scoping, adaptation, estimation, follow-up). The four-level readiness scale and phased pathway are aligned to that staged SNA implementation model. — §3.1.2
- Implements IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology: SEEA EA paras 3.27–3.34 (IUCN GET level 3 as default spatial reference). Extent-account data infrastructure is specified at Ecosystem Functional Group; coarser resolution is treated as insufficient for SEEA-compliant extent accounts. — §3.3.2
1. Outcome
Section titled “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.
2The Circular covers four further aspects of standing up and sustaining a programme. Section 3.5 is normative for the publication on coordination arrangements: where the mandate sits, what instrument carries it, how the arrangement is reviewed, and how political, technical and institutional champions are cultivated and sustained. Section 3.7 sets out the scoping phase that precedes Phase 1, drawing on the ESCAP pilot programme, and how to prioritise account types when capacity allows only one or two. Section 3.8 consolidates investment readiness for ocean finance — the minimum evidence a proposal needs, a scoring rubric, shared investment criteria, and the institutional and data requirements behind them. Section 3.9 covers regional platforms, peer exchange and South-South cooperation.
3How account outputs then reach the planning cycle is TG-1.10 OA and National Planning Integration; the operational design of data-coordination committees is TG-4.7 National Data Coordination Architectures.
2. Requirements
Section titled “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
Section titled “3. Guidance Material”3.1 Country Readiness Self-Assessment Framework
Section titled “3.1 Country Readiness Self-Assessment Framework”3.1.1 Assessment dimensions
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “3.2 Phased Implementation Pathway”3.2.1 Three-phase pathway
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “3.4 Human Capacity Requirements and Team Composition”3.4.1 Core team structure
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “3.5 Institutional Arrangements for Implementation”3.5.1 Coordination models
Section titled “3.5.1 Coordination models”1The coordination arrangement is the first structural decision a country makes when standing up an ocean accounting programme, and it is expensive to reverse. This subsection is normative for the publication. TG-4.7 National Data Coordination Architectures Section 3.1 covers the operational design of the resulting committee — mandate content, membership seniority, relationship to existing statistics committees — and TG-1.10 OA and National Planning Integration covers how its outputs reach the planning cycle.
2Arrangements observed in environmental-economic accounting programmes vary on two independent axes, and presenting them as a single list of models obscures that the two can be combined:
- 3Where the mandate sits — which body holds authority to direct the compilation programme and to request data from contributing agencies.
- 4What instrument carries it — the legal or administrative form through which that authority is exercised and sustained.
5Figure 0.8.2 illustrates the contextual considerations that lean toward — but do not determine — each arrangement.
Figure 0.8.2 Three contextual considerations lean toward -- but do not determine -- the task-force, MOU, or embedded-unit coordination model. Dashed "leans toward" links signal non-determinative guidance; hybrid arrangements are common. Source: TG-0.8 §3.5.1 (coordination models: mandate holders and the instruments that carry the mandate). Adapted from: UN Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics (Principle 8, coordination of statistical systems); synthesis of WAVES programme country experiences (2012--2021).
6Table 3.5.1: Coordination arrangements by mandate holder
| Mandate holder | Description | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| NSO-led | The national statistical office convenes and chairs, drawing authority from its statistics legislation | Statistical independence; established relationships with data-providing agencies; direct access to national accounts | Lower buy-in from agencies that see themselves as data suppliers rather than partners; may under-weight environmental domain expertise |
| Ocean or environment agency-led | The lead ocean, fisheries or environment agency convenes, drawing authority from its sectoral mandate | Domain expertise; closer to the policy questions the accounts must answer | Weaker statistical authority; risk that outputs are not recognised as official statistics |
| Joint or multi-agency | Co-chaired or rotating leadership between the NSO and a lead ocean agency | Distributes authority; strongest cross-agency buy-in | Requires explicit terms of reference to resolve methodological disputes; slower decisions |
| Dedicated unit | A permanent unit with recurrent budget, hosted within an existing agency | Strongest operational continuity, technical depth and institutional memory | Programme priorities shaped by the host agency; other agencies may treat it as not theirs |
| Nested | An overarching body with domain sub-committees (fisheries data, ecosystem condition, marine economic data) | Scales to large statistical systems with many custodians | Coordination overhead; slowest to decide |
7Table 3.5.2: Instruments that carry the mandate
| Instrument | Description | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cabinet decision, ministerial order or decree | Establishes an inter-ministerial task force, steering committee or commission | High political visibility; authority to request data across government | Can become a forum that meets rarely and lacks capacity between meetings; senior members may delegate to staff without authority to commit |
| Bilateral or multilateral MOUs | Agency-to-agency agreements specifying data, format, frequency, quality and contact points | Fast to establish; enforceable commitments that survive personnel change; can be built incrementally | Governs data flow but not policy engagement; needs a separate route to the planning forums |
| Budget line and establishment | A staffed unit with recurrent funding and an explicit compilation mandate | Continuity independent of individual advocacy | Slow to establish; requires budget allocation and recruitment |
| Framework legislation | Statutory basis for ocean accounting and its data access | Most durable | Rarely available within the timeframe of a first compilation |
8Most working arrangements combine both axes. A common and effective configuration is a dedicated unit in the NSO for compilation, bilateral MOUs for data access, and a cabinet-mandated inter-ministerial committee for strategic direction and policy engagement. Countries also migrate between configurations: beginning with MOUs and adding a unit once compilation volume justifies permanent staffing, or adding a committee layer when political visibility becomes the constraint. Such transitions should be anticipated in the founding terms of reference.
9The determinant of success is not which configuration is chosen but whether the arrangement supplies both technical capacity to compile and political access to the forums where decisions are made. An arrangement with one and not the other fails predictably: a well-staffed unit whose outputs never reach cabinet, or a high-level committee with nothing to present.
10Indicative fit. NSO-led suits systems with few data custodians and strong NSO environmental capacity. Joint arrangements suit a moderate number of custodians and existing inter-agency mechanisms. Nested arrangements suit large systems with many custodians. These are starting points; where a country falls near a boundary, the qualitative factors above should outweigh the count of agencies.
11Federal and shared-jurisdiction contexts. In federal systems — Australia, India, Canada — the arrangement must operate at both sub-national and national level, with an additional inter-governmental layer to harmonise methods and consolidate data flows between jurisdictions. In Pacific island states with shared or delegated ocean data access, such as the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau, relevant data may be reached through regional bodies or bilateral arrangements rather than domestic agency networks; countries in this position should consult the GOAP Secretariat for tailored guidance.
12Country examples. Australia’s Australian Bureau of Statistics leads environmental-economic account compilation under its national statistics mandate, coordinating inputs from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water — an NSO-led arrangement. Canada pairs Statistics Canada with Environment and Climate Change Canada under a co-led technical arrangement — a joint arrangement. Indonesia’s inter-ministerial working group on other effective area-based conservation measures convenes the fisheries, environment and planning agencies through a ministerial instrument, with sector sub-groups feeding a central body — a nested arrangement carried by a cabinet-level mandate. Further country evidence is in the Section 5 case studies, including TG-5.1 Australia, TG-5.4 India and TG-5.5 Indonesia. Where a case study and this section describe the same country differently, the case study is the record of what that country did.
3.5.1.1 Reviewing and adapting the arrangement
Section titled “3.5.1.1 Reviewing and adapting the arrangement”1Establishing an arrangement is not a one-time decision. Three diagnostics indicate whether it is still working:
- 2Meeting regularity and seniority. A declining meeting rate, or persistent delegation to staff without authority to commit, signals attrition.
- 3Data-delivery compliance against agreed schedules, as recorded in MOU delivery logs or data-sharing registers. Missed or delayed deliveries indicate a commitment that needs renewal or renegotiation.
- 4Proportion of planning-cycle entry points met on time. Systematic lateness points to a compilation-cycle misalignment rather than a coordination failure, and is addressed through the scheduling in TG-1.10 Section 3.2.
5Review at the close of each national planning cycle — typically every three to five years — or when a major funding or personnel disruption occurs, such as a budget cut to the compilation agency or the departure of a key champion. A significant change in the scope of the accounting programme, such as adding new account types, should also trigger a review of whether the existing arrangement can carry it.
3.5.1.2 Champions and their sustainability
Section titled “3.5.1.2 Champions and their sustainability”Why champions matter
Section titled “Why champions matter”1Institutional arrangements alone do not sustain ocean accounting programmes. Formal mandates, coordination bodies, and data-sharing agreements provide the structural scaffolding, but programmes depend on individuals who advocate for the accounting programme, defend its budget allocation during fiscal contractions, explain its value to sceptical colleagues, and connect technical outputs to policy debates. These individuals are champions, and their role is particularly important for ocean accounting because the field is relatively new, the outputs are unfamiliar to many planning officials, and the benefits of accounting may take several compilation cycles to become apparent.
2Countries that have successfully sustained environmental-economic accounting programmes over multiple years consistently identify the presence of senior advocates — in the NSO, in the finance ministry, or in the head of government’s office — as a critical success factor. The WAVES programme emphasised that “high-level political commitment” and “champions at senior levels of government” are among the most important prerequisites for successful natural capital accounting implementation. Champions serve three distinct functions that correspond to three types of champion: political, technical, and institutional. Effective ocean accounting programmes cultivate all three types, recognising that each serves a different purpose and operates in a different institutional space.
Political champions
Section titled “Political champions”3Political champions are elected officials or senior political appointees who use their public platform and decision-making authority to advocate for ocean accounting. A minister of finance who cites ocean accounting data in budget speeches, a president or prime minister who references natural capital depletion in state-of-the-nation addresses, or a parliamentarian who calls for ocean economy reporting in legislative oversight hearings — these are political champions. Their advocacy creates the political demand signal that justifies budget allocations for compilation work and motivates agency heads to prioritise data contributions.
4Identifying potential political champions requires understanding which political leaders have both an interest in ocean issues and the institutional position to influence planning processes. In many countries, the minister of finance or the head of the planning ministry is the most influential political champion because they control resource allocation decisions. In small island developing States, where the ocean economy may constitute a large share of national GDP, the head of government may take a personal interest in ocean accounting as a tool for demonstrating the country’s marine resource endowment in international forums.
5Engaging political champions requires translating accounting outputs into the language of political priorities. Politicians are interested in answers to questions such as: How much does the ocean contribute to our economy? Are our fish stocks growing or declining? Will our grandchildren inherit the same marine resources we have today? What return does the public get from investing in fisheries management or marine protected areas? Ocean accounting provides rigorous, internationally standardised answers to these questions. The budget presentation table format described in TG-1.1 Section 3.3 provides one such format. The depletion-adjusted GVA narrative in TG-1.1 Section 3.4 and the MTEF integration approach in TG-1.1 Section 3.6 provide the political-economy arguments most likely to resonate with finance and planning champions.
6This category of champion is inherently transient. Elections, cabinet reshuffles, and changes of government disrupt political advocacy. The governance design should therefore aim to build support across political parties and across multiple levels of government, so that ocean accounting survives changes in political leadership.
Technical champions
Section titled “Technical champions”7In statistical, scientific, and analytical agencies, technical champions are the senior professionals who drive the methodological development and compilation quality of ocean accounts. The chief national accountant at the NSO, the chief scientist at the fisheries research institute, or the head of the marine environment division at the environment ministry — these individuals provide the technical credibility that underpins the programme’s outputs and advocate for methodological investment within their agencies.
8Technical champions are essential because ocean accounting requires sustained investment in statistical infrastructure, data systems, and human capital. When the NSO faces competing demands for limited compilation resources, a chief national accountant who understands the value of environmental-economic accounting will protect the ocean accounts compilation programme from being crowded out by other priorities. When the fisheries research institute is asked to provide stock assessment data in formats compatible with asset account requirements, a chief scientist who appreciates the planning applications of the data will ensure that staff time is allocated to the task.
9Engagement strategies for technical champions should emphasise professional recognition and methodological advancement. Countries should support technical champions by funding participation in international meetings of the UN Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA), the Global Ocean Accounts Partnership, and relevant regional statistical bodies. These forums provide both professional development and peer recognition that strengthen the champion’s commitment and institutional standing.
10Structured peer networks also benefit technical champions. The 2025 SNA Implementation Strategy identifies a “Compilers Hub” as a “digital global collaboration platform” for sharing knowledge and facilitating collaboration. Ocean accounting programmes should connect their technical champions to such platforms, enabling them to learn from the experiences of peers in other countries.
Institutional champions
Section titled “Institutional champions”11Agencies become institutional champions when they adopt ocean accounting as a core part of their mandate and allocate recurrent budget and staff to compilation and policy communication. An NSO that lists ocean accounts in its multi-year statistical work programme, a planning ministry that requires ocean economy data in its development plan templates, or a fisheries ministry that uses asset account data as a standard input to stock management decisions — these agencies are institutional champions. Their commitment outlasts individual personnel changes because the accounting function is embedded in organisational structures, job descriptions, and budget lines.
12Building institutional champions requires demonstrating that ocean accounting serves the agency’s existing mandate rather than imposing additional work with unclear returns. For the NSO, ocean accounts extend the thematic and extended accounts portfolio that the 2025 SNA identifies as a priority, and this contributes to the agency’s core mission of measuring economic performance and well-being. For the fisheries ministry, asset accounts provide the biomass trajectory data needed for stock management decisions that the ministry is already mandated to make. For the planning ministry, ocean economy data fill an information gap in development diagnostics that the ministry recognises but currently lacks the data to address.
13The most effective approach to building institutional champions is to co-design the accounting programme with potential champion agencies. This co-design should ensure that the compilation outputs address questions the agency already faces. The coordination model chosen (Section 3.5.1) should be designed to facilitate this co-design process, bringing potential institutional champions into the programme design phase rather than presenting them with a completed plan.
Champion sustainability strategies
Section titled “Champion sustainability strategies”14Sustaining champions over time requires deliberate investment in four areas:
15Succession planning. When a champion retires, transfers, or is promoted, the programme loses advocacy capacity. Coordination bodies should identify and cultivate successor champions before transitions occur, ensuring that at least two individuals in each key agency understand and can advocate for the programme.
16Regular demonstration of value. Champions can only sustain their advocacy if the programme produces outputs that demonstrably inform policy decisions. The coordination body should maintain a register of policy applications — instances where ocean accounting data influenced a budget allocation, a planning target, or a policy evaluation — and communicate these applications to champions and their superiors. The register should be owned by the coordination-body secretariat and maintained as a standing log recording, for each entry: the date, the decision context, the specific account data used, and the decision outcome. The budget use cases described in TG-1.1 Section 3.5 provide templates for documenting such applications. The log should be updated quarterly or at the close of each planning cycle, and an annual synthesis should be presented to champion agencies. Entries involving budget decisions or cabinet processes should be reviewed by the coordination-body secretariat before inclusion in the annual public synthesis, and sensitive entries may be retained in an internal-only log until the relevant decision is publicly available.
17International recognition. Champions’ domestic standing is strengthened when their country’s ocean accounting programme receives international recognition. Presenting results at UN Statistical Commission sessions, contributing to GOAP technical publications, or hosting study visits from other countries all enhance the programme’s reputation and the champion’s standing within their agency.
18Embedding in institutional processes. The most durable form of champion support is to embed ocean accounting in the routine institutional processes of champion agencies — statistical work programmes, budget templates, planning guidelines, and performance indicators. Once ocean accounting data are required inputs to processes that agencies must complete regardless of individual preferences, the programme acquires institutional momentum that does not depend on any single champion’s continued advocacy.
3.5.2 Implementation readiness checklist for institutional arrangements
Section titled “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:
- 2Lead agency designated: A single agency has been identified as the lead for ocean accounting, with endorsement from relevant senior officials.
- 3Coordination 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.
- 4Terms of reference agreed: The coordination mechanism has documented terms of reference specifying its mandate, membership, meeting frequency, and decision-making procedures.
- 5Work programme adopted: A time-bound work programme has been adopted, specifying which accounts will be compiled, by whom, and on what timeline.
- 6Data-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.
- 7Core team assembled: A core team of at least two to three staff has been identified or recruited, with dedicated time allocated to ocean accounting.
- 8Budget secured: Multi-year funding (covering Phase 1 in full, with a credible plan for transition to recurrent budget support) has been secured.
- 9Quality assurance framework adopted: Quality assurance procedures consistent with TG-0.7 have been documented and endorsed by the lead agency.
- 10Stakeholder engagement plan developed: Key policy users have been identified, their information needs assessed, and a plan for regular engagement adopted.
- 11International linkages established: The country has connected with the GOAP network, relevant UN regional commissions, and other international or regional support mechanisms.
12For how account outputs reach the planning cycle once an arrangement is in place, 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
Section titled “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.
3.7 Scoping and Pilot Implementation: Experience from the ESCAP Programme
Section titled “3.7 Scoping and Pilot Implementation: Experience from the ESCAP Programme”3.7.1 The Diagnostic Tool as a scoping instrument
Section titled “3.7.1 The Diagnostic Tool as a scoping instrument”1The ESCAP Ocean Accounts Pilot Programme (2019) demonstrated a structured implementation methodology across five countries: China, Malaysia, Samoa, Thailand, and Vietnam, each of which established a national inter-agency working group. ESCAP also supported pilot studies in Indonesia and Vanuatu. The approach used the Diagnostic Tool for Environment Statistics as a framework for guiding a structured conversation among stakeholders to determine which accounts should be prioritised6.
2The Diagnostic Tool addresses two core components:
3Table 3.7.1: Diagnostic Tool components for ocean accounts scoping
| Diagnostic component | Practical actions |
|---|---|
| Statement of strategy and policy priorities | Document national visions and priorities related to the environment, biodiversity, sustainable development, and the ocean economy. Link priorities to environmental concerns such as pollution, overfishing, or habitat loss. |
| Institutional mapping | Identify producers and users of related information (government agencies, academia, NGOs, international agencies), as well as civil society stakeholders who can benefit from improved information. Identify relevant institutional mechanisms currently in place. |
4Pilots to date have addressed topics including the value of the ocean economy and sustainability of food supply, physical measures of regulating and maintenance services (coastal protection, carbon sequestration, water purification), ecosystem extent and change (e.g., decline in mangrove area, increase in marine protected area coverage), land-based sources of marine pollution, and resource requirements of coastal tourism. The following table illustrates the types of pilot topics selected across the ESCAP programme:
5Table 3.7.2: ESCAP pilot topics and associated policy concerns
| Topic | Policy concern |
|---|---|
| Value of the ocean economy | Sustainability of ocean economy, equitable distribution of benefits, sustainability of food supply |
| Non-market ocean services | Physical measures of regulating and maintenance services (coastal protection, flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, water purification) |
| Ecosystem extent and/or designated use | Area of ecosystem types and uses of concern; change in area |
| Land-based sources of marine pollution | Reducing habitat degradation and biodiversity loss |
| Resource requirements of coastal tourism | Sustainability of tourism economy |
6The scoping phase typically involved an independent consultant, the National Statistical Office, or a responsible government agency coordinating a detailed scoping report. Most pilots identified data availability and access as major constraints and addressed these by using publicly available data, establishing data sharing arrangements with relevant institutions, or conducting original fieldwork and socio-economic surveys. A second national workshop reviewed preliminary results, benefited from additional technical guidance, and developed messaging for a release document. The process was followed in all five ESCAP pilots, which demonstrated substantial results within an approximately six-month timeframe7.
Case illustration: Vietnam ESCAP Pilot (Quang Ninh Province, 2019)
The 2019 ESCAP ocean accounts pilot for Vietnam integrated UNEP-WCMC global data on coral reefs and seagrasses with local data on mangroves, ports, and marine protected areas to assess ecosystem extent changes in Quang Ninh Province. The pilot overlaid multiple spatial datasets from different institutions within a common spatial framework to produce an initial physical ecosystem extent account. The combined datasets revealed relationships between port development, shipping routes, protected area coverage, and changes in mangrove, coral, and seagrass extent8.
7The Vietnam pilot illustrates a broader finding from the ESCAP programme: initial ocean accounts can be compiled by integrating existing data from multiple sources within a common spatial and classificatory framework, rather than requiring substantial new data collection. The scoping reports produced by each pilot country have been published by ESCAP and provide detailed documentation of the diagnostic process, data sources used, and accounts compiled9.
3.7.2 Prioritising account types
Section titled “3.7.2 Prioritising account types”1When capacity allows only one or two pilot topics, countries can use the following decision matrix to align account type selection with the policy context driving demand. The matrix is a starting point rather than a decision rule; the Diagnostic Tool above and TG-1.4 Table 3.2.2 provide complementary views.
2Table 3.7.3: Policy context and recommended first-priority account types
| Policy context | Recommended first-priority account type | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Fisheries crisis or stock collapse | Asset accounts — fish stocks (TG-3.1) | Directly informs stock recovery targets and sustainable yield; links to SDG 14.4 |
| SDG Voluntary National Review (VNR) | Extent accounts + condition accounts | Low data threshold; maps to SDG 14.5.1 (MPA coverage) and 14.2 targets |
| Blue economy strategy | Economic activity accounts (TG-2.5) | Quantifies current ocean economy contribution; baseline for growth target-setting |
| Pollution emergency | Residual flow accounts (TG-3.4) | Traces land-based pollution sources; supports intervention targeting |
3Countries with limited capacity should consider extent accounts as the lowest-cost, highest-data-availability starting point: area data for major ecosystem types can typically be compiled from existing remote sensing products and protected area registries without primary data collection. The planning-use-case view of the same question is TG-1.4 OA and Sustainable Ocean Planning Table 3.2.2.
4This scoping phase precedes Phase 1 of the pathway in Section 3.2 and produces the account priorities the Phase 1 work programme implements.
3.8 Investment Readiness for Ocean Finance
Section titled “3.8 Investment Readiness for Ocean Finance”1Readiness for ocean finance is a specific case of the country readiness this Circular addresses. A proposal fails to attract finance for much the same reasons a national accounting programme stalls: an inadequate evidence base, no counterfactual, targets that cannot be measured against a compiled account, and no commitment to compile it again. The instruments themselves are treated in TG-1.8 OA and Project-Level Finance and the multilateral project cycle in TG-1.7 OA and Multilateral Development Finance.
3.8.1 Nature-based solutions: minimum evidence
Section titled “3.8.1 Nature-based solutions: minimum evidence”1Nature-based solutions (NBS) for ocean and coastal environments represent a growing category of investable projects, but many promising NBS proposals fail to attract finance because they lack the structured evidence base that investors require. The minimum information requirements are set out below.
2NBS typology for ocean contexts. Ocean-related NBS can be categorised into three broad types, each with distinct accounting requirements:
| NBS Type | Examples | Key Account Types | Primary Service Flows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restoration | Mangrove replanting, coral reef rehabilitation, seagrass bed recovery | Extent accounts (area change), condition accounts (recovery trajectory) | Coastal protection, carbon sequestration, fisheries habitat |
| Protection | Marine protected areas, no-take zones, coastal setback areas | Extent accounts (area maintained), condition accounts (baseline preservation) | Biodiversity maintenance, tourism amenity, coastal protection |
| Sustainable management | Sustainable fisheries, integrated coastal zone management, sustainable aquaculture | Physical supply and use tables (extraction rates), asset accounts (stock levels) | Provisioning services, waste assimilation, cultural services |
3Minimum evidence requirements. For any NBS proposal to be considered investment-ready, the information summarised in Table 3.8.1 below should be available from Ocean Accounts or compilable from existing account data.
4Table 3.8.1: Minimum evidence requirements for NBS investment readiness
| Requirement | Description |
|---|---|
| Baseline ecosystem extent | Current area of the target ecosystem type, compiled from ecosystem extent accounts using the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology classifications described in TG-3.1 Asset Accounts. |
| Baseline ecosystem condition | Current condition of the target ecosystem relative to reference condition, using the condition indicators and reference frameworks described in TG-2.1 Aggregate Biophysical Indicators of Environmental State. |
| Service flow quantification | Estimated annual flow of ecosystem services from the target ecosystem, in both physical and monetary terms. |
| Counterfactual scenario | Projected ecosystem trajectory in the absence of NBS intervention, based on historical trends in extent and condition accounts. |
| Outcome targets | Quantified targets for extent, condition, and service flow improvements over the investment horizon. |
| Monitoring plan | Schedule and methodology for ongoing account compilation to track outcomes against targets. |
5Connecting NBS to finance instruments. Different NBS types align with different financial instruments. Restoration projects typically suit results-based payment mechanisms (including blue carbon credits and performance-based grants) because outcomes can be measured through extent and condition account changes. Protection projects align with sovereign commitments (including debt-for-nature swaps) where the maintenance of ecosystem condition is the deliverable. Sustainable management projects can support blue bonds and sustainability-linked loans where KPIs are derived from supply and use table metrics such as extraction rates relative to maximum sustainable yield. For detailed guidance on these instrument types, see TG-1.8 OA and Project-Level Finance.
3.8.2 Investment-readiness scoring
Section titled “3.8.2 Investment-readiness scoring”1Scoring rubric. The investment-readiness score is based on six dimensions, each scored from 0 (not addressed) to 4 (fully developed):
| Dimension | Score 0 | Score 1 | Score 2 | Score 3 | Score 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline data | No baseline | Ad hoc data, no accounting framework | Partial accounts compiled (extent only) | Extent and condition accounts compiled | Full suite: extent, condition, service flow, and monetary accounts |
| Counterfactual | No counterfactual | Qualitative narrative only | Trend extrapolation from limited data | Time-series accounts with trend analysis | BACI design with control sites and multi-period accounts |
| Impact targets | No targets | Aspirational targets, no metrics | Targets with metrics but no account linkage | Targets linked to specific account indicators | Targets with account-derived metrics, thresholds, and adaptive triggers |
| Monitoring plan | No plan | Plan without data sources | Plan with data sources but no schedule | Scheduled plan aligned with financial reporting | Fully specified plan with BACI design, quality assurance, and feedback loops |
| Financial structure | No structure | Concept-stage instrument design | Instrument identified with preliminary terms | Terms negotiated, accounts integrated into covenants | Instrument structured, accounts embedded in legal documentation |
| Disclosure alignment | No disclosure plan | Awareness of frameworks | Partial alignment with one framework | Aligned with TNFD or IFRS | Aligned with multiple frameworks (TNFD, IFRS, CBD Target 15) |
2Threshold scores. Based on the scoring rubric, projects can be classified into readiness categories:
- 3Score 0-8: Not investment-ready. Substantial gaps in evidence base and financial structuring. Requires further account compilation and capacity building before approaching investors.
- 4Score 9-14: Emerging readiness. Core elements are in place but important gaps remain. Targeted technical assistance can address specific weaknesses.
- 5Score 15-19: Investment-ready with conditions. Evidence base is substantially complete. Financial structuring may require refinement. Suitable for engagement with concessional finance providers and blended finance structures.
- 6Score 20-24: Fully investment-ready. Complete evidence base from Ocean Accounts, sound financial structuring, and full disclosure alignment. Suitable for engagement with commercial investors and capital markets.
7Application of the scoring methodology. Project developers can use this methodology as a self-assessment tool to identify gaps in their evidence base. MDBs and development finance institutions can use it as a screening tool to prioritise technical assistance. Financial institutions can use it as part of their due diligence process to evaluate the quality of environmental evidence underpinning project proposals. Sections 3.1 and 3.3 of this Circular set the wider readiness and quality assurance context this rubric sits within.
3.8.3 Shared investment criteria
Section titled “3.8.3 Shared investment criteria”1To facilitate comparability and reduce transaction costs across the GOAP network, this section sets out shared investment criteria that participating countries can adopt when preparing ocean finance proposals. These criteria are grounded in Ocean Account data and designed to be applicable across different financial instrument types and country contexts.
2Common criteria.
| Criterion | Description | Account Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| Ecosystem baseline | The proposal documents the current state of the target marine or coastal ecosystem | Ecosystem extent accounts and condition accounts for the project area |
| Service flow quantification | The proposal quantifies the ecosystem services that the project will maintain, restore, or enhance | Physical supply and use tables for relevant ecosystem services |
| Monetary valuation | The proposal includes monetary estimates of ecosystem service values and/or asset values | Monetary supply and use tables or monetary asset accounts |
| Additionality | The proposal demonstrates that the project will deliver environmental outcomes beyond what would occur without the intervention | Time-series accounts establishing the counterfactual trajectory |
| Monitoring commitment | The proposal includes a plan for ongoing account compilation to track project outcomes | Account compilation schedule with specified account types and data sources |
| Disclosure alignment | The proposal specifies which international disclosure frameworks the project will report against | Mapping of account-derived indicators to TNFD, IFRS, and/or CBD requirements |
3Quality assurance. Shared investment criteria are only effective if the underlying data meet quality standards. The GOAP framework recommends that all account data used in finance proposals be compiled in accordance with the quality assurance principles described in the relevant TG circulars: adherence to official statistics principles (relevance, accuracy, timeliness, accessibility, coherence), use of internationally agreed classifications, and transparent documentation of data sources and methods.
4Applying common criteria across instrument types. The shared criteria are designed to be applicable regardless of the specific financial instrument being used. For blue bonds, the criteria ensure that use-of-proceeds frameworks are grounded in account data. For debt-for-nature swaps, the criteria provide the monitoring framework for conservation commitments. For results-based payment mechanisms, the criteria establish the measurement basis for performance verification. For blended finance structures, the criteria provide the common evidence base that aligns public and private investors around shared environmental objectives.
5Iterative improvement. The shared investment criteria should be treated as a living framework that evolves as implementation experience accumulates across GOAP partner countries. Countries are encouraged to share lessons through the peer exchange mechanisms in Section 3.9 below.
3.8.4 Institutional and data requirements
Section titled “3.8.4 Institutional and data requirements”1Table 3.8.2: Roles in account-finance integration
| Actor | Role |
|---|---|
| National Statistical Offices | Responsible for compiling accounts according to official statistics principles. |
| Environmental Agencies | Providing biophysical data on ecosystem extent, condition, and services. |
| Finance Ministries | Integrating account data into sovereign debt management and public finance. |
| Project Developers | Using account frameworks for project design and impact assessment. |
| Financial Institutions | Incorporating account data into due diligence and monitoring. |
2Data Requirements
3Effective use of Ocean Accounts for finance requires:
- 4Baseline Data: Pre-project extent, condition, and service flow data against which changes can be measured
- 5Monitoring Frequency: Account compilation schedules aligned with financial reporting cycles
- 6Spatial Resolution: Data at scales relevant to project boundaries and impacts
- 7Uncertainty Documentation: Clear communication of data quality and limitations
8Capacity Building
9Many countries require capacity building to compile and use Ocean Accounts for finance, including:
- 10Training for account compilers on finance-relevant account applications
- 11Guidance for financial institutions on interpreting and using account data
- 12Development of standardised indicators linking accounts to financial instrument requirements
- 13Establishment of institutional arrangements for ongoing account compilation and dissemination
14SDG 14 Indicator Linkages
15In the Ocean Accounts Framework (TG-0.1), socio-economic outcomes of ocean finance projects correspond to Edge E5 (economic contributions to social conditions), whilst ecosystem service returns correspond to Edge E9 (ecosystem services to economy). SDG indicator 14.7.1 (sustainable fisheries as a proportion of GDP) can be derived from the economic activity accounts by identifying the value added of sustainably managed fisheries relative to total GDP. SDG indicator 14.a.1 (the proportion of total research budget allocated to marine research) can be compiled from government expenditure accounts classified by function. These indicators, when compiled through Ocean Accounts, provide standardised metrics that project-level finance instruments can reference in their impact reporting frameworks. For example, a blue bond whose proceeds support sustainable fisheries management can report on its contribution to SDG 14.7.1 using data compiled within the same accounting framework that underpins the bond’s KPI monitoring.
3.9 Peer Exchange, Regional Platforms and South-South Cooperation
Section titled “3.9 Peer Exchange, Regional Platforms and South-South Cooperation”3.9.1 Regional platforms as enablers
Section titled “3.9.1 Regional platforms as enablers”1Regional platforms and organisations enable national ocean accounting programmes by providing technical support, facilitating peer learning, and creating political demand for comparable cross-country ocean data. The Global Ocean Accounts Partnership (GOAP) and regional statistical bodies such as the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) have developed regional ocean accounting platforms that support country-level implementation. Whilst SEEA EA paras. 13.90-13.92 describe regional implementation arrangements in general terms, specific guidance for the ESCAP region is provided in the ESCAP Ocean Accounts Framework (UN ESCAP, 2021). Countries outside the ESCAP region — including those in the Atlantic, Caribbean, West Africa, and Latin America sub-regions — should engage directly with the GOAP Secretariat for region-specific technical support. GOAP maintains a register of regional support contacts and can connect countries with relevant peer networks and technical assistance where no dedicated regional platform yet exists.
2These platforms support national programmes in three ways. First, countries should use regional technical assistance to build initial compilation capacity. Regional bodies often have access to technical expertise and compilation tools that individual countries — particularly small island developing States with limited statistical capacity — cannot develop independently. Second, participate in regional peer-learning networks that enable countries at different stages of implementation to share experiences, methodological innovations, and lessons from coordination challenges. Third, use regional forums to build political support for ocean accounting by presenting national results in contexts where comparison with neighbouring countries creates incentives for continued investment.
3.9.2 Regional fisheries and ocean governance bodies
Section titled “3.9.2 Regional fisheries and ocean governance bodies”1Regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), large marine ecosystem programmes, and regional seas conventions provide governance platforms where ocean accounting data have direct policy applications. RFMOs require stock assessment data that physical fish stock asset accounts (TG-3.1 Asset Accounts) can provide. Large marine ecosystem programmes (such as those supported by the Global Environment Facility) require integrated environmental-economic assessments that ocean accounts are designed to produce. Regional seas conventions (such as the Nairobi Convention, the Barcelona Convention, and the Noumea Convention) increasingly call for integrated marine and coastal area assessments that draw on the kinds of data ocean accounts compile.
2The coordination body should identify the regional ocean governance bodies relevant to the country and establish channels through which ocean accounting outputs reach these forums. This serves the dual purpose of demonstrating international applications that strengthen the domestic case for continued compilation and contributing to the evidence base for regional ocean management decisions.
3.9.3 South-South cooperation
Section titled “3.9.3 South-South cooperation”1Countries that have established ocean accounting programmes can support neighbouring countries through South-South cooperation arrangements. These arrangements — which may include secondment of technical staff, joint training programmes, and shared compilation tools — accelerate implementation in receiving countries whilst deepening the expertise of contributing countries. The coordination body should explore South-South cooperation opportunities with countries in the same region or with similar ocean economies, building networks that sustain implementation beyond the initial establishment phase.
3.9.4 Peer exchange for account-finance integration
Section titled “3.9.4 Peer exchange for account-finance integration”1Many countries implementing Ocean Accounts face similar challenges in mobilising finance for ocean sustainability. South-South exchange mechanisms enable countries to share experiences, transfer practical knowledge, and develop common approaches to account-based finance mobilisation.
2Peer learning for account-finance integration. Countries that have successfully used Ocean Accounts to support finance mobilisation can share their experience with countries at earlier stages of implementation. Effective peer learning involves structured exchanges focused on specific aspects of the account-finance pipeline: how accounts were compiled, how they were presented to financial institutions, what investor feedback was received, and how account products were refined in response. The GOAP network provides a platform for such exchanges, and participating countries are encouraged to document their experiences in standardised formats that facilitate cross-country learning.
3Standardised templates for finance proposals. One practical output of South-South exchange is the development of standardised templates for finance proposals that incorporate Ocean Account data. These templates reduce the transaction costs of preparing finance documentation and ensure that account data are presented in formats that investors and MDBs recognise. Key template elements include:
| Template Component | Content | Account Source |
|---|---|---|
| Natural capital baseline | Summary of ecosystem extent, condition, and monetary value | Extent, condition, and monetary asset accounts |
| Risk narrative | Nature-related risks to economic sectors | Supply and use tables, condition trend data |
| Impact targets | Quantified targets for ecosystem outcomes | Derived from condition and extent account projections |
| Monitoring framework | Schedule and methods for ongoing account compilation | Account compilation plan |
| Results indicators | Standardised metrics for reporting | Account-derived indicators mapped to disclosure frameworks: TG-1.11 Section 3.3 |
4Regional cooperation on account compilation. For transboundary marine ecosystems (shared fisheries, migratory species corridors, large marine ecosystems), coordinated account compilation across countries strengthens the collective evidence base for regional finance proposals. Regional development banks and multilateral funds favour programmatic approaches that address transboundary challenges, and harmonised Ocean Accounts across participating countries provide the coordinated data infrastructure that such programmes require.
5Knowledge exchange formats. Effective South-South exchange can take several forms:
- 6Technical workshops: Hands-on training in account compilation and finance application, typically hosted by a country with implementation experience
- 7Study tours: Visits to countries that have successfully used accounts to mobilise finance, allowing direct observation of institutional arrangements and data systems
- 8Twinning arrangements: Long-term partnerships between countries at different stages of implementation, with regular exchange of staff and knowledge
- 9Online communities of practice: Ongoing platforms for sharing templates, methodologies, and lessons learned across the GOAP network
4. Limitations and Considerations
Section titled “4. Limitations and Considerations”4.1 Context sensitivity
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “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
Section titled “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.10 The guidance also benefits from the practical experience of GOAP partner countries in implementing ocean accounts across diverse institutional contexts.
6. References and Notes
Section titled “6. References and Notes”- 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 valued by net present value require a discount rate. The Technical Guidance does not prescribe one. See TG-1.9 Safe Usage of Monetary Valuation for discount-rate selection and sensitivity testing, and TG-0.2 Overview of Relevant Statistical Standards for the SEEA EA treatment of discount rates. ↩
- 6
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2021). Ocean Accounts: Piloting the SEEA EEA for the Ocean, Chapter 3. ↩
- 7
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2021). Ocean Accounts: Piloting the SEEA EEA for the Ocean, Chapter 4. ↩
- 8
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2021). Ocean Accounts: Piloting the SEEA EEA for the Ocean, Vietnam case study. ↩
- 9
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2021). Ocean Accounts: Piloting the SEEA EEA for the Ocean, country scoping reports. ↩
- 10
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. ↩
Review this circular as a whole
Commenting on a passage tells us what to change. This tells us how the circular is landing — and because everyone is asked the same three questions, your answers can be counted alongside every other office's. Answer as few as you like: one judgement and nothing else is a complete and useful return. Closes Friday 13 November 2026.
This is in addition to commenting on individual passages, not instead of it — select any sentence to do that. What we record and publish.
Cite this circular
Implementation Readiness Assessment (2026) (GOAP Technical Guidance on Ocean Accounting, TG-0.8, v0.9.2). GOAP Secretariat. https://guidance.oceanaccounts.org/circulars/section-0/0-8-implementation-readiness/
BibTeX
@techreport{goap_tg_0_8_2026,
title = {Implementation Readiness Assessment},
institution = {Global Ocean Accounts Partnership Secretariat},
series = {GOAP Technical Guidance on Ocean Accounting},
number = {TG-0.8},
year = {2026},
version = {0.9.2},
url = {https://guidance.oceanaccounts.org/circulars/section-0/0-8-implementation-readiness/}
}© 2026 Global Ocean Accounts Partnership. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. Consultation drafts are not adopted GOAP guidance.